Re: [Talk-GB] FW: State of play of OS Vector data
Thanks everyone. When streetview came out last month there was talk about not rushing to trace buildings but from what I've read this doesn't seem to be the case any more. Is streetview the best building level detail we have from the OS? There is no aerial photography where I am. Thanks, Steve > -Original Message- > From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org > [mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Chris Hill > Sent: 02 May 2010 18:01 > To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] State of play of OS Vector data > > The Meridian data is pretty crude and incomplete. The residential level > roads seem to be largely missing, especially in rural areas. The curves > are chunky and crude. Similarly the woods and water are not fully > represented and are chunky. The admin borders have chunks missing. > > I just ignored it as worthless. > > I am strongly in favour of surveying on the ground where possible. I'm > trying to use the OS data for things we can't gather, such as boundaries > and inaccessible things such as docks, some waterways and some railways. > > Tracing the StreetView, with a suitable source tag, seems to me to > provide a way for people who can't survey on the ground to add > something, but the data you miss by doing this (shops, maxspeed, pubs, > schools, churches, post boxes and so on, as well as stuff OS got > wrong/missed/have changed) still makes this a poor, second rate job. > > Using such a tracing to then walk/cycle/drive around to add the POIs > does add a lot of value. > > Cheers, Chris > > > Graham Jones wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > That is a really good summary of what the dataset contains thank > > you - the woodland areas will certainly be useful for countryside > > maps. > > > > Do you know how this data compares to the Meridian data that OS > > released last month? I know many people were unimpressed with > > it, but I think that it contained street names didn't it? If so > > maybe that would be a more useful 'first pass' import? > > > > I am thinking of some areas where I know there are housing > > estates, but I have neither the time nor inclination to cycle > > around them to do a proper survey - Having something in the map > > for these seems better than nothing to me. > > > > If we were to import such data (via an editor as discussed before > > - not a bulk import!), we could tag it as 'verified=no' and get > > the renderers to show them in a lighter colour until someone > > checks it and takes the 'verified=no' tag off? This could > > alleviate the concerns that people had that users will not survey > > an area if it looks complete on the map? > > > > Regards > > > > > > Graham. > > > > On 2 May 2010 13:14, Chris Hill > <mailto:o...@raggedred.net>> wrote: > > > > Seventy 7 wrote: > > > Can someone tell us what's happening with the latest release of > > OS data please? When streetview came out there were quite a few > > emails about tiles being rendered for tracing etc but this time > > it's all been very quiet! > > > > > > I presume someone somewhere is doing the vector data, but what > > about the others? > > > > > I've just written a blog about VectorMap http://is.gd/bQUgR > > > > Cheers, Chris > > > > ___ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > > > > > > > -- Dr. Graham Jones > > Hartlepool, UK > > email: grahamjones...@gmail.com <mailto:grahamjones...@gmail.com> > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] National Byway cycle route
I agree and I raised exactly the same question here http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=4141 I changed one of the loops to see if it would work but it was promptly changed back again. However, I still think that route=ncn is right. Perhaps we should vote? Steve > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Byway > > Currently the National Byway cycle route (and the additional loops) are > tagged as "network=National Byway" while all other cycle routes are > =ncn, rcn or lcn. Are there any good reasons why the Byway shouldn't be: > name=National Byway > route=ncn (rcn for the loops?) > ref=Byway ? > Apart from standardising the tagging, this would also add the Byway to > opencyclemap. > In the absence of dissent, I'll update as suggested so shout now if you > disagree! > > David > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Help Needed
The buildings have been tagged as both building=yes and landuse=residential and I think this will be confusing the renderer - landuse is used for areas and the buildings (and everything else) sit on top. So tag the general area as landuse=residential (a few ways to do this) and just tag the houses as building=yes. HTH Steve > -Original Message- > From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org > [mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Roy Jamison > Sent: 02 May 2010 11:37 > To: Shaun McDonald > Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Help Needed > > I have looked but quickly got confused by the sheer amount of data > there. > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.43633&lon=0.75688&zoom=17&layers=B000FT > F > is the link to the section of Thames Avenue where I placed the > buildings. > > Thanks again for the help :) > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] State of play of OS Vector data
Can someone tell us what's happening with the latest release of OS data please? When streetview came out there were quite a few emails about tiles being rendered for tracing etc but this time it's all been very quiet! I presume someone somewhere is doing the vector data, but what about the others? What about the zoom 17 rendering of streetview? The wiki still says zoom 17 tiles not yet available. The wiki doesn't seem to have been substantively updated for quite a while either. Thanks, Steve -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View
Yeah, me too. I was just about to do that! Fantastic! - Original Message - From: "Graham Jones" To: TimSC Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:32:40 +0100 Hi Tim,That is exactly the sort of thing I had envisaged writing - you have nearly finished before I got started - well done! Graham. On 9 April 2010 22:25, TimSC wrote: Hi again, I have been working on auto tracing buildings and I'm making progress. I was slightly encouraged by Ed Avis's comments. I think one underlying difference is peoples attitude to omissions in map data. Many people think they are a good thing, particularly since they encourage the community to do high quality surveying. But I think omissions are bad in terms of actually using the map. I don't think we should be using the main map to gauge our progress. I suspect what we need is good meta data - how and when data is sourced. Anyway enough rambling... Tracing buildings. I have been using the original images, since image transformations tend to introduce degradation of quality. I use colour to select building pixels, then form edge fragments, then form polygons, then simplify the polygons using the Douglas-Peucker algorithm, then group them so we get inner and outer edges, then tranform image coordinates to GBOS then to WGS84 via OSTN02 (I ported the perl code to python), then save as OSM format and load back into JOSM. Screenshot: http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/dev/josm-building-outlines.png The next steps are to improve the quality of the polygon shapes, possibly by checking if the edges are nearly orthogonal, and if so making them completely orthogonal. Also I need to write a filter to check for buildings in the area, to avoid importing duplicate buildings. I need to look at the simplification, as sometimes an extra node is added to a polygon (the initial node used as the start of the algorithm). I am also considering detecting roads that overlap buildings in the source images, since this is probably the biggest loss of quality. The result I am getting is already more spatially detailed than my own survey of the University of Surrey campus (although not as rich in information). In the medium term, I will import some buildings once I have the quality I want. I want to minimise manual work in JOSM but I don't rule it out. I will only be working in the Guildford area - it's my data to gamble around there :) TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Dr. Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK email: grahamjones...@gmail.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Strange OS choices
What odd choices OS have made in releasing this data! I've not had a good look until now, so I've only just realised that they've had all these layers and decided which to release and which to remove. So they've removed paths but kept their names, removed parks but kept the water and wooded bits. I wonder what they were thinking and how they decided? And this, in the centre of York http://os.openstreetmap.org/?zoom=16&lat=53.95988&lon=-1.08144&layers=B0 The dotted lines at right angles are the lines of the walls of the old Roman fort. There's no trace on the ground now apart from the odd plaque. The bits that aren't dotted, to complete the square, form the foundation of the existing city walls, which they've removed. Very strange! Anything else anyone's spotted? Steve -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
> ... but there's a feeling that if we just dive in straight away and start > tracing/importing willy-nilly we'll just shoot ourselves in the foot. Yes, but Tim only mentioned tracing, not importing. The Wiki is clearly out of date. It says that "We are still assessing the open data releases" but "we" seem to have gone past the assessment stage and are able to produce sites like the one Tim first mentioned. Who is this "we" that's referred to here and on the Wiki that is doing this assessment? "We" (Tim, myself and I dare say a few others) also want to start doing some tracing. Personally I will have plenty to do over the next month making sure existing roads are in the right place and adding significant buildings and so on that this data, from my own assessment, seems perfectly good for. Assuming that bulk uploads aren't going to change what's there, and I trust the people doing them not to cock anything up, I'm not particularly interested in them and may make use of them if and when they happen. In the meantime, I, as part of the wider community, would like to know more details about what's actually happening at the moment and what the outcomes of these assessments are. Thanks, Steve > - Original Message - > From: "Jonathan Bennett" > To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey > Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:58:29 +0100 > > > On 05/04/2010 12:31, Tim Francois wrote: > > Does this mean we can (gasp!) start tracing in Potlatch and JOSM? If so, > > what's the final verdict on source=* tags? > > Hold your horses, please. See: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata > > for a summary of what's happened so far, what could happen and what > shouldn't happen. Everything's up for discussion, but there's a feeling > that if we just dive in straight away and start tracing/importing > willy-nilly we'll just shoot ourselves in the foot. > > > > > > -- > Jonathan (Jonobennett) > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
I was going to say something like "Double quick time?? We've been waiting over 28 hours!! ;-)", but actually I know that as soon as these layers become available then editing will consume my life! So, no rush ;-) S > - Original Message - > From: "Richard Fairhurst" > To: "talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)" > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey > Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:34:56 +0100 > > > Tim Francois wrote: > > Hollowell, Church Brampton, Ravensthorpe, Spratton and Chapel Brampton. It > > seems to work OK, but manually lining up the tiles takes a bit of time. > > Please, have patience. We will have the maps reprojected for you into a > background layer in double quick time. > > cheers > Richard > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days?
What's happening with the imports at the moment, are they progressing? North Yorkshire would be useful for me, well York and the area north as far as Thirsk anyway (~ 25 miles). Regards, Steve > - Original Message - > From: "Christoph Böhme" > To: "Tom Chance" > Cc: "Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics" > , talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] XAPI lagging behind by days? > Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:26:42 + > > > Tom Chance schrieb: > > > On 23 March 2010 13:20, Christoph Boehme wrote: > > > > > Well, I just updated the Birmingham scheme two days ago to accept > > > naptan:verified=yes, because Andy asked for it. > > > > > > Perhaps it makes sense to reorganise the schemes to have only one > > > basic scheme which displays verification status, CUS and > > > notes/errors and a number of specialised schemes building on top of > > > the basic one for information that is not available everywhere like > > > route references, shelter information and asset references. > > > > > > > > That sounds sensible. The basic scheme would presumably be enough for > > generalist mappers like me to be sure we're tidying NAPTAN up, without > > needing all the transport geek data I've never heard of? > > Yes, exactly. My current plan is to have four types of stops in the > basic scheme: > > 1. Non-NaPTAN stops: Stops without naptan:*-tags. Basically plain > old OSM bus stops. > 2. Unverified NaPTAN stops: Stops from the NaPTAN import which > have a naptan:verified=no tag or which are missing the > highway=bus_stop tag. > 3. Verified NaPTAN stops: Stops tagged as hightway=bus_stop and with > either no naptan:verified tag or a naptan:verified=yes tag. > 4. CUS-stops: Stops with naptan:BusStopType=CUS because they are not > marked on the ground and cannot be verified. > > Extended schemes would be: > > 1. Stops with notes: Highlight stops with a note or naptan:error tag > 2. Route information: Highlight stops which are missing the route_ref > tag. > 3. Shelter and asset refs: Highlight bus stops which have shelter=yes > and no asset_ref or which have no shelter tag at all (this might be > quite Birmingham specific). > 4. Anything else? > > I suggest to keep the old schemes but rename them to the name of the > public transport network they apply to (e.g. "Transport West Midlands" > for Birmingham), since they are based on the amount of information that > is available on the signs used by a particular network. > > Best, > Christoph > > > Best, > > Tom > > > > -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
