Re: [Talk-GB] The state of Bristol in OSM
Oh bummer - didn't mean to send to Talk-GB, just the local Bristol mappers! Oh well, it's out there now... Tim From: Kev js1982 To: Tim François Cc: Simon Murphy ; "talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" ; Craig Ellis ; Paul Jaggard ; Dave F. ; Tim Francois ; Laurence Penney Sent: Friday, 13 January 2012, 15:16 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The state of Bristol in OSM I've picked up a few main roads where I have GPS traces and have used bing to add lane counts and crossings in to - i.e. I have only changed where I have knowledge and am leaving something better behind. That being said I am currently bug killing on keep right so that when it gets nicer I can see the bugs ok I need to survey to fox much easier. So glad I started by using paper maps to note changes! On Jan 13, 2012 2:44 PM, "Tim François" wrote: All, > >To see what would happen to Bristol in April, see >http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-2.57888&lat=51.46006&zoom=12&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created > >I've started in my local area, basically deleting any problem roads or pois >which I'm familiar with (and actually have contributed to in one way or another), and replaced them with entirely new roads or pois, using my own local knowledge mostly, andBing and OS OpenData where appropriate. > >Question: is anyone else doing this? Are people waiting until April 1st to >fill the gaps? I look foward to the varied opinions! > >Tim > >___ >Talk-GB mailing list >Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] The state of Bristol in OSM
All, To see what would happen to Bristol in April, see http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe&lon=-2.57888&lat=51.46006&zoom=12&overlays=overview,wtfe_point_clean,wtfe_line_clean,wtfe_point_harmless,wtfe_line_harmless,wtfe_point_modified,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_line_created I've started in my local area, basically deleting any problem roads or pois which I'm familiar with (and actually have contributed to in one way or another), and replaced them with entirely new roads or pois, using my own local knowledge mostly, andBing and OS OpenData where appropriate. Question: is anyone else doing this? Are people waiting until April 1st to fill the gaps? I look foward to the varied opinions! Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS VectorMap water feature import
I've done the same as Craig: exported only the features I was interested in using QGIS, before using JOSM to tidy it up. I did Chew Valley Lake and the River Chew running into it from the Avon at Keynsham. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.3356781005859&lon=-2.61131286621094&zoom=13 The entire process took a long, long time (we're talking many hours), as the OS data is all fragmented and needs joining up. (Thinking about it I think I also did the Avon from Keynsham, through Bath and out the other side. I had a lot of spare time back then...) Tim On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Craig Loftus < craigloftus+...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Have any large scale imports from this dataset already been done? > > Unfortunately some have. Orkney is particularly bad. > > > Do people think this is a good idea? Any suggestions regarding the > process? > > I don't think area based importing is useful. Too many fragmented > waterways, and non-existent drains get pulled in. The few imports I've > done have focused on specific features, e.g., the banks and > tributaries of a river in an area I was mapping. It takes a long time > to get the sections connected together, the islands added, and all the > waterways connected; without focusing on a specific feature it would > be far too easy to overlook bits that needed tidying up. > > In terms of the process, I found it useful to select and export just > the features I wanted in QGIS before extracting to OSM. And then to > use the JOSM validator to quickly eliminate the hundreds of duplicate > and unconnected nodes that seem to be created. Using exallpoly.py with > riverbanks tends to result in problems and I ended up modifying it to > not close the areas. > > Craig > > On 11 December 2011 11:26, Borbus wrote: > > First of all, when I say import I mean a manual import: reprojection of > > OS shapefiles, conversion to OSM data and careful processing in JOSM > > before uploading. > > > > I'd really like to get all the water features from OS into OSM. It's > > very useful data and also makes maps prettier. It's quite a laborious > > task, though, as the data requires manual creation of multipolygons and > > of course merging with any water features we already have. > > > > I have already done a small amount here: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.6006&lon=1.6362&zoom=13&layers=M > > Although I have not joined together all gaps, just some gaps where a way > > crosses it and it is obviously a conduit. > > > > Now I have split the Vectormap square TG into smaller chunks which I > > plan to process one by one and upload. The amount of data in just this > > square is quite large, but it's still probably less than half of Norfolk. > > > > Have any large scale imports from this dataset already been done? > > > > Do people think this is a good idea? Any suggestions regarding the > process? > > > > Happy mapping, > > > > Borbus. > > > > ___ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Revert my changeset please
Pawel, You may have seen it already, but I found the following page very useful when importing boundary data for the Bristol area: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles#1._Extract_a_civil_parish_boundary_from_the_BoundaryLine_data_set Tim On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Pawel Stankiewicz wrote: > > Where and with whom have you discussed that import? > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Can_anybody_import_boundaries_of_Scottish_councils.3F > More than 1 year ago. And nobody seems interested in. > > > > What made you think that you could just import data like that? > > It > seemed to me nobody was interested and 1.5 year after the data > realising Scotland had no mapped councils, with 1 exception, so there > were no existing boundaries to interfere by import and I thought I would > not see councils in the nearest years. > > > > This is not a rhetorical question. I would like to find out which Wiki > articles > > or other material is responsible for giving people the idea that they > could just > > run their own little data import in blatant violation of our rules, > especially > > "discuss before you upload", and "only run automated edits if you > > know what you're doing and how to repair any damage you might cause". > > I would like to find out which Wiki articles states: "only run automated > edits if you > know what you're doing and how to repair any damage you might cause" > because Google does not know such phrase. > Second: before I tried I couldn't know whether I know how to repair any > damage. > Third: > I made an intensive research to find out how to import the OS Boundary > Line I hadn't know what is a shapefile and have not found any discussion > about importing any boundary although I found many imports. > > > > This must be stopped. > > Because? Do you have anything to discuss about the Dumfries and Galloway > boundary instead of my attitude? > > > Bye > Pawel > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Looking For Unconnected Cycleways
Hmm, actually, may not be what you're looking for afterall - perhaps the in-built error checking features of JOSM may be better: if I remember correctly, trying to upload a changeset with ways crossing but not connected flags up a warning... Tim --- On Fri, 12/8/11, Tim François wrote: From: Tim François Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Looking For Unconnected Cycleways To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org, "Steve Dobson" Date: Friday, 12 August, 2011, 10:06 If you haven't been told privately already: http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=7&lat=53.03726&lon=-3.41417&layers=B00T&ch=0%2C30%2C40%2C50%2C60%2C70%2C90%2C100%2C110%2C120%2C130%2C150%2C160%2C170%2C180%2C191%2C192%2C193%2C194%2C195%2C196%2C197%2C198%2C201%2C202%2C203%2C204%2C205%2C206%2C207%2C208%2C210%2C220%2C231%2C232%2C270%2C281%2C282%2C283%2C284%2C291%2C292%2C293%2C311%2C312%2C313%2C350%2C380&show_ign=1&show_tmpign=1 Check out the list of 'errors' it displays on the left hand side... Hope it's helpful, Tim --- On Fri, 12/8/11, Steve Dobson wrote: From: Steve Dobson Subject: [Talk-GB] Looking For Unconnected Cycleways To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Friday, 12 August, 2011, 10:00 Hi All Does anyone know of a way to look for highway segments that cross each other? It would also be useful if one could filter out certain types of highways, bridges for example. The problem is that I have found around Eastbourne that the cycle way close to my house was only connected to the "road" network at either end, although it crossed the roads several times. This caused the routing software in my Garmin Edge 705 (sat-nav) to route badly. I would there for like to fix all cycleways around Eastbourne that cross roads but do not share a common node at their point of intersection. The above search would be very helpful in this effort. Thanks for your suggestions. -- Steve Dobson ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Looking For Unconnected Cycleways
If you haven't been told privately already: http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=7&lat=53.03726&lon=-3.41417&layers=B00T&ch=0%2C30%2C40%2C50%2C60%2C70%2C90%2C100%2C110%2C120%2C130%2C150%2C160%2C170%2C180%2C191%2C192%2C193%2C194%2C195%2C196%2C197%2C198%2C201%2C202%2C203%2C204%2C205%2C206%2C207%2C208%2C210%2C220%2C231%2C232%2C270%2C281%2C282%2C283%2C284%2C291%2C292%2C293%2C311%2C312%2C313%2C350%2C380&show_ign=1&show_tmpign=1 Check out the list of 'errors' it displays on the left hand side... Hope it's helpful, Tim --- On Fri, 12/8/11, Steve Dobson wrote: From: Steve Dobson Subject: [Talk-GB] Looking For Unconnected Cycleways To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Friday, 12 August, 2011, 10:00 Hi All Does anyone know of a way to look for highway segments that cross each other? It would also be useful if one could filter out certain types of highways, bridges for example. The problem is that I have found around Eastbourne that the cycle way close to my house was only connected to the "road" network at either end, although it crossed the roads several times. This caused the routing software in my Garmin Edge 705 (sat-nav) to route badly. I would there for like to fix all cycleways around Eastbourne that cross roads but do not share a common node at their point of intersection. The above search would be very helpful in this effort. Thanks for your suggestions. -- Steve Dobson ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Effect of ODBL on Bristol and surrounding areas
