Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

2020-05-03 Thread Andy Townsend 
In each case nothing will happen unless changesets with bad edits are 
commented on.  Given that the messages here last month didn't get a 
reply from Amazon I'm pretty sure that Amazon's mappers or their 
handlers don't read talk-gb.  Of course - this is a perfect opportunity 
for them to prove me wrong!


If there's no reply on changeset comments report the mappers concerned 
to the DWG so that we can "remind" them to reply to community comments.


Like Chris, I've been generally impressed by the quality of Amazon 
Logistics edits, at least compared to other paid mappers around the 
world, but there are real problems with the "auto detect layer" used for 
these "AI" edits - it's quite badly offset and the original imagery on 
which the edge detection was made is I think no longer available making 
QA difficult.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)

On 03/05/2020 16:27, Andrew Hain wrote:


Also seen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84550786

--
Andrew


*From:* Chris Fleming 
*Sent:* 03 April 2020 14:06
*To:* Guthula, Jothirnadh 
*Cc:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections
I've spotted some edits using this, such as:

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=82807938=true

After a ropey start, in general I've been quite impressed by Amazon's 
edits, but this one looks quite ropey, the service road drawn in is 
very ropey and it looks like you've missed the connection back to the 
main road (shown in OS Openview), in addition I don't think that 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785788619 loops back on itself, or 
at least I wouldn't draw that conclusion from imagery?


Cheers
Chris

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 10:02, Guthula, Jothirnadh via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


Hi UK OSM community,

As you might already know, Facebook released its AI-based
detections publicly on 08/09/2019

(https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries).
With a team of mappers @Amazon we are planning to improve missing
roads in UK using Facebook detections as a source. Please let us
know if you have any ongoing projects using this data source.
While adding missing roads, we will be adding all the associated
access tags as per available on-ground resources. Our team will
edit roads manually using a normal iD editor and satellite
imageries available with FB detections as a background source and
will not use RapidID editor or JOSM. Also changeset comments will
be addressed by our team on top priority.

Regards,

Jothirnadh

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

2020-05-03 Thread Andrew Hain 
Also seen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84550786

--
Andrew


From: Chris Fleming 
Sent: 03 April 2020 14:06
To: Guthula, Jothirnadh 
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

I've spotted some edits using this, such as:

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=82807938=true

After a ropey start, in general I've been quite impressed by Amazon's edits, 
but this one looks quite ropey, the service road drawn in is very ropey and it 
looks like you've missed the connection back to the main road (shown in OS 
Openview), in addition I don't think that 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785788619 loops back on itself, or at least I 
wouldn't draw that conclusion from imagery?

Cheers
Chris

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 10:02, Guthula, Jothirnadh via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Hi UK OSM community,



As you might already know, Facebook released its AI-based detections publicly 
on 08/09/2019 
(https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries).
 With a team of mappers @Amazon we are planning to improve missing roads in UK 
using Facebook detections as a source. Please let us know if you have any 
ongoing projects using this data source. While adding missing roads, we will be 
adding all the associated access tags as per available on-ground resources. Our 
team will edit roads manually using a normal iD editor and satellite imageries 
available with FB detections as a background source and will not use RapidID 
editor or JOSM. Also changeset comments will be addressed by our team on top 
priority.



Regards,

Jothirnadh



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] City centre landuse tagging

2020-05-03 Thread SK53 
I've always been of the view

that one should map the primary landuse at ground level, so for a typical
UK city or town centre retail would generally apply. Most usually have some
obvious ancillary commercial areas of mainly offices. We don't have a
specific landuse for entertainment dominated areas, although that might be
useful. I'd reserve landuse=mixed for areas where retail, office and
residential are really heavily interspersed at the street level (unusual in
the UK except perhaps where retail is in retreat). An alternative is to use
a broad brush landuse=commercial. My general experience of consuming these
tags is that broad-brush tags are actually much less useful than apparently
more restrictive ones. Basically, its far more useful to know that
somewhere is a shopping area than that it's not residential.

For suburban shopping parades I think landuse=retail is fairly standard,
although most will have flats above (these are often quite hard to use as
security for mortgages, apparently fast food outlets have quite a high risk
of fire).

Although one could add a secondary_landuse tag, in general I think it's
better to just subtag the type of retail area and this can be used to
inform likely secondary uses (a parade likely has residential use, a retail
park no other secondary uses, a town centre both commericial &
residential).

Specific problems currently arising are the conversion of former office
blocks or offices in a mixed-use retail/office block to flats (mainly
student flats). It's difficult to be precise but my impression is that city
centre offices are declining fast in favour of student flat conversions.
Some of this, at least, is driven by parking restrictions favouring some
office businesses to relocate out-of-town. One could do more detailed
microtagging of building use or of operator. I think identifying student
flats is something of general interest as it is quite a significant change
in many places.

Elsewhere with less restrictive planning categories (and associated
potential rental income) it can be very hard to categorise. As far as I
could see most places in Buenos Aires were completely mixed landuse.

Last point is that it is possible to programmatically identify some of
these areas, providing that shops and other POIs are mapped in detail. See
my old blog posts

and Stefan Keller's presentation

at SotM18 on Areas of Interest.

Jerry

On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 12:23, Nick Whitelegg 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Meant to include this in my other post, but...I'm noticing that several
> cities in the UK (Bristol, Bath and Chester are good examples) don't seem
> to tag the city centre area with an appropriate landuse tag (presumably
> retail, commercial or residential).
>
> This is something I've missed over the years... but what is the common
> practice for tagging city centre areas? Presumably the above three landuses
> are not used because city centres are typically a mixrure of all three.
>
> What I'm trying to achieve is a 'built-up-area' rendering which covers the
> whole of the built up area of a town or city. Not looking for
> administrative boundaries - but the actual physically built-up area.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #510 2020-04-21-2020-04-27

2020-05-03 Thread weeklyteam 
The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 510,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of 
things happening in the openstreetmap world:

 https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/13108/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb