Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes

[Bob Kerr]

Hi, 
I have found Musical chairs to be good to solve that problem
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OS_Locator_Musical_Chairs/FAQ
Cheers
Bob
--- On Thu, 4/11/10, Ed Avis  wrote:

From: Ed Avis 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - 
apostrophes
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Date: Thursday, 4 November, 2010, 14:23

I am sorry to reopen this topic but I think it would be a good idea to 
reconsider
the checking of punctuation in the OS Locator tiles.

Look at central Exeter for example:
<http://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=15&lat=50.72407&lon=-3.52609&layers=B0TF>

Three-quarters of the differences reported here are in the presence or absence
of a single apostrophe.  This masks the more important discrepancies and makes
the report less useful.

I know that in principle, apostrophe differences can be resurveyed, tracked
down, investigated with phone calls to the council's naming department, etc.
But in practice many mappers will prefer to concentrate on substantial
differences and missing streets, considering punctuation less important.

Perhaps, then, a set of tiles can be produced which strips punctuation from
both the OSM and OS names before comparing?  This would clearly flag up the
things which need more urgent checking.

-- 
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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes

[Ed Avis]

I am sorry to reopen this topic but I think it would be a good idea to 
reconsider
the checking of punctuation in the OS Locator tiles.

Look at central Exeter for example:


Three-quarters of the differences reported here are in the presence or absence
of a single apostrophe.  This masks the more important discrepancies and makes
the report less useful.

I know that in principle, apostrophe differences can be resurveyed, tracked
down, investigated with phone calls to the council's naming department, etc.
But in practice many mappers will prefer to concentrate on substantial
differences and missing streets, considering punctuation less important.

Perhaps, then, a set of tiles can be produced which strips punctuation from
both the OSM and OS names before comparing?  This would clearly flag up the
things which need more urgent checking.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[ael]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 06:14:42PM +, Ed Avis wrote:
> ael  writes:
> 
> >And I would take a dim view of anyone removing names that I have 
> >entered from gps and photos unless there was a very good reason.
> 
> A different name in the Ordnance Survey maps is such a very good reason.

That a good reason for *changing* the name, not removing it. Applications
like navit can't be expected to look at FIXME comments. A name matching
what is on the street signs is more useful to someone using a sat nav
than the official name. Not that I am objecting to "correcting" it,
just removing it from the name tag.

I think that you are not considering the whole range of applications of
osm.

ael

___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Ed Avis]

OK, I will change my way of working for this task.  The name tag will hold the
most likely name based on currently available information, even if it needs
a resurvey to be certain.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Tom Chance]

Quite. The various OS comparison tools are enough to know which roads need
checking without removing the name.

Tom

Sent from my phone.

On Jul 15, 2010 12:02 AM, "Tom Hughes"  wrote:

On 14/07/10 23:44, Ed Avis wrote: > I quite agree, there are plenty of
errors in the OS data and ev...
Nobody is arguing that the names shouldn't be rechecked where there is a
conflict - they're simply saying that it is daft to remove the current name
before the resurvey has been done.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___ Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org htt...
___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Tom Hughes]

On 14/07/10 23:44, Ed Avis wrote:


I quite agree, there are plenty of errors in the OS data and even cases where
Locator and Street View disagree.  However that doesn't affect the general rule
that, where OS and OSM disagree, it is more likely than not that OS is
correct and OSM is wrong.  At least based on the London streets I have 
resurveyed
or otherwise checked so far.

If OS were infallible there would be no need to mark things for rechecking - we
could simply blast out all the conflicting names from OSM and use OS ones
instead.  This is not the case.


Nobody is arguing that the names shouldn't be rechecked where there is a 
conflict - they're simply saying that it is daft to remove the current 
name before the resurvey has been done.


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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Ed Avis]

I quite agree, there are plenty of errors in the OS data and even cases where
Locator and Street View disagree.  However that doesn't affect the general rule
that, where OS and OSM disagree, it is more likely than not that OS is
correct and OSM is wrong.  At least based on the London streets I have 
resurveyed
or otherwise checked so far.

If OS were infallible there would be no need to mark things for rechecking - we
could simply blast out all the conflicting names from OSM and use OS ones
instead.  This is not the case.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Andrew]

Ed Avis  writes:

> A different name in the Ordnance Survey maps is such a very good reason.

I have found a significant number of mistakes in OS Streetview/Locator. Examples
I have surveyed personally are Hanway Street in the West End where SV wrongly
calls the Oxford Street end Hanway Place, Queens Road in Kingston which is spelt
with an apostrophe in Locator but not the street signs and Ventnor Street in
Manchester that is misspelt differently by Streetview and Locator. All three of
these were mapped correctly at the time of the OpenData release.

--
Andrew


___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Ed Avis]

ael  writes:

>And I would take a dim view of anyone removing names that I have 
>entered from gps and photos unless there was a very good reason.

A different name in the Ordnance Survey maps is such a very good reason.
I know we all like to imagine that our own data quality from many rain-soaked
trudges through the streets with GPS receivers must automatically be superior
to all outside sources, but sadly it just isn't the case.  From the streets I've
rechecked in London, it is far more likely that OSM is wrong than that OS is
wrong.  This also includes streets that I have mapped myself from surveys
and written notes.

It can be something as simple as clicking on a road to add the name to it, not
realizing that the road has two names along its length, and you only saw the
sign at one end.  This is a fairly common occurrence in OSM data; yes, the name
was surveyed from photographs or eyeballing, but yet it is not entirely correct.

Of course, the original work of surveying is not lost.  Both the original name
entered into OSM and the name found in OS are preserved in the FIXME tag.  But
if the name is most likely incorrect, it surely shouldn't be in the 'name' tag.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[ael]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:19:31AM +0100, Tom Evans wrote:
> >
> >Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows up in 
> >noname
> >checks to be resurveyed (and because the correct name is unknown).
> 
> Isn't that last act a little rash?
> 
> Apart from anything else, there are people *using* OSM data (me for
> one).  If they look at the main site, or a Garmin map generated

I agree: I use navit and gosmore on a satnav. Suddenly having names
vanish unless they are manifestly wrong is seriously antisocial.

And I would take a dim view of anyone removing names that I have 
entered from gps and photos unless there was a very good reason.

ael

___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Ed Avis]

Robert Scott  writes:

>>With all this talk of changing street names, can i just remind you to make 
>>sure
>>that if you are changing street names that there are no addresses liked to 
>>that
>>street.

>Perhaps this is the job of some other analysis tool that simply checks a nearby
>same-named highway exists for every stated addr:street.

Yes, this would be a good idea.  I'm not aware of any tool that does it;
Geofabrik's OSM Inspector has a 'street not found' check for addresses but I
believe this just flags where no addr:street tag exists.

In practice, where differences arise between OS and OSM data and it is necessary
to change OSM, this is in areas without addresses.  The more thoroughly-mapped
parts of OSM have higher data quality and tend to reconcile cleanly with OS.
It's also unlikely that anybody would manage to get the wrong street name
repeatedly, both for the street and for buildings along it; and if I did happen
to see such a case, I'd assume that the extra address data gives more chance 
that
OSM is correct and OS is wrong.

(The above generalization is based on central and north London - other parts of
the country may have different data quality in both OS and OSM data sets.)

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Robert Scott]

On Wednesday 14 July 2010, Sam Larsen wrote:
> With all this talk of changing street names, can i just remind you to make 
> sure 
> that if you are changing street names that there are no addresses liked to 
> that 
> street.  I have added many addresses linked to streets using Karlsruhe schema 
> (without relations) - i guess this is where relations would help.  I just did 
> it 
> the way the germans did it - they seem to know what they are doing.  If there 
> are, either change them also, or add a fixme tag or something.

I must admit I hadn't thought about this. This would complicate the situation 
slightly.

Perhaps this is the job of some other analysis tool that simply checks a nearby 
same-named highway exists for every stated addr:street. This would prompt on 
situations where the highway was fixed but not the addr:street. Does keepright 
do something like this?


robert.

___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Ed Avis]

Tom Evans  writes:

>>I will only tag names for resurveying round my local area where I know that
>>I'll be able to go out and check them before too long.
>
>Fair enough.  If you're always fixing it soon afterwards it doesn't 
>really matter much.
> 
>But in that case why not just go do it - why change the database first?
>If you tag the discrepancy you're only likely to attract somebody 
>else's attention (which you don't actually want if you're definitely 
>going to check it yourself soon - no point in both of you resurveying 
>the same place straight away).

I must admit, the main reason to do it this way round is to make use of
existing noname-checking tools such as Cloudmade's Garmin map or the
beta.letuffe.org noname overlay.

As for attracting somebody else's attention, I'm not bothered about that,
I'd be quite happy for someone else to check it if they happened to be in the
area, and equally happy to wander around checking things added to the map
by others.

>Are most of the incorrect entries not just a 
>little bit wrong?  i.e. misspelt, but still better than missing data.

The differences between OS and OSM broadly fall into a few categories.

- Trivia such as punctuation or abbreviations.  For abbreviations like 'Ln'
  or 'Rd' I will make sure that OSM has the long form of the name even if
  OS doesn't.  Apostrophes have been discussed elsewhere on this list; I
  make some attempt to research what the correct name is and will only change
  OSM if I'm confident the new value is more correct.  I would not unset
  name= just for these mismatches - they don't really need a resurvey.

- Obvious typos in OSM - corrected immediately (check both spellings with
  a web search just in case).

- Not-so-obvious typos, for example Elverton Street in Westminster was tagged
  as name=Everton Street.  Here I will unset the name tag to prompt a resurvey.
  (In the above case, as in most cases, OS is correct.)

- Cases where OS is more detailed than OSM.  Usually a long road will have
  two different names in OS while in OSM the same name has been tagged all
  the way along.  This is very common and almost always OS is correct.
  On the section of street where OS and OSM disagree, I will remove the name
  and add a FIXME note.  However, the rest of the street still has its name.
  I'm tempted to just add the name from OS, but to be even-handed I feel a
  resurvey is best.

- Minor name differences, often Lane versus Street versus Avenue.  Admittedly
  it might be better to leave the existing name in place here, since it is
  better than nothing.  OS is usually correct here but not overwhelmingly so.

- Completely different names - it always puzzles me where these come from.
  (A recent example is Castle Lane in Westminster, which had been tagged as
  name=Westminster Lane.  Both street signs agree with OS.)  Again I normally
  unset the name tag to prompt a resurvey.  I haven't checked enough of these
  examples to assess the general likelihood that OS is correct.

>I see your argument about the relative likelihood of the two answers.  
>I think replacing with OS would be better than temporarily removing the 
>name entirely.  Something rankles about overriding the guy/gal who did 
>a ground survey without going to the spot to check first though.

Yes, and that consideration is often why I don't simply put the OS name in
instead.  Putting both alternatives in a FIXME note and leaving the name
unset is partly so I'm not favouring one side or the other.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Sam Larsen]

With all this talk of changing street names, can i just remind you to make sure 
that if you are changing street names that there are no addresses liked to that 
street.  I have added many addresses linked to streets using Karlsruhe schema 
(without relations) - i guess this is where relations would help.  I just did 
it 
the way the germans did it - they seem to know what they are doing.  If there 
are, either change them also, or add a fixme tag or something.

Thanks,
Sam


- Original Message 
> From: Robert Scott 
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Sent: Wed, 14 July, 2010 11:08:03
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - 
> handling 
>already-tagged fixmes
> 
> On Wednesday 14 July 2010, Ed Avis wrote:
> > Thanks for getting the OS  Locator tiles updating again.  Could I make a 
>feature
> >  request?
> > 
> > Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this in the  OSM database with a 
>note
> > such as
> > 
> >  FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Maresfield Gardens
> > 
> > Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows up  in 
>noname
> > checks to be resurveyed (and because the correct name is  unknown).
> > 
> > It would be useful for these already-looked-at cases  to be excluded from 
the
> > Locator check, since they are being flagged  separately by noname checks.  
> > I 
>know
> > this was briefly discussed  earlier on the list.
> > 
> > We could spend all month discussing a  suitably elaborate tagging scheme of
> >  fixme:name:OS_OpenData_Locator:resurvey=yes;osm_value=x;os_value=y.   
>However,
> > I propose not inventing any new tagging for this.  Rather,  look to see if 
>the
> > OS name is mentioned as a substring in one of the tag  values.  That would 
>show
> > that somebody at least is aware of it, and  would catch various tagging 
>schemes
> > including the FIXME one I've been  using.
> 
> I really think this is exactly the sort of thing that does not  belong in the 
>OSM database, which is why I am working on a separate but  connected database 
>of 
>manually overridable match states. Development isn't as  fast as I'd like it 
>to 
>be due to work constraints and my home processing power  being limited 
>(testing 
>can take a  while).
> 
> 
> 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Robert Scott]

On Wednesday 14 July 2010, Ed Avis wrote:
> Thanks for getting the OS Locator tiles updating again.  Could I make a 
> feature
> request?
> 
> Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this in the OSM database with a note
> such as
> 
> FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Maresfield Gardens
> 
> Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows up in 
> noname
> checks to be resurveyed (and because the correct name is unknown).
> 
> It would be useful for these already-looked-at cases to be excluded from the
> Locator check, since they are being flagged separately by noname checks.  I 
> know
> this was briefly discussed earlier on the list.
> 
> We could spend all month discussing a suitably elaborate tagging scheme of
> fixme:name:OS_OpenData_Locator:resurvey=yes;osm_value=x;os_value=y.  However,
> I propose not inventing any new tagging for this.  Rather, look to see if the
> OS name is mentioned as a substring in one of the tag values.  That would show
> that somebody at least is aware of it, and would catch various tagging schemes
> including the FIXME one I've been using.

I really think this is exactly the sort of thing that does not belong in the 
OSM database, which is why I am working on a separate but connected database of 
manually overridable match states. Development isn't as fast as I'd like it to 
be due to work constraints and my home processing power being limited (testing 
can take a while).


robert.

___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Tom Evans]

> Perhaps what is required is a new hierarchy, like:
> 
> query
> 
> so you might then have query:tag_name

I was thinking of something like checkname=yes actually.

But no objection - I was just thinking of getting something working 
rather than planning a more generalised query tagging system.

Tom

___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Richard Mann]

I'd go for

fixme:name=OSSV has xyz

or (if you really think OSSV is superior)

fixme:name=was xyz but I've assumed OSSV is correct pending survey

Richard



On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Ian Spencer  wrote:
> Tom Evans wrote on 14/07/2010 09:19:
>>
>>
>> As another suggestion: Is there a special tag we can add to force it to
>> highlight on the noname check without actually destroying the name tag?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
> Perhaps what is required is a new hierarchy, like:
>
> query
>
> so you might then have query:tag_name
>
> Not sure how tags work with multiple instances, but I guess you might have:
>
> query:name;surface
>
> and perhaps sometimes you might want
>
> query:path or query:route where you are not happy that the map properly
> reflects what is on the ground.
>
> Spenny
>
> ___
> 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Tom Evans]

> I will only tag names for resurveying round my local area where I know that
> I'll be able to go out and check them before too long.

Fair enough.  If you're always fixing it soon afterwards it doesn't 
really matter much.

But in that case why not just go do it - why change the database first?  
If you tag the discrepancy you're only likely to attract somebody 
else's attention (which you don't actually want if you're definitely 
going to check it yourself soon - no point in both of you resurveying 
the same place straight away).

> In general, I suggest that the procedure to follow depends on an estimate
> of the relative quality of the two data sets.  I certainly wouldn't remove
> the OSM name tag just because of some suspicion that it might possibly be
> wrong; in these cases the right thing is to tag a FIXME and leave the data
> in place.  But if it's more likely than not that OSM is incorrect, is there
> really a strong reason to leave the probably-wrong name in place?  Surely
> incorrect data on the map is just as bad as missing data?

Regarding the last point: Are most of the incorrect entries not just a 
little bit wrong?  i.e. misspelt, but still better than missing data.

I see your argument about the relative likelihood of the two answers.  
I think replacing with OS would be better than temporarily removing the 
name entirely.  Something rankles about overriding the guy/gal who did 
a ground survey without going to the spot to check first though.

Tom

___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Ian Spencer]

Tom Evans wrote on 14/07/2010 09:19:



As another suggestion: Is there a special tag we can add to force it 
to highlight on the noname check without actually destroying the name 
tag?


Tom



Perhaps what is required is a new hierarchy, like:

query

so you might then have query:tag_name

Not sure how tags work with multiple instances, but I guess you might have:

query:name;surface

and perhaps sometimes you might want

query:path or query:route where you are not happy that the map properly 
reflects what is on the ground.


Spenny

___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Derick Rethans]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Tom Evans wrote:

> > Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this in the OSM database 
> > with a note such as
> > 
> >  FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Maresfield Gardens
> > 
> > Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows 
> > up in noname checks to be resurveyed (and because the correct name 
> > is unknown).
> 
> Isn't that last act a little rash?
> 
> You then create a system where somebody goes out and maps stuff, but then
> whenever we have another source (of which there are a growing number) which
> disagrees, data gets cleared, then maybe restored later after somebody goes
> out there again?  How about in any case of disagreement you flag it, but leave
> the data *exactly as it is* until someone can go and check it?

That sounds like a much better idea to me too. I thought some people 
already used not:name as well? I would find it a bit rude of people 
removed data that I put in; especially when it's surveyed and OS is just 
wrong. And it really doesn't matter too much if there is an "'" missing 
or a slightly mistyped name. The map is still usable with that.

regards,
Derick

-- 
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug

___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Ed Avis]

Tom Evans  writes:

>>Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this

>>  FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Maresfield Gardens
>>
>>Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows up in
>>noname checks to be resurveyed (and because the correct name is unknown).
>
>Isn't that last act a little rash?
> 
>You then create a system where somebody goes out and maps stuff, but 
>then whenever we have another source (of which there are a growing 
>number) which disagrees, data gets cleared, then maybe restored later 
>after somebody goes out there again?  How about in any case of 
>disagreement you flag it, but leave the data *exactly as it is* until 
>someone can go and check it?

I've now resurveyed many street names around London where the OSM name
was different from OS.  Ten to one, the Ordnance Survey data is correct
and OSM was wrong.  Only in a tiny number of cases did I find that OS
was incorrect (and tagged not:name for them to fix it).

I will only tag names for resurveying round my local area where I know that
I'll be able to go out and check them before too long.

In general, I suggest that the procedure to follow depends on an estimate
of the relative quality of the two data sets.  I certainly wouldn't remove
the OSM name tag just because of some suspicion that it might possibly be
wrong; in these cases the right thing is to tag a FIXME and leave the data
in place.  But if it's more likely than not that OSM is incorrect, is there
really a strong reason to leave the probably-wrong name in place?  Surely
incorrect data on the map is just as bad as missing data?

>As another suggestion: Is there a special tag we can add to force it to 
>highlight on the noname check without actually destroying the name tag?

That would be a good idea.

However, if you think it's important that the name be left in place rather
than removed, I would suggest the best thing to do is to put the Ordnance
Survey name in as 'name' and leave the former OSM name in a note.  At least
in London, my experience is that the OS data is generally of higher quality,
and if you had to pick one or the other, I'd go with OS by default unless
it's specifically tagged that OS is wrong.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Tom Evans]

Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this in the OSM database with a note
such as

 FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Maresfield Gardens

Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows up in noname
checks to be resurveyed (and because the correct name is unknown).


Isn't that last act a little rash?

You then create a system where somebody goes out and maps stuff, but 
then whenever we have another source (of which there are a growing 
number) which disagrees, data gets cleared, then maybe restored later 
after somebody goes out there again?  How about in any case of 
disagreement you flag it, but leave the data *exactly as it is* until 
someone can go and check it?


Apart from anything else, there are people *using* OSM data (me for 
one).  If they look at the main site, or a Garmin map generated while 
the name was removed, what do they get?  In this case, you've just 
removed a useful street name because you had a small doubt that it 
wasn't perfect.


As another suggestion: Is there a special tag we can add to force it to 
highlight on the noname check without actually destroying the name tag?


Tom

___
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 - handling already-tagged fixmes

[Ed Avis]

Thanks for getting the OS Locator tiles updating again.  Could I make a feature
request?

Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this in the OSM database with a note
such as

FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Maresfield Gardens

Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows up in noname
checks to be resurveyed (and because the correct name is unknown).

It would be useful for these already-looked-at cases to be excluded from the
Locator check, since they are being flagged separately by noname checks.  I know
this was briefly discussed earlier on the list.

We could spend all month discussing a suitably elaborate tagging scheme of
fixme:name:OS_OpenData_Locator:resurvey=yes;osm_value=x;os_value=y.  However,
I propose not inventing any new tagging for this.  Rather, look to see if the
OS name is mentioned as a substring in one of the tag values.  That would show
that somebody at least is aware of it, and would catch various tagging schemes
including the FIXME one I've been using.

So, if the street has no name= tag, but does have some tag mentioning the OS
street name, then consider it matched against OS for the purposes of the Locator
comparison tiles.  Would other people also find this useful?

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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

[Robert Scott]

On Tuesday 13 July 2010, Peter Miller wrote:
> We took a look and there was indeed a problem with it refusing to use  
> the recent planet data! We have fixed it and everything should be  
> working fine again now.
> 
> Thanks for reporting it. The delay in responding was caused both by  
> journey back from sotm and then getting to the bottom of the issue.

Peter,

If you like, when I get my automated updates to musical chairs going properly*, 
I could engineer some way of providing regular dumps of data that you could 
render from. This way your tiles would also have fuzzy near matches.

Let me know if you want me to do something about it.


robert.

* am investigating doing minutely (effectively live) updates, which is _very_ 
exciting, or at least as exciting as automated street name matching gets.

___
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

[Peter Miller]

On 11 Jul 2010, at 09:43, Ed Avis wrote:

The OS Locator tiles produced by ITO don't seem to be updating; for  
example

this street was updated on July 8th:

but the tiles, even though dated July 10th, haven't picked up the  
change:



Could you have a look when you get a moment?


We took a look and there was indeed a problem with it refusing to use  
the recent planet data! We have fixed it and everything should be  
working fine again now.


Thanks for reporting it. The delay in responding was caused both by  
journey back from sotm and then getting to the bottom of the issue.



Regards,


Peter Miller
ITO World Ltd




--
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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Ed Avis]

The OS Locator tiles produced by ITO don't seem to be updating; for example
this street was updated on July 8th:

but the tiles, even though dated July 10th, haven't picked up the change:


Could you have a look when you get a moment?

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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

[Ed Avis]

David Groom pointed out that he did suggest putting apostrophe mismatches
in a different colour.

Perhaps a Levenshtein distance between OS and OSM street names could be 
computed:
find all the OSM names in the bounding box, pick the one with the closest
Levenshtein distance, and then colour the rectangle accordingly, with less
saturated colours being used for closer matches...

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ed Avis" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]Map layer with OS Locator comparison from 
ITO -apostrophes


>
> Peter Miller  writes:
>
>>I suggest we continue to flag alternative versions for which there is
>>no proven valid usage using not:name but where an alternative official
>>name is found (ie in the legal name or a past name or even one in
>>local usage) then we should put that in alt:name.
>
> I think alt_name is more common than alt:name.
>
> For trivial differences such as apostrophes or capitalization it doesn't
> make any sense to add an alt_name, I feel.  Anyone using the data - 
> whether
> a computer program or a human - is quite able to ignore punctuation when
> comparing strings, and so the additional tags don't add any value.  But 
> they
> can be added as not:name for the purposes of this data check.
>
>>1) There is a proposal to mark apostrophe differences in a single
>>colour.
>
> I don't believe anyone suggested that; I thought of removing them 
> altogether
> (in which case the single colour would be white!) but later accepted they 
> might
> as well be cleaned up with the other stuff.

Yes they did :)
I suggested it yesterday.

David

>
> -- 
> 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO -apostrophes

[Ed Avis]

Peter Miller  writes:

>I suggest we continue to flag alternative versions for which there is  
>no proven valid usage using not:name but where an alternative official  
>name is found (ie in the legal name or a past name or even one in  
>local usage) then we should put that in alt:name.

I think alt_name is more common than alt:name.

For trivial differences such as apostrophes or capitalization it doesn't
make any sense to add an alt_name, I feel.  Anyone using the data - whether
a computer program or a human - is quite able to ignore punctuation when
comparing strings, and so the additional tags don't add any value.  But they
can be added as not:name for the purposes of this data check.

>1) There is a proposal to mark apostrophe differences in a single  
>colour.

I don't believe anyone suggested that; I thought of removing them altogether
(in which case the single colour would be white!) but later accepted they might
as well be cleaned up with the other stuff.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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

[Peter Miller]

On 14 Jun 2010, at 15:11, David Groom wrote:

>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ed Avis" 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO -
> apostrophes
>
>
>>
>> At the risk of reopening the apostrophes war, my point is that  
>> 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.   
>> Similarly,
>> we
>> do not report a mismatch between High Street and HIGH STREET, even  
>> though
>> the OS
>> map and data uses upper case, and most councils use it for street  
>> signs.
>>
>> However, I've changed my mind - we might as well clear up  
>> apostrophes and
>> abbreviations at the same time as other things, it's not an  
>> obstacle to
>> fixing
>> the more serious discrepancies.  So I'm happy for them to be flagged.
>>
>>
>
> Rather than simply deciding should these be flagged / should these  
> not be
> flagged, would it not be simpler if where the difference between  OS  
> Locator
> and OSM were just an apostrophe, then the map tiles used just one  
> specific
> colour (and maybe in particular one of the pale colours).
>
> Then everyone should be happy :)
>
> All differences are flagged, but it's much easy to spot (and ignore)  
> the
> apostrophe difference.

Just to let people know that we are listening to the conversation even  
though I am not contributing today.

I do get the impression that apostrophes are in more of a muddle  
across street signs/OSM and the OS than other aspects of the data and  
I do think that we should continue to record the name on the street  
sign as the primary name and highlight the differences between that  
and OS Locator.

I suggest we continue to flag alternative versions for which there is  
no proven valid usage using not:name but where an alternative official  
name is found (ie in the legal name or a past name or even one in  
local usage) then we should put that in alt:name.

One limitation from our side at present is that the primary author of  
the code is on holiday now and I would suggest that we sort out any  
changes that we would like to see ready for his return, possibly we  
could assemble these on the wiki. In summary.

 From the recent debate I believe we have the following so far which  
we will consider:

1) There is a proposal to mark apostrophe differences in a single  
colour.
2) There are some queries from Ed Loach, particularly about drive-ways  
which we may well be ignoring.


Any more?



Regards,


Peter




Regards,


Peter



>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ed Avis" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - 
apostrophes


>
> At the risk of reopening the apostrophes war, my point is that 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.  Similarly, 
> we
> do not report a mismatch between High Street and HIGH STREET, even though 
> the OS
> map and data uses upper case, and most councils use it for street signs.
>
> However, I've changed my mind - we might as well clear up apostrophes and
> abbreviations at the same time as other things, it's not an obstacle to 
> fixing
> the more serious discrepancies.  So I'm happy for them to be flagged.
>
>

Rather than simply deciding should these be flagged / should these not be 
flagged, would it not be simpler if where the difference between  OS Locator 
and OSM were just an apostrophe, then the map tiles used just one specific 
colour (and maybe in particular one of the pale colours).

Then everyone should be happy :)

All differences are flagged, but it's much easy to spot (and ignore) the 
apostrophe difference.

David 





___
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

[Ed Avis]

The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks' Eyes.’”

“Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel interested.

“No, you don't understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed. “That's 
what
the name is called. The name really is ‘The Aged Aged Man.’”

“Then I ought to have said ‘That's what the song is called’?” Alice corrected
herself.

“No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called ‘Ways And
Means’: but that's only what it's called, you know!”