Gents, http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/?zoom=13&lat=51.4646&lon=-2.57549&layers=B00T Anyone had any thoughts yet on what to do about the red/pink/yellow lines? Luckily there's not too much red around (Also, I don't follow the talk list for sanity reasons, so apologies if I'm missing something important) Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OSM map in the wild in Bristol
Evening all! This may not interest many, but I got quite excited about seeing my first real-life OSM map in the wild! See: http://i.imgur.com/WMwhY.jpg This map is used to show locations of gorilla statues in and around Bristol to celebrate the zoo's birthday, and I picked it up at Temple Meads railway station. The main map is OS StreetView, whilst the overview map is definitely OSM! Was anyone on this list involved with this map? Congrats to all the Bristol mappers past and present! Tim (user:tm) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Just a simple message to say that I support this idea of a bot, for all the reasons stated by previous posters. Whilst I understand the reservations of those against the bot, I personally don't believe they are relevant to this particular bot as it is described on the wiki. Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
> > > - Have you considered using the Code Point Open data as a fallback in > case the > > postcode is not in OSM? It would not allow an exact address to be > pinpointed > > but it could give a link to the right area of the map with a hint to get > to > > work populating it fully. > > Yup, this is already on my TODO. First I need to convert the OS grid > refs to OSM coordinates. > I've had success using the instructions located at http://baroque.posterous.com/uk-postcode-latitudelongitude Of course it depends on how you want to use the data in the first place! :) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data
Good work! I just tried searching based on house number and street name, and it didn't work if I didn't capitalise the first letters of the street name. Is this a feature or a bug? Tim On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Tim François wrote: > Good work! > > I just tried searching based on house number and street name, and it didn't > work if I didn't capitalise the first letters of the street name. Is this a > feature or a bug? > > Tim > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Matt Williams wrote: > >> Greetings all, >> >> For the last week I've been working on a sort of 'replacement' for the >> Royal Mail's postcode/address finder (you know, the one with the ~5 >> queries a day limit without an account) [1] but based entirely on data >> in the OSM database. You can find my site at [2]. >> >> It's features are: >> - Covers the whole of Britain (based on the Geofabrik >> great_britain.osm.pbf >> file from 15 March) >> - Can search by full or partial postcode >> - Can search for street and house number or just for street name >> - Largely based on the Karlsruhe Schema (including the associatedStreet >> relation for grouping houses together) >> - Has a tagging guide [3] to help document the tags the system uses >> - Fully open-source [4] >> - 'Error' reporting - these are currently only shown at the bottom of the >> page >> with the error. I will probably make a map out of this at some point. >> >> I currently measure about a quarter of a million 'address points' - >> that is objects with a postcode or with both a housenumber and a >> street (associates street or addr:street). This compares with the >> reported 28 million entries in the Royal Mail's PAF. I will provide a >> more detailed breakdown when I get a chance. >> >> Of course in its current state it's not a competitor for the PAF but >> I'm hoping that the "if you render it, they will map it" rule will >> apply here to encourage people to add postcodes and addresses. I guess >> a good postcode to look at is B72 [5] given the excellent work done at >> [6]. I've also been doing a lot in CV4 so that should be quite good >> too. >> >> Please take a look a the site and give me any feedback on anything you >> like or don't like. As I said this is only about a week's part-time >> work so it's unpolished in many places but I figure that RERO is a >> good idea here. >> >> There are a number of features I am still planning on implementing >> which are recoded at [7,8]. >> >> The first time you connect to the site it might take a while to load >> but after that it should be snappy enough. >> >> Regards, >> Matt Williams >> >> http://milliams.com >> >> [1] http://postcode.royalmail.com >> [2] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/ >> [3] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/tagging/ >> [4] http://gitorious.org/postcodefinder >> [5] >> http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/search/?postcode=B72 >> [6] http://blog.mappa-mercia.org/2011/02/whats-in-postcode.html >> [7] >> http://gitorious.org/postcodefinder/postcode-analyser/blobs/master/TODO.rst >> [8] >> http://gitorious.org/postcodefinder/postcodefinder/blobs/master/TODO.rst >> >> ___ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] inferred single-carriageway NSL?
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Heathrow&aq=&sll=53.482836,-2.180099&sspn=0.080494,0.222988&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Heathrow,+Hounslow,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.495653,-0.450954&spn=0.022497,0.078964&z=14&layer=c&cbll=51.495681,-0.451607&panoid=gjN7Vihx-29MP9zua09w3g&cbp=12,91.33,,0,7.84 Carry on... :) On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Peter Miller wrote: > > > On 13 March 2011 15:55, Tom Hughes wrote: > >> On 13/03/11 15:41, Ed Loach wrote: >> >> You've probably seen the numerous edits by chriscf. Can anyone explain the purpose of these edits& what the the tags below even mean? >>> >>> I can try, but >>> >> > The bot appears to be adding a source:maxspeed to roads that have speed > limits of 60 mph and 70 mph deducing that these are actually 'national speed > limits' rather than numeric speed limits. I am not aware of there being any > numeric 60 and 70 mph limits in the UK so that does seem to be a reasonable > sound deduction actually. > > The bot then adds a note asking someone else to go to the effort of > checking the new tag and removing the tag. I think this is unreasonable. If > the bot is robust (which I think it is), and is tested/approved (which it > doesn't seem to be - see below) then I think the note field would be > unnecessary. > > What he has not done is add a link to a wiki page for the bot to the > changeset which is what is expected in Wikipedia and I think should be done > here. > > I am not aware that there is even a wiki page for the bot or that it has a > name which also isn't helpful. > > >>> I've had no reply to an email sent to him a couple of days ago >>> >>> nor have I, so it is mainly guesswork. >>> >> >> Which means he is clearly in violation of point 3 "discuss your plans" of >> the automated edits code of conduct: >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct >> >> > Agreed and I consider that use of unapproved bots should be considered as > vandalism and that not discussing plans even after the event makes is worse. > > Incidently I notice that chriscj has also been ruffling feathers on the > wiki by ignoring community rules as well: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Chriscf > > Can I suggest that someone contacts him again and says that if he doesn't > engage in conversation then it will be escalated to the Data Working Group. > Personally I don't consider that a revert is necessary (even if that was > possible) but I do think we need to be clear on the rules around bots and > enforce them going forward. > > > Regards, > > > Peter > > > Not to mention point 4 as well... >> >> >> Tom >> >> -- >> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) >> http://compton.nu/ >> >> ___ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Data from http://www.cwgc.org/
Marc - "agree to use for GPS" is niet hetzelfde als "agree to use for OSM". I would suggest that Ranald had no problem with you (or anyone else) uploading the data to a gps device. Unfortunately, this is not equivalent to a blanket permission to use the data in OSM. Tim --- On Wed, 11/8/10, Marc Coevoet wrote: From: Marc Coevoet Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Data from http://www.cwgc.org/ To: "Tim François" Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Wednesday, 11 August, 2010, 9:48 Tim François schreef: > No real input, but I thought Ranald might have been a spelling mistake > (thought it would have been Ronald). Apparently not: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranald_Leask. Every day's a school day! > > > Marc, any way we can verify "the credits" for publishing the data to OSM > without hassling Ranald? > I have somewhere a mail that says ... "agree to use for GPS ..." If you want it on paper, go ahaed! Marc -- What's on Shortwave guide: choose an hour, go! http://shortwave.tk 700+ Radio Stations on SW http://swstations.tk 300+ languages on SW http://radiolanguages.tk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Data from http://www.cwgc.org/
No real input, but I thought Ranald might have been a spelling mistake (thought it would have been Ronald). Apparently not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranald_Leask. Every day's a school day! Marc, any way we can verify "the credits" for publishing the data to OSM without hassling Ranald? Thanks,Tim --- On Wed, 11/8/10, Marc Coevoet wrote: From: Marc Coevoet Subject: [Talk-GB] Data from http://www.cwgc.org/ To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Wednesday, 11 August, 2010, 9:23 Hello, One morning I went to the local office of CWGC in Ypres, and asked if they had location data. The day after I got the data and the credits to publish on OSM. Now, I've put some data in http://users.fulladsl.be/spb13810/research/cwgc-marc.tar.bz2 that is a CSV for garmin, but also a bmp+ov2 for a Tomtom. The original data from CWGC is http://users.fulladsl.be/spb13810/research/cwgcorig.tar.bz2 1. The orig data is a bit disorganised, I only took the local file for my Tomtom 2. I do not know how to publish POI data on OSM Marc PS: the UK contact was: Ranald Leask Public Relations & Media Manager Commonwealth War Graves Commission 2 Marlow Road Maidenhead Berkshire SL6 7DX ranald.le...@cwgc.org 01628 507204 (direct) 01628 634221 (switchboard) 07887 860541 (mobile) -- What's on Shortwave guide: choose an hour, go! http://shortwave.tk 700+ Radio Stations on SW http://swstations.tk 300+ languages on SW http://radiolanguages.tk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Yet more musical chairs updates.
>>Dave F. said >>And, as Tim F., points outs - there's no need to display correct info >>(green) at all. >I disagree and find these useful. It is often the case that part of a road >has been named >correctly and parts incorrectly. The green boxes are very >useful for finding the full extent of >a given road name. This information is >lost in all other representations of this data which >only flag names with no >match at all. ...which is why I suggested letting users have the *option* to turn them off as I recognise that some find the information useful (including the developer, as mentioned last week). It just bogs down my little netbook quite a bit, the poor thing. >Also, Robert, an unqualified thank you for your work on this - it's a great >tool and is just >fine as is. Folks, if all people get is criticism when they >invest effort and time in things >then they'll not bother next time. Sure, >it's not perfect but it's an awful lot more than we'd >have if Robert hadn't >invested his time and effort in it. As invited by him, spend some time >>improving it rather than pulling it to pieces. I would suggest that it's not criticism - just some feature requests with opinions. At the very worst, it's constructive criticism. As a developer myself, I'd be only too happy if people were "pulling it to pieces" (we're not, by the way - we're just critiquing the UI) - it shows than people *want* to use it (in the first instance), and want to use it as efficiently as possible . It's up to the developer to decide what they think is important and not important, and I'm sure Robert does not take any offence at the questions/suggestions/critique leveled at him (feel free to correct me). I'll repeat: the reason I am critiquing this is because I recognise that a lot of time and effort has gone into this, and that this is a very valuable tool - I do want to use it, and think that the developer would also like many people to use it. Offering critique may help to improve the tool, encouraging more people to use it. It may not. Offering critique also lets the developer gain valuable feedback, and lets him/her know that people are using the tool. The developer can ignore the feedback as he/she wishes. Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Yet more musical chairs updates.
This discussion is kinda related to my incessant questioning last week about why 'correct' data is shown by default. A big start would be to explain the two major features of the UI: what the colours mean (actually writing "a green area means: blah, blah") and what the squares and circles mean. And with that I mean explaining on the webpage, not here in the mailing list. What you've created is a very powerful and useful tool, and I think these few small tweaks to the UI would make it far more intuitive to use. Oh, and an option to turn off all the 'correct' green squares/circles - surely that's just wasting resources for the average user? Obviously, if you're just aiming to reach programmers and power users, then leave as-is! Thanks Tim --- On Sun, 8/8/10, Robert Scott wrote: From: Robert Scott Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Yet more musical chairs updates. To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Sunday, 8 August, 2010, 23:59 On Sunday 08 August 2010, Dave F. wrote: > It redraws all the different colour circles on the map (supposedly > searching the database each time) & list specific data on the right for > the circle that was under the double click - pointless if you just want > to zoom in. Oh! Yes - this is intended, and what's more it's vital that it keeps refreshing the view. When showing a non-authoritative view, the results it shows is highly dependent on the view's bounding box. It shows the first 1024 results. Obviously, it will show the first 1024 results in the area you're looking at. As you zoom in, it will adaptively (every two zoomlevels) increase the level of detail. This is necessary to keep showing the user a relevant amount of detail. You can't have people zooming all the way in to milton keynes and it still only show you the one little circle that was visible at the country level. Or do you expect people to have to manually click refresh every time they want more results? How would they discover that? More textual instructions? There's limited space on the panel. The non-authoritative views are only meant as a rough overview before you get zoomed in enough. > Yeah, but you're looking at it from the perspective of the person who's > programmed it & knows it's every nuance. I'm looking at it from the view of a power user. > Try looking at it from the point of view of the newbies - they'll want > to zoom in to their local town, where they'll understand what they're > looking at before deciphering all the options. > > The titles you use don't offer clarity for them. Musical Chairs, as a > prime example, gives no indication of what the program does. No, I didn't consult a focus group before I slapped that name infront of it if that's what you're asking. > Instead of a simple Help you've got What? & even Algorithm - who, of > those that want to *use* your web page need to know how it was > programmed? If somebody really does, they can email you. It was written back when this stuff really was just an algorithm and I found a couple of free hours to write up an explanation. It's the only page I had on it - so I included a link to it. > Under What? you give half the information required. Instead of > explaining the differences in colours you just say "It is coloured > according to whether it has a similarly named and placed counterpart in > OSM and how good the agreement is between them." Not specifically > helpful. It's also out of date. That's the problem with writing help etc. It goes out of date as soon as you change things. Every time you add more help/documentation, you increase the burden of keeping it up to date. The trick is to _try_ and make it all as obvious and discoverable as possible. That was my idea with the little hoverable question mark. > Why does it start at a zoom level that includes half of Northern Europe? Because when you tell openlayers to show a view including a certain bbox (GB) it picks the highest zoomlevel it can that will show the whole thing. You'll find that the next zoomlevel up will cut off part of GB. > This is a half decent utility, to needs some teaks to make it user friendly. You are expecting too much from me. This is something I've hacked together in odd spare hours and half hours I've found now and then. Writing decent help would be great. But I primarily see this as a power user's tool that people who fix a lot of things can use to... er... fix a lot of things. If someone wants to do a whole UI survey on it, that would be lovely. Unfortunately this is how a lot of OSM software spends its life. Looked at JOSM lately? robert. ps- Patches are welcome. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive source for UK streetnames? - OS, 'road name signs', or a council 'list'?
I'm not really answering your question here, but thought I'd add in my two pennies: I use OSM data as the map in Navit, a sat-nav program. From my personal point of view, I find it very handy for the sat-nav to direct me to roads which have the same name as the road signs, irrespective of what the 'correct' name is. I've once come across two conflicting street signs at either end of the road, and decided to use the one which was the same as the OS Locator and StreetView data. What authorities do, I have no idea. As I say, I wasn't answering the question. Ignore me. :) Tim --- On Fri, 6/8/10, Jason Cunningham wrote: From: Jason Cunningham Subject: [Talk-GB] Definitive source for UK streetnames? - OS, 'road name signs', or a council 'list'? To: "Talk GB" Date: Friday, 6 August, 2010, 13:33 Just read through a short discussion about differences in street names in OSM and 'OS Locator', and problems caused by differences in names given The classic problem is where the road street sign says something like 'Dukes Drive' but OS locator states Duke's Drive. Noticed that common view was OSM mapped what was on the ground, so road sign name was added. Having come across roads where road names differ on adjacent roads signs, I'm not too sure road signs can be 100% relied on, but OS also clearly make mistakes. Has anyone heard of how this problem is dealt with by authorities (eg councils) as they seem to rely on OS as a definitive source for mapping data. Jason -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bristol - a quick (and surprising?) statistic...
Good stuff - thanks for the link Ed. ITO suggest that OSM is 65% complete in the City of Bristol, which is almost the same as my 37% incomplete statistic! The discrepancy probably occurs because: 1) I'm using a different algorithm to ITO 2) ITO and my data will not be from the same time 3) My data is not strictly speaking the City of Bristol - there's also parts of South Glos included so that Filton and Bradley Stoke show up in the stats, and I've removed Avonmouth from the bounding box... I'd also like to echo the statements that I don't think the map is complete if it aligns with the OSL data. However, I use the maps with Navit (for sat-nav), so having the streets and names in there are more important to me than perhaps to others. Each to their own! How about 'street-complete' for another term? That probably doesn't cut it either Tim --- On Sat, 24/7/10, SomeoneElse wrote: From: SomeoneElse Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bristol - a quick (and surprising?) statistic... To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Saturday, 24 July, 2010, 16:26 On 24/07/2010 15:16, Dave F. wrote: > That link sends me back to the homepage & I'm unable to find the summary > page. Do you have another link? I think that that's a bit of a feature of the way that the site works - if you're logged in and aren't signed up to "OSM Analysis" that seems to be what happens. If you logout and subscribe (perhaps by "http://www.itoworld.com/static/product_subscribe?product=OSM%20Analysis"; it should work). ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Comparing OS data
--- On Tue, 15/6/10, Ed Avis wrote: ...If tracing them I will usually mark them as highway=unclassified or =residential (guessed based on surrounding area) and allow the nonames checks to pick them up for later surveying. You can kill two birds with one stone here: trace from the OS StreetView layer, then name them using either the ITO OS Locator layer or from data from Musical Chairs or the gpx from oslVosm. This won't, however, clarify what type of way it is - it'll just allow you to name those roads in OSSV which have no name... ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes
"...issues such as Saint vs St, or Queen's Drive versus Queens Drive, are not ones that can be resolved by survey. They are merely orthographic conventions" Is this true? I was under the impression that we mapped what we saw - i.e. the definitive name is the one we see on the street signs during a survey? Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes
Agreed - might as well mop up the anomalies (St/Saint, apostrophes etc) as we go along this first time round. --- On Sun, 13/6/10, Chris Hill wrote: If I'm going out to check some anomalies, it would be very annoying to have to go out to the same area again in six months time to repeat the process because apostrophes or some other extra anomaly type suddenly appeared. I would like to see as much as possible for an area so I can clean it up all at once. There's nothing to stop anyone else ignoring some elements for now. Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Contacting OS about errors in their data
All, There was discussion recently about letting OS know when we find an error in their data. I fully support this, and have found a few errors already. Question: what's the best way to contact them? Do we have a contact within OS to which we can pass details to? Thanks Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
If you are tracing from StreetView please, please, please properly source your ways: source=OS_OpenData_StreetView http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS Tim --- On Sun, 6/6/10, Kai Krueger wrote: From: Kai Krueger Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV? To: "'talk-gb'" Date: Sunday, 6 June, 2010, 12:07 Hello everyone, I would like to suggest as a sort of "Project of the week" for the UK for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView. Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be "road complete" by the "end of the year", the UK is still a far distance off of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be. So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other commercial map provider. (If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email) I know that many people are opposed to "armchair mapping" or imports (and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing instead) and so I'd like to counter some of the arguments most likely going to be brought up against this sort of non local tracing: 1) OS data might have mistakes, be outdated and generally not as good as what OSM aims for: Yes, no doubt OS has errors and can be outdated in many places by a couple of years ( I have found more than enough of those myself). Furthermore, all of the OS products released lack many of the properties we are interested in like one way roads, turn and other restrictions, POIs, foot and cycle ways and all the other things that make OSM data such a rich and valuable dataset. So yes, the OS data will clearly not replace any of the "traditional" OSM surveying techniques or be the end of things. But it can be a great basis to build upon. As a comparison, have a look (assuming you have a timecapsal ;-)) at what the data of e.g. central London looked like in 2007. It already had surprisingly many roads, but hardly any POIs or other properties that we aim for now. Most of that came later in many iterations of improvement. A single pass of "OSM" surveying is not any better than the OS data per se. Also given that the errors introduced by tracing OS data are exactly the same type of errors introduced by manual "OSM" surveying, i.e. misspellings in roads, missing roads, outdated roads, ... We need to have the tools to deal with this kind of maintenance anyway. It is the iterations that make OSM data what it is, not the "first pass ground survey". Creating a blanket base layer from OS data allows us to much better focus on the aspects that do distinguish us from every other map data provider with having to "waste" as little as possible resources on the "stuff everyone else has" too. 2) large scale imports and tracing hinders community growth: This perhaps is the more important of the two arguments, as indeed what distinguishes us from everyone else is the community and without the community and its constant iterations and improvements, OSM data will "bit rot" just as much as all other data. However I don't think there is any clear evidence either way of what non local mapping does to communities and it remains hotly debated. The negative effects claimed are usually of the form a) The area looks complete, there is nothing more to do, so why bother. Or, it isn't as much fun to add a POI than a whole new village on a blank canvas. b) I put in all this effort into mapping an area and along comes an import and steam rollers all this into a mess, I am leaving. c) imports introduce a new class of bugs, e.g. duplicate nodes or broken connectivity that OSM mappers wouldn't so we don't have the tools to deal with these sort of errors correctly. b) and c) are specific to imports and thus manual tracing shouldn't suffer the same issues. a) may be the case, but it is clearly a case that we need to be able to deal with anyway, as more and more areas become "complete" by "them selves". And looking at the better mapped areas, like Germany or some of the UK cities, I don't think there is any evidence that you can't attract new comers into already mapped areas. It is potentially also offset by all those people who simple want to
Re: [Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with mapseg)
So... I take that to mean that I should really be using the correct *.prj file, rather than gdal's inbuilt datum? Tim --- On Sun, 30/5/10, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: From: Jerry Clough - OSM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with mapseg) To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Sunday, 30 May, 2010, 12:30 Hi Tim, Yes there is, at least with the version of GDAL I use. Chillly has written about this on his blog, and the changes needed (adding Helmert transformations - -sound fancy doesn't it) to the standard projection are noted in previous messages here in talk-gb. I think the divergence is much greater on the E of the country: probably why Chilly and I worried most about it. Even with these the accuracy compared with the OSGB02 will be upto 5 metres out. See OS Coordinate Systems Guide. Jerry PS. StreetView and OSM seem to match up quite well for Nottingham. I've just rendered a set of tiles in OSGB36 of the same scale and boundaries as StreetView which at least removes some of the projection transformation artefacts. From: Tim François To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org; Chris Hill Sent: Sun, 30 May, 2010 12:16:33 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with mapseg) By the way, which method are people using to re-project the VectorDistrict data? I'm using the inbuilt datum in gdal - is anyone using the correct *.prj file, and is there a difference? Tim --- On Sun, 30/5/10, Chris Hill wrote: From: Chris Hill Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with mapseg) To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Date: Sunday, 30 May, 2010, 11:53 I believe the StreetView tiles are offset south(ish) by a few metres in East Yorkshire too. Reprojected shape files line up well with surveyed data. I have traced a few buildings from StreetView but I've stopped until I had worked out what was wrong. Now given other people's comments I do think there may be some discrepancy. Would a few carefully surveyed road junctions with many GPS traces to work from help to identify any discrepancy? Or is there a better way? Cheers, Chris Kevin Peat wrote: > I'm in Devon and I see the same thing although whether it is just the > SW I don't know. > > The Streetview tiles (as I see them in JOSM) are all offset to the SE > by 5-10 metres. I've converted some woods in my area from the > VectorDistrict data using this process, > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles > > and the converted data looks good to me compared to my previous > surveys but comes out different to the tiles, so I'm thinking that the > tiles are wrong. > > Kevin > > > > > On 30 May 2010 09:08, Tim François <mailto:sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk>> wrote: > > > On a side note, has anybody noticed a consistent tendency > > for existing > > independently surveyed roads to be offset northwards (by > > around 5-10 > > metres) from the OS data (vectormap and streetview)? I've > > seen various > > cases of existing roads being edited to be consistent with > > OS data, > > but I'm not convinced this is a good idea since the problem > > seems to > > be consistent in one direction. > > Glad I'm not the only one. Here in the SW I see the same offsets, > although I find the VectorDistrict data to be more like the GPS > surveyed data. This means that the StreetView tiles do not match > up with the VectorDistrict either: I've been importing some rivers > and reservoirs from the VectorDistrict data (namely the River Chew > and Chew Valley Lake) and I've found that the polygons seem to be > shifted compared to the equivalent positions in StreetView by > about 10 metres. > > I guess this is an expected artifact of the reprojection methods? > > Tim > > > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > talk...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with mapseg)
By the way, which method are people using to re-project the VectorDistrict data? I'm using the inbuilt datum in gdal - is anyone using the correct *.prj file, and is there a difference? Tim --- On Sun, 30/5/10, Chris Hill wrote: From: Chris Hill Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with mapseg) To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Date: Sunday, 30 May, 2010, 11:53 I believe the StreetView tiles are offset south(ish) by a few metres in East Yorkshire too. Reprojected shape files line up well with surveyed data. I have traced a few buildings from StreetView but I've stopped until I had worked out what was wrong. Now given other people's comments I do think there may be some discrepancy. Would a few carefully surveyed road junctions with many GPS traces to work from help to identify any discrepancy? Or is there a better way? Cheers, Chris Kevin Peat wrote: > I'm in Devon and I see the same thing although whether it is just the > SW I don't know. > > The Streetview tiles (as I see them in JOSM) are all offset to the SE > by 5-10 metres. I've converted some woods in my area from the > VectorDistrict data using this process, > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles > > and the converted data looks good to me compared to my previous > surveys but comes out different to the tiles, so I'm thinking that the > tiles are wrong. > > Kevin > > > > > On 30 May 2010 09:08, Tim François <mailto:sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk>> wrote: > > > On a side note, has anybody noticed a consistent tendency > > for existing > > independently surveyed roads to be offset northwards (by > > around 5-10 > > metres) from the OS data (vectormap and streetview)? I've > > seen various > > cases of existing roads being edited to be consistent with > > OS data, > > but I'm not convinced this is a good idea since the problem > > seems to > > be consistent in one direction. > > Glad I'm not the only one. Here in the SW I see the same offsets, > although I find the VectorDistrict data to be more like the GPS > surveyed data. This means that the StreetView tiles do not match > up with the VectorDistrict either: I've been importing some rivers > and reservoirs from the VectorDistrict data (namely the River Chew > and Chew Valley Lake) and I've found that the polygons seem to be > shifted compared to the equivalent positions in StreetView by > about 10 metres. > > I guess this is an expected artifact of the reprojection methods? > > Tim > > > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > talk...@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with mapseg)
> On a side note, has anybody noticed a consistent tendency > for existing > independently surveyed roads to be offset northwards (by > around 5-10 > metres) from the OS data (vectormap and streetview)? I've > seen various > cases of existing roads being edited to be consistent with > OS data, > but I'm not convinced this is a good idea since the problem > seems to > be consistent in one direction. Glad I'm not the only one. Here in the SW I see the same offsets, although I find the VectorDistrict data to be more like the GPS surveyed data. This means that the StreetView tiles do not match up with the VectorDistrict either: I've been importing some rivers and reservoirs from the VectorDistrict data (namely the River Chew and Chew Valley Lake) and I've found that the polygons seem to be shifted compared to the equivalent positions in StreetView by about 10 metres. I guess this is an expected artifact of the reprojection methods? Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code
Thanks for that - I don't use Potlatch, but the amazing array of shortcuts for everything astounds me every time: some good work by the author! --- On Fri, 28/5/10, Graham Stewart wrote: From: Graham Stewart Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code To: "Tim François" , "OpenStreetMap TalkGB" Date: Friday, 28 May, 2010, 11:54 Tim, In Potlatch you can also use 'r' or 'Shift-R' to repeat the tags from the last way you had selected. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potlatch/Keyboard_shortcuts GrahamS On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:39 +, "Tim François" wrote: ...he scares me Only joking! I had come across a few of the non-underscored versions a few days ago, and was wondering why they were formatted like that. Now I know!! Also, today I learned you can do ctrl+shift+V to copy tags between ways/nodes - I've wasted large portions of my life doing this manually! Every day's a school day... *goes off to try and find a page with more neat time saving tricks...* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code
...he scares me Only joking! I had come across a few of the non-underscored versions a few days ago, and was wondering why they were formatted like that. Now I know!! Also, today I learned you can do ctrl+shift+V to copy tags between ways/nodes - I've wasted large portions of my life doing this manually! Every day's a school day... *goes off to try and find a page with more neat time saving tricks...* --- On Fri, 28/5/10, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: From: Jerry Clough - OSM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Friday, 28 May, 2010, 11:31 Ask Richard F! From: Tim François To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org; Jerry Clough - OSM Sent: Fri, 28 May, 2010 11:20:10 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code ...any reason why no underscores with Potlatch? --- On Fri, 28/5/10, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: From: Jerry Clough - OSM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Friday, 28 May, 2010, 11:15 Potlatch's "b" option will place "source=OS OpenData StreetView" (note no underscores) if you have OS SV in the background. I use this as I prefer 1 keystroke to 20 or so. From: TimSC To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Fri, 28 May, 2010 10:57:25 Subject: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code Ah yes, the recommended tag is good. I didn't notice one had been chosen (but it is a bit long for my taste). So use "source=OS_OpenData_StreetView" for verified buildings. And I will probably change to "source=Auto_OS_OpenData_StreetView" for automatic tracing in the code. TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code
...any reason why no underscores with Potlatch? --- On Fri, 28/5/10, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: From: Jerry Clough - OSM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Friday, 28 May, 2010, 11:15 Potlatch's "b" option will place "source=OS OpenData StreetView" (note no underscores) if you have OS SV in the background. I use this as I prefer 1 keystroke to 20 or so. From: TimSC To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Fri, 28 May, 2010 10:57:25 Subject: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code Ah yes, the recommended tag is good. I didn't notice one had been chosen (but it is a bit long for my taste). So use "source=OS_OpenData_StreetView" for verified buildings. And I will probably change to "source=Auto_OS_OpenData_StreetView" for automatic tracing in the code. TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code
For a final source tag (i.e. the verified buildings) shouldn't we be using source=OS_OpenData_StreetView as noted in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#When_tracing_over_OS_StreetView --- On Fri, 28/5/10, Roy Jamison wrote: From: Roy Jamison Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code To: "TimSC" Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Friday, 28 May, 2010, 10:29 Also fuzzer is a bugger to get working and I don't know how to edit the fuzzyselect.py to get it doing what I wanted (i.e. auto-tracing from OS StreetView), so this script should definitely help! On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 10:11 +0100, TimSC wrote: > Hi mappers, > > Thanks for the comments on automatic tracing. I have finished an > implementation and it is ready for testing. It runs really slowly (30 > minutes a tile). Be careful if you try it and don't remove any existing > OSM information (and try not to annoy other mappers). The OS open data > license is also a concern, so keep the source tags where appropriate. > Please limit yourself to areas you are prepared to manually check and > fix. (The LWG are aware of this issue, but don't anticipate problems.) > The python code is here (with a readme file): > http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/dev/mapseg0.1.tar.gz > > Let me know if there are any major bugs or possible improvements. I am > not sure I can put in much time in the short term but I will fix any > major problems. I will do a wiki page eventually for further updates. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapseg > > As Ed Avis suggested, I flag suspected errors during the conversion. I > don't use the surrounding pixel colours but there are plenty of other > heuristics that indicate problems. I assume all buildings have at least > 4 sides which are orthogonal. Any non orthogonal buildings will be > flagged for checking. > > I automatically add a source tag "auto_os_street_view". This should be > changed to a different source tag when it has been verified. I suggest > "source=os_street_view" for verified buildings. > > The fuzzer plugin for JOSM is nicely integrated but it operates on the > rectified tiles which have lower quality images. My approach uses the > original opendata tiles. > > TimSC > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OS Locator - another comparison script
All, Inspired by Robert Scott's recent excellent work (http://humanleg.org.uk/code/oslmusicalchairs) I thought I'd tidy up my own script and make it more robust. The result is oslVosm: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm Rather than parse the entire country, this script is designed for smaller sections (such as cities or districts). It checks whether an OS Locator road waypoint fits inside any OSM highway bounding boxes (generated by the script) of the particular area in question. If so, it tries to do some name matching, to see if the exact name exists, or if there might be a slight spelling error. An area the size of Bath takes about 20 seconds to process. The script can output a variety of file types with information about the missing roads (assuming OSL is 100% correct, of course...). These are: GPX (can be used in JOSM); KML (for Google Earth and a layer on an OpenLayers web application); WIKI - this is a file containing a formatted wiki-table, ready for copy/pasting to the wiki. Anyway, just thought I'd share. I'm currently using it in and around Bath, and the results look promising. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bath/OSLocator_Comparison Thanks, Tim P.S. If anyone was using my previous scripts which I'd put up on the wiki, I strongly recommend switching to oslVosm as it's far more robust! Up to you though...! ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator / OSM correspondence list generation
For something that can be imported to editors, why not generate a GPX file? JOSM loads these natively. Or am I missing something...? Also, I'm interested in the speed of your script: how long does it take to process the entire GB.osm? Tim --- On Thu, 13/5/10, Robert Scott wrote: From: Robert Scott Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator / OSM correspondence list generation To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Thursday, 13 May, 2010, 21:00 On Thursday 13 May 2010, Tim François wrote: > Looks super interesting. I've been trying to do something similar but for > local areas, rather than GB as a whole to make is useable for single mapper I could do some extracts of areas within bounding boxes. > As for releasing the data to the rest of the world, I output a kml file of > the waypoints, and using OpenLayers plot points over the places where there > are name discrepancies. Ah. Thank you for reminding me kml exists. It may be an option for publishing bounding boxes as it has quite a rich data model. Ideally I would like something that is importable into editors, but such a format/mechanism doesn't really exist. robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator / OSM correspondence list generation
Robert, Looks super interesting. I've been trying to do something similar but for local areas, rather than GB as a whole to make is useable for single mapper. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bath/OSLocator_Comparison - the method is towards the bottom of the page. It's certainly not as clever as yours, but does a lot of the same things (spelling matching, removal of punctuation, extending abbreviations etc). As for releasing the data to the rest of the world, I output a kml file of the waypoints, and using OpenLayers plot points over the places where there are name discrepancies. Example: http://osm.tm.com/bath/os_locator/. Certainly not perfect, as for one only I can change this kml file - the table on the wiki page is user editable, but is just boring! Also, there's this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SK53/OS_OpenData#OS_Locator. I'd suggest copy/pasting your blog post into the wiki once the code is in a releasable state - I'm excited to see the results! Tim --- On Thu, 13/5/10, Robert Scott wrote: From: Robert Scott Subject: [Talk-GB] OS Locator / OSM correspondence list generation To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Thursday, 13 May, 2010, 17:23 Hi all, I've been running some countrywide comparisons of the recently released OS Locator against the streets in OSM, using fuzzy string matching and the supplied bounding boxes to attempt to match each street in each dataset to one in the other. It's worked pretty well for most areas I tested. Of the ~826k named streets in OS Locator, about 424k of them have near perfect matches in OSM. A few tens of thousands more have what I would call spelling 'disagreements'. The rest of them have bad or no matches at all. I've put a description of the technique up here along with the preliminary results: http://humanleg.org.uk/code/oslmusicalchairs The thing I really need is suggestions for getting this data to users in a way that's practical to work with. It's a CSV currently. Thoughts welcome. So are bug reports of where my matching algorithm has gotten things wrong. robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Markers on StreetView maps
I'm specifically referring to the following two tile servers/maps: http://edgemaster.dev.openstreetmap.org/streetview_tiles/ossv.html http://os.openstreetmap.org/ With the standard OSM map, you can use the query "mlat=" and "mlon=" to centre the map and put a marker at that point. Is there a way this can be done with the two sites above? Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?zoom=15&mlat=51.61547&mlon=-1.77658 Thanks Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Matching OS Locator with OSM data
Hmm, I think you're right, though this only holds for street names. StreetView does use apostrophes in some names of *things*, such as here: http://os.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.40765&lon=-2.30415&zoom=16. But anyway --- On Wed, 28/4/10, Robert Scott wrote: From: Robert Scott Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Matching OS Locator with OSM data To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Wednesday, 28 April, 2010, 20:36 On Wednesday 28 April 2010, Tim François wrote: > OSM name: VAN DIEMENS LANE > OS StreetView name: VAN DIEMENS LANE > OS Locator name: VAN DIEMEN'S LANE > > So the OS Locator data adds an apostrophe, whereas StreetView leaves it off! I don't think there are any apostrophes on streetview streets, are there? They're probably left off because they would just be little black dashes which could be confused with features. robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Matching OS Locator with OSM data
I've noticed that sometimes there are discrepancies even between OS data. For example, there is a VAN DIEMENS LANE here in Bath. Here are three sources of names: OSM name: VAN DIEMENS LANE OS StreetView name: VAN DIEMENS LANE OS Locator name: VAN DIEMEN'S LANE So the OS Locator data adds an apostrophe, whereas StreetView leaves it off! Slightly related: 1) I assume that to check these discrepancies we take the street name from the sign actually on the street as being the ultimate source? 2) What's the standard on St? As in saint? Should there be a period after, or not? Or is this answered by my first question? Thanks Tim --- On Wed, 28/4/10, Ed Avis wrote: From: Ed Avis Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Matching OS Locator with OSM data To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Wednesday, 28 April, 2010, 14:45 Tim François writes: >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org >/wiki/User:Tm#Enhanced_OS_Locator_Comparator_Script This looks really useful - if there were a web interface showing results in a given area then missing streets could be picked off as a janitorial, rainy-day task. This would help particularly in areas that are 95% mapped. Anyway, I'm going to download the script and run it over my local area. Thanks for your work! -- Ed Avis ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Matching OS Locator with OSM data
No problem, glad I could help! --- On Wed, 28/4/10, Ed Avis wrote: From: Ed Avis Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Matching OS Locator with OSM data To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Wednesday, 28 April, 2010, 14:45 Tim François writes: >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org >/wiki/User:Tm#Enhanced_OS_Locator_Comparator_Script This looks really useful - if there were a web interface showing results in a given area then missing streets could be picked off as a janitorial, rainy-day task. This would help particularly in areas that are 95% mapped. Anyway, I'm going to download the script and run it over my local area. Thanks for your work! -- Ed Avis ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Matching OS Locator with OSM data
Link added to OS OpenData wiki page. I won't add the method to that page, as it's super long and messy already! Tim --- On Wed, 28/4/10, Russ Phillips wrote: From: Russ Phillips Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Matching OS Locator with OSM data To: "Tim François" Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Wednesday, 28 April, 2010, 9:37 On 27 April 2010 22:21, Tim François wrote: Anyway, let me know if you find this useful, or if someone has a more advanced script and I'm just wasting time here! I haven't had a chance to really investigate these scripts yet, but they're on my to-do list. I suspect they'll be very useful for me in Stoke-on-Trent. I'd also be interested in a script that highlighted roads whose position in OSM was a long way off their position in OS, but I don't know how easy or difficult that would be. Have you thought about adding your scripts to the OS OpenData wiki page, to make it easier for people to find them? Russ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Matching OS Locator with OSM data
All, I've been thinking about the script I wrote to compare the OS Locator data with the OSM data, and have improved it slightly so that now it picks up those names of roads which are different but have similar spellings. These are then marked within the resultant gpx file if they match by over 90%. This uses the php similar_text function. This means spelling mistakes or missing apostrophes can be more easily identified. The script: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Tm#Enhanced_OS_Locator_Comparator_Script Results: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bath/OSLocator_Comparison#Latest_Road_Name_Discrepancies One problem with the script is that there could be two roads in the same area with the same name but in different locations. Only one of the names would have to be in the OSM data for the script to throw a positive result for both roads, which means the second unnamed road in OSM goes undetected. Anyway, let me know if you find this useful, or if someone has a more advanced script and I'm just wasting time here! Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator - using in JOSM
All, I've updated the wiki page with the code I've been using, and smartened up the instructions a bit. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bath/OSLocator_Comparison The code isn't perfect (for example, I don't think it works with street names which have an apostrophe - there are probably more problems: if you have a fix, just change the code on the wiki), but as all the checking is manual anyway, this shouldn't matter too much. Also, it is php, not python. You'll need php-cli installed. Thanks Tim --- On Mon, 26/4/10, Ed Loach wrote: From: Ed Loach Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] OS Locator - using in JOSM To: "'Tim François'" Date: Monday, 26 April, 2010, 8:30 Hi Tim The wiki page all seems to be clear until the bit where you “use custom script to compare data”. Are you going to document the script? Or is it mentioned elsewhere and I’m missing it? I’m sort of tempted to try doing the same around me in Essex. Thanks Ed From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Tim François Sent: 25 April 2010 20:51 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator - using in JOSM All, I've just had a go hacking the OSLocator data too for here in Bath. The results look promising: some streets are missing, some streets are spelt incorrectly, whilst others have a ref=* tag, but no name=* tag. What I've done doesn't automatically detect these subtleties of course: it just compares names in OS Locator with names of ways in OSM for the same area, and spits out the names which don't appear in OSM. The results are at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bath/OSLocator_Comparison Hope this will prove useful. Tim --- On Fri, 23/4/10, Brian Quinion wrote: From: Brian Quinion Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator - using in JOSM To: li...@humanleg.org.uk Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Friday, 23 April, 2010, 19:18 On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Robert Scott wrote: > On Wednesday 21 April 2010, David Dixon wrote: >> I've been playing with the OS OpenData Locator dataset, which contains >> the XY coordinates for the ends & midpoint of many of the UK's roads. >> This gazetteer appears to complement the StreetView data - some (short) >> streets whose names are absent from StreetView are included in OS >> Locator. Conversely, some streets named in StreetView are absent from OS >> Locator. This has been on my todo list since the data came out. I'm hoping to get to it next weekend during the hack weekend but if anyone else gets to it first I'll do something else! -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator - using in JOSM
...and to the list --- On Mon, 26/4/10, Tim François wrote: From: Tim François Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] OS Locator - using in JOSM To: "Ed Loach" Date: Monday, 26 April, 2010, 9:04 Whoops, yeah, I will document it on that page: currently the script is horribly inefficient, and I was gonna clean it up today and post the code on the wiki tonight. It's not too long. Oh, and it's in php. Apologies to the haters. :-) Tim --- On Mon, 26/4/10, Ed Loach wrote: From: Ed Loach Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] OS Locator - using in JOSM To: "'Tim François'" Date: Monday, 26 April, 2010, 8:30 Hi Tim The wiki page all seems to be clear until the bit where you “use custom script to compare data”. Are you going to document the script? Or is it mentioned elsewhere and I’m missing it? I’m sort of tempted to try doing the same around me in Essex. Thanks Ed From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Tim François Sent: 25 April 2010 20:51 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator - using in JOSM All, I've just had a go hacking the OSLocator data too for here in Bath. The results look promising: some streets are missing, some streets are spelt incorrectly, whilst others have a ref=* tag, but no name=* tag. What I've done doesn't automatically detect these subtleties of course: it just compares names in OS Locator with names of ways in OSM for the same area, and spits out the names which don't appear in OSM. The results are at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bath/OSLocator_Comparison Hope this will prove useful. Tim --- On Fri, 23/4/10, Brian Quinion wrote: From: Brian Quinion Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator - using in JOSM To: li...@humanleg.org.uk Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Friday, 23 April, 2010, 19:18 On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Robert Scott wrote: > On Wednesday 21 April 2010, David Dixon wrote: >> I've been playing with the OS OpenData Locator dataset, which contains >> the XY coordinates for the ends & midpoint of many of the UK's roads. >> This gazetteer appears to complement the StreetView data - some (short) >> streets whose names are absent from StreetView are included in OS >> Locator. Conversely, some streets named in StreetView are absent from OS >> Locator. This has been on my todo list since the data came out. I'm hoping to get to it next weekend during the hack weekend but if anyone else gets to it first I'll do something else! -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator - using in JOSM
All, I've just had a go hacking the OSLocator data too for here in Bath. The results look promising: some streets are missing, some streets are spelt incorrectly, whilst others have a ref=* tag, but no name=* tag. What I've done doesn't automatically detect these subtleties of course: it just compares names in OS Locator with names of ways in OSM for the same area, and spits out the names which don't appear in OSM. The results are at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bath/OSLocator_Comparison Hope this will prove useful. Tim --- On Fri, 23/4/10, Brian Quinion wrote: From: Brian Quinion Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator - using in JOSM To: li...@humanleg.org.uk Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Friday, 23 April, 2010, 19:18 On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Robert Scott wrote: > On Wednesday 21 April 2010, David Dixon wrote: >> I've been playing with the OS OpenData Locator dataset, which contains >> the XY coordinates for the ends & midpoint of many of the UK's roads. >> This gazetteer appears to complement the StreetView data - some (short) >> streets whose names are absent from StreetView are included in OS >> Locator. Conversely, some streets named in StreetView are absent from OS >> Locator. This has been on my todo list since the data came out. I'm hoping to get to it next weekend during the hack weekend but if anyone else gets to it first I'll do something else! -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Workington Bridges
I think that was the one they 'officially opened' on the One Show yesterday (BBC 1, on the iPlayer now) with a load of RiverDance girls - I kid you not Tim --- On Wed, 21/4/10, Russ Phillips wrote: From: Russ Phillips Subject: [Talk-GB] Workington Bridges To: "OSM Talk-GB" Date: Wednesday, 21 April, 2010, 10:34 After the November floods, the map of Workington [1] in Cumbria was updated very quickly to show the state of the bridges, and the location of the temporary road bridge that was to be built. I've just read on the BBC news site [2] that the temporary bridge is to open today, at 10:30. Can a local please update the map? I'm wary of changing it remotely. I'm giving a presentation/demonstration on OSM to my local LUG soon, and I'd really like to use this as an example of how OSM can be better than commercial maps, especially since TomTom's VP of ecommerce told PC Pro "There are services like OpenStreetMap, and it's good, but sometimes there's not a bridge when it told you there would be." [3], and their map of Workington still routes people over the damaged bridges :) Russ [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.64893&lon=-3.54955&zoom=16 [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8627276.stm [3] http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/356008/tomtom-shrugs-off-free-apps-threat-with-new-iphone-app ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fw: Re: Partial Roads in Route Relations
Thanks for that guys - looks like I must have manually broke a relation then! To work... --- On Wed, 14/4/10, Matt Williams wrote: From: Matt Williams Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Partial Roads in Route Relations To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Wednesday, 14 April, 2010, 15:47 On 14 April 2010 13:53, Tim Francois wrote: > Hi guys, > > This should be quick. > 1) Say I had a bus route which turned onto a street. This turn in to the > street is halfway down, and the route does not encompass the first half of > the street. What's the correct thing to do here? I've been splitting the > street where the bus joins, so only the relevant part is added to the > relation, but this brings me onto part 2... Yes, I believe that it's conventional to split the way and make only that part of it a member of the relation. > 2) Does splitting a street destroy any existing relations on that street? It > seems like I may have broken the ncn through town here...! When you split a way which in in a relation editors should automatically add both the new halves to the relation in the same spot as the original way was. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS StreetView accuracy: caution!
Is using the source:OS_OpenData_{Product} tag good enough as a caveat? Or
should we also add FIXMEs? When I started I used both, but now as the tag
structures for the OS OpenData seems pretty solid I removed the FIXMEs and no
longer add them.
The one time I can think of using a FIXME in addition to the OS tags is for
roads which look like service roads in the OSSV data, but there's no indication
of their surface type. I add a FIXME if I don't know the surface type myself.
Or do we just assume that the OS tags are sufficient ad that people will know
that these should all be surveyed/checked on the ground?
Cheers
Tim
--- On Sun, 11/4/10, Dave F. wrote:
> From: Dave F.
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS StreetView accuracy: caution!
> To: "Tim François"
> Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Date: Sunday, 11 April, 2010, 2:39
> Tim François wrote:
> > I think OS *is* more accurate on the whole,
> I think you're probably correct, but the problem arises
> when we *assume* that it's more accurate in areas where
> we're not knowledgeable of what's on the ground.
>
> That's not to say we shouldn't map, but I think we should,
> as we've been doing before, tag in caveats using the fixme
> or notes tag to say we're uncertain of certain areas.
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS StreetView accuracy: caution!
I think OS *is* more accurate on the whole, after comparing a vast amount of areas with which I'm familiar. Yes, we 'outdo' the OS map in some areas, but probably not in accuracy, more in map 'awesomeness'. I still think that we should be tracing the blank areas with the OSSV data. I've done some and noticed that not all the street names are on the OSSV data. Thus, there's still jobs out there for those who love to go out and survey. Along with getting all the other yummy data such as street furniture, shop names etc. The two methods complement each other well, I think - I'll certainly continue to trace and survey! Tim P.S. I agree with most though on the bulk import - don't do it! --- On Fri, 9/4/10, Robert Scott wrote: > From: Robert Scott > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS StreetView accuracy: caution! > To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Date: Friday, 9 April, 2010, 19:17 > On Friday 09 April 2010, Jason > Cunningham wrote: > > The accuracy of OS data looks vastly superior to our > data. > > I'm not sure I'd agree with that either. > > We do have several places where we easily outdo what's so > far been released. But we also have many areas where we have > next to nothing. > > > robert. > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OSM Error now detects source=OS_OpenData
Great site! I have bug report though. I've done a bit of tracing from the OS SteetView in conjunction with some GPX traces I have. Using the site, I download a GPX file of the area but a load of the waypoint tags have empty lat/lon attributes. i.e. . Download link: http://www.mappage.org/error/error.php?lon_upper_left=-1.1029&lat_bottom_right=52.2599&lon_bottom_right=-0.9364&lat_upper_left=52.3998&ref=0&road=0&name=0&hours=0&source=1&fixme=0&naptan=0&pbref=0&; Cheers Tim Previous Message During all the discussion about OS OpenData, it was suggested that anything derived from OS data should be surveyed on the ground at a later date, since on-the-ground surveying is the preferred method of gathering data. With that in mind, I've added OS OpenData source tags to OSM Error [1]. For those who don't know about it, OSM Error is a simple web app that creates a .gpx waypoint file that you can install onto your GPS, so that when you are out mapping, your GPS can direct you to those locations that need additional data. I originally wrote it to make it easier for me to find bus stops that had been imported from NAPTAN but hadn't been verified, then expanded it to look for various other issues. Russ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView Tiles now available
...snip... As a point of note while I was just doing a little test editing with these tiles, using the WMS function in JOSM I wasn't getting the necessary quality to read the street names, even with a change resolution request, so I swapped out to the slippy map viewer which was much better though I'm not convinced either method gets tile placement exactly right. ...snip... Ah, glad I'm not the only one re. the resolution difference in WMS and SlippyMap. Any idea why? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
Um, not sure if this is the done thing on these here lists, but I'd like to thank you for putting the time in to write that email. It made a lot of sense to me, a relative newbie, and in general it's good to see that so many people care about OSM whatever the different opinions may be. Also: there's an IRC channel? Don't tell me anymore, otherwise I'll never get any work done... Thanks Tim --- On Tue, 6/4/10, Richard Fairhurst wrote: From: Richard Fairhurst Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey To: "talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)" Date: Tuesday, 6 April, 2010, 22:02 Tim François wrote: > Also, be aware that a discussion is also ongoing in the discussion > page: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attribution > (you may be aware, just making sure!) ...and we had quite a lengthy discussion about it on IRC earlier, too. The following is my understanding of how it can work. The new Government licence terms (including OS OpenData) are specifically designed to be compatible with the CC-BY family of licences. The one cited is CC-BY 3.0, but there's nothing that conflicts with CC-BY-SA 2.0, which is of course what we use.[1] The Government, and OS, have gone out of their way to make sure that we can comply with the OS licence by fulfilling CC licence terms. So let's look at what those terms say. CC-BY-SA 2.0 says: > If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly > digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective > Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and > give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means > You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) > of the Original Author if supplied and continues: > in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum > such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit > appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other > comparable authorship credit This is what we're talking about here. Crucially, it is no different from the problem we have with any contributors. You or I could demand that, as rights-holders[2] in the data which we post to OSM, we should be individually "given credit" every time the data is used. Indeed, the letter of the licence appears to say that. We do also know that CC licences were certainly not designed for data, and not expressly for mass collaborative projects either. Spatial law as a discipline is in its infancy; so is open-source law. Open-source collaborative spatial law? I suspect there's only one lawyer in the entire world who even begins to understand that.[3] Whatever. The point is that a licence cannot be read as an isolated text: it exists within a rich legal system. The crucial line in the clause above is "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing". Now anyone with the mis^Wgreat fortune to read legal-talk will recognise that, within our rich legal system, this is the whole "substantial" caboodle twice over. Firstly, like "substantial", "reasonable" is a "how much?" argument, not a binary one. Secondly, the "substantial" question itself is relevant: if it ain't substantial, it ain't protected, therefore you don't need to attribute. If you print an OSM map of Charlbury, CC-BY-SA might say you need to attribute me, because I did lots of it. If you print an OpenCycleMap small-scale overview of the UK National Cycle Network, it might tell you to attribute me and Gregory W, at least. But, and this is a big but, it only needs to be "reasonable", at the same prominence as "any other comparable authorship credit". If you're publishing a glossy large-format printed atlas that names the individual surveyors you've employed, you probably need to name me and Gregory too. If you're distributing a little iPhone app, you can simply link to OSM, where the contributors should be listed. This is a rather long and winding e-mail, but I hope you can now see where I'm going. The important thing is for us to get our own house in order about attribution. We've often been able to get away without it - mostly because OSMers by tradition waive their right to attribution[4], though also because many map views do not involve the substantial work of one contributor. Large-scale data derivation challenges both of these reasons. The first step of getting our house in order is to correctly attribute those contributors who require attribution. Earlier today I committed a new, clearer, and more compliant copyright notice to the core (Rails port) site. It presumably needs to wend its way through OSMF committees for approval or otherwise
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
Any suggestion on how/where we would get clarification from? Also, be aware that a discussion is also ongoing in the discussion page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attribution (you may be aware, just making sure!) Tim --- On Tue, 6/4/10, Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB) wrote: From: Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB) Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Date: Tuesday, 6 April, 2010, 18:50 On 1 April 2010 09:41, Tom Chance wrote: > It's up and available: > http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf > > The main wrinkle seems to be this part on their requirement for attribution: > > "include the same acknowledgement requirement in any sub-licenses of the > data that you grant, and a requirement that any further sub-licenses do the > same" > > Can anyone comment on what that means for us, i.e. whether a simple > note on the wiki as per other imports will suffice? The license requires a particular form of attribution and some other conditions, which they claim are compatible with CC-By. But before we get all enthusiastic about importing or tracing things, I think we need to consider the implications of their licence. My reading is that it would require us to include their attribution statement on any product that uses the data, which would include downloads and OSM's slippy may. It may or may not be enough to link to a "sources" wiki page from the OSM copyright line. More importantly, we also have to ensure that any downstream users are aware of the OS data included, and also ensure that our terms require them to include the OS attribution statement. I don't think the current OSM arrangements would satisfy these requirements, and I'm not sure the viral copyright attributions are something we would really want to accept. I could imagine a point where to print a small OSM derived map in a paper publication would mean including half a dozen copyright lines that would take up more space than the map itself. Moreover, since IIRC ODbL allows rendered maps to be made PD (or any other license) and also allows small data extracts to be used without restriction, I'm not sure that we'd able to use the OS data under their current license if/when we move to ODbL. Until we get clarification on these issues, I'd suggest not importing any of the OS data, or using any of it for tracing. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
"Besides, how do you know the source you're tracing is correct?" Um, because its OS data, and I know the area fairly well - I just don't live there, so can't really do the surveys. And if we're going on the "how do we know the OS data is correct" route, then leave me out! I agree. All those other things would be nice. Lets just wait until a local suddenly finds out about OSM and starts adding them in. Till then, we'll leave the area blank. Even though we have solid data to do otherwise. Sounds crazy, but if that's the opinion of the majority then I'll back down. Cheers Tim --- On Mon, 5/4/10, Jonathan Bennett wrote: From: Jonathan Bennett Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 17:25 On 05/04/2010 16:38, Tim François wrote: > So then the question is: what's more of a problem? Features with no > name, or no features at all? Personally, I'd rather see the road on the > map with no name than not see a road at all, especially when using the > maps for in-car navigation. Which would you rather see: * A map with just streets (maybe including names) or a map with: * streets and names * speed limits * turn restrictions * postboxes * shops * leisure facilities * tourist attractions * footpaths * bridleways * litter bins ...et cetera If someone who is completely new to OSM sees the streets in their area complete, they may assume the map is complete and there's nothing for them to do. If you're going to trace an area, you should be in a position to fill in the rest of the details, otherwise you're just taking the low-hanging fruit and leaving the hard stuff for someone else. Lots of mappers *do* do this, but putting off potential mappers is a good reason not to go charging into imports and/or tracing, or any other sort of non-survey based mapping. Besides, how do you know the source you're tracing is correct? -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
So then the question is: what's more of a problem? Features with no name, or no features at all? Personally, I'd rather see the road on the map with no name than not see a road at all, especially when using the maps for in-car navigation. The pro with the StreetView data for your specific example is that it includes street names for nearly every road. I guess we can't tell if you hadn't mapped the area whether someone would have come along to survey it or not... Tim --- On Mon, 5/4/10, Tom Hughes wrote: From: Tom Hughes Subject: Re: Ordnance Survey To: "Tim François" Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 16:28 On 05/04/10 15:43, Tim François wrote: > I understand that with an area mapped there is less impetus to head on > over and start making tracks and surveying. But just leaving the area > blank when we have this fantastic opportunity to populate seems silly, > no? This far down the line, it doesn't look like there are any mappers > in the immediate area of which I was talking about. I speak from personal experience - when we first got the Yahoo imagery I enthusiastically traced the nearest largely unmapped area to me (Harlow) from the images. That was several years ago and to this day most of the roads in Harlow exist but are unnamed because nobody has taken up the baton. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
The idea of OSM, as I see it, is to create a free-as-in-speech map of the world. All data which goes into the map must be the same sort of 'free'. Whether that be surveying or "copying other people's maps" is irrelevant - the end goal is to create a complete map. Encouraging people to start on OSM is difficult. Tracing the roads can be done today. And as you say, many places on the OSM map have much better coverage than OS StreetView. I wasn't suggesting changing them because of OS StreetView. I'm just suggesting filling in the blank parts of the country as we have the data and resources to do so *now*. Or at least we should be discussing why we can and can't, which we are now - progress!! Thanks Tim --- On Mon, 5/4/10, Chris Hill wrote: From: Chris Hill Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 16:02 Tim François wrote: > So the solution is to just leave it blank? > Maybe the soution is to encourage people to treat OSM as an outdoor sport, gathering GPS tracks and LOTS of extra data that no one else's maps have, rather than an armchair hobby copying other people's maps. Cheers, Chris P.S. There are large chunks of GB 'up North of Northampton' that are already better quality than OS Streetview ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
So the solution is to just leave it blank? I understand that with an area mapped there is less impetus to head on over and start making tracks and surveying. But just leaving the area blank when we have this fantastic opportunity to populate seems silly, no? This far down the line, it doesn't look like there are any mappers in the immediate area of which I was talking about. I'd also like to point out that nowhere have I mentioned imports, bulk-imports or anything like that - I just wanna manually trace and manually add road names!!! (Tom: I know you also mentioned remote mapping, which *is* what I meant, so thanks!!) Tim --- On Mon, 5/4/10, Tom Hughes wrote: From: Tom Hughes Subject: Re: Ordnance Survey To: "Tim Francois" Cc: r...@phillipsuk.org, "'OSM Talk-GB'" Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 15:26 On 02/04/10 12:02, Tim Francois wrote: > I haven't done all the roads yet, nor named all of them, nor added any > source tags (not sure which one yet). My intention is just to get the roads > in to this forgotten area, for someone else to go verify them with a GPS > later (though judging by the lack of tracks in the area, not many mappers > about around here?). I added FIXME tags to most roads. The problem is that experience has taught us that once an area has the look of having been mapped by having lots of roads in place it is much less likely that somebody local will jump in and start doing a proper survey of the area. That's why we are much less keen on bulk imports and remote mapping from aerial images etc than we used to be. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
I did some naughty tracing on 1st April to see what the data was like, and I used source=OS StreetView. I do prefer source=os_streetview as it's caps-independent and has no whitespace (much easier to parse if needed...) --- On Mon, 5/4/10, John Robert Peterson wrote: From: John Robert Peterson Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey To: "Tim François" Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 14:10 Put differently -- can anyone think of any specific reason why we can't start tracing? The only thing I can think of is to make sure that we are very careful to include: source=os_meridian2 source=os_streetview source=os_etc Or whatever the particular dataset you are using is, on each way (or node if applicable) you are editing or creating. I don't think the suggestion of hampering import work is a real point, because any import will have to work around all of our other data anyway -- right? Just be prepared for the potential that any tracing work done with the above tags wiped in an import later. (Note, I am geniunly asking a question above, what does everyone think?...) Thanks, JR On 5 April 2010 13:54, Tim François wrote: > > Um, what he said. That's what I really meant with my previous rant! > > --- On Mon, 5/4/10, Seventy 7 wrote: > > From: Seventy 7 > Subject: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey > To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 13:32 > > > ... 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 mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
Um, what he said. That's what I really meant with my previous rant! --- On Mon, 5/4/10, Seventy 7 wrote: From: Seventy 7 Subject: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 13:32 > ... 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 mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
That's all well and good (I've been editing some of that wiki, so am aware of it!!) but all I see in this mailing list is quick discussions of comparisons, but no real conclusions. Also, why bother to spend the vast amount of time creating tiles if we're not gonna trace it? Street names we can just visually add by opening the tiff in an image viewer, so have we gone to fast by creating the tiles? Or was it all just to create pretty comparison pictures? It's 5 days since the data came out (kinda) - am I being too impatient? Tim --- On Mon, 5/4/10, Jonathan Bennett wrote: From: Jonathan Bennett Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 12:58 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
Looks interesting! I have some spare time, computing capacity and programming experience, so if you want me to help I can. Otherwise, I'm waiting patiently! Thanks Tim --- On Fri, 2/4/10, Richard Fairhurst wrote: From: Richard Fairhurst Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey To: "Tim Francois" Cc: "'talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)'" Date: Friday, 2 April, 2010, 12:55 Tim Francois wrote: > Ah, I see - I've been following the mailing list but must have missed that > memo. No problem, I'll hold fire! :) > > (Out of interest, how is an image tile reprojected? Any good references I > could read? Just curious...) A wonderful suite of programs called gdal is your friend. :) The process is pretty much: 1. read StreetView tile 2. add a bit of border from the surrounding tiles 3. reproject using gdalwarp 4. slice into 900913 tiles and save them 5. repeat over entire dataset It's exactly the same as we've done with the out-of-copyright maps, but with the helpful addition that we don't have to faff rectifying them first. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