“Well, what is the song, then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely
bewildered.

“I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ‘A-sitting On A
Gate’: and the tune's my own invention.”



___
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

[Ed Loach]

I went out at the weekend to resurvey all the highlighted roads in
this district (Tendring, Essex - about 38 IIRC). Many of these were
apostrophe related and I was beginning to think that the district
had a policy of not including apostrophes on street signs until I
came to one where they had. While entering the notes from my survey
I noticed that Streetview and Locator disagreed on apostrophe usage
in places, too. Anyway, I have the name as entered on the signs in
OSM, and if it differs from the OS Locator tiles I've put the
version with apostrophe in the not:name tag with a not:name:note (as
suggested here at some point) that there is no apostrophe on the
street sign. If these then feed back to OS they can choose whether
they care or not. But surely whatever is on the ground *is* the name
of the street, however anyone else punctuates it. 

Anyway, I think that this district is sort of road and name complete
now (after a check this morning to see which of my survey info I had
omitted to enter on Saturday), though I have emailed ITO to ask them
to consider (if they don't already) highway=track, highway=service,
old_name, alt_name and to look into a couple of cases where the road
had the right name originally but was slightly misaligned (by both
Streetview and uploaded GPS traces), and just nudging a couple of
nodes doesn't seem to have been spotted as a correction (which I
could perhaps rectify by adding a new node to the ways in question).

Future surveys I do in the area will have to include any roads with
source=OS*, source=NPE, or source:name=OS* just so I can be happy
that they are correct. Yesterday I had to walk a footpath which went
through a rectangle in the middle of nowhere, just so I could add a
not:name tag (as it turned out the rectangle related to the driveway
to a farmhouse on only one side of a parish boundary, which the
footpath followed for a short way, and was the name of the road
where the driveway eventually came out in the adjacent parish).

Ed


___
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

[Steve Doerr]

From: "Ed Avis" 
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:54 PM
> At the risk of reopening the apostrophes war, my point is that 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.  Similarly, 
> we
> do not report a mismatch between High Street and HIGH STREET, even though 
> the OS
> map and data uses upper case, and most councils use it for street signs.
>
> However, I've changed my mind - we might as well clear up apostrophes and
> abbreviations at the same time as other things, it's not an obstacle to 
> fixing
> the more serious discrepancies.  So I'm happy for them to be flagged.

One place where I'd wager the OS is wrong is "PEPY'S WAY" in Strood!

-- 
Steve 



___
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

[Ed Avis]

You are right that OS data can have mistakes, and should not automatically
override what's in OSM now.  To resolve a difference (whether of apostrophes
or anything else) you need to use independent sources such as postal addresses,
local knowledge or histories of the area.

Rather than adding a note tag for every such case, I usually explain the sources
used in the comment to the changelog (so that viewing the object's history will
show it).  In a particularly complicated case I would add a note tag.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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

[Chris Hill]

Tim François wrote:
> "...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
>
+1

If you have a strong reason to not use the name on the ground add a note 
tag to explain. OS names do have errors and IMO should not override what 
is found on the ground. Names on street signs that are wrong attract 
attention and correction from locals.

Cheers, Chris

Cheers, Chris

___
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

[Ed Avis]

Richard Mann  writes:

>I've got a road that's Arnolds Way in OSM and on the street signs,
>Arnold's Way in OSSV. How should it be tagged?

In such situations I usually do some research to find out who is correct.
The local council which puts up the street signs certainly has some authority,
however it is not infallible (for example, some councils have a blanket policy
to omit apostrophes from street signs, whether the name has one or not).  If
there are local histories or guides to the area (written by people, not auto-
generated from Google maps) these can be useful indicators.  Of course, you can
also go to the street and ask people!

The alt_name tag can be useful for search engines.  However I'd expect any
search engine to be intelligent enough to ignore apostrophes (and case) when
matching, so I don't think it would be necessary to tag both variants.

This is just my opinion and seems to me to have more common sense in it than
blindly copying whatever the street sign says, however others may have a
different view.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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

[Richard Mann]

I've got a road that's Arnolds Way in OSM and on the street signs,
Arnold's Way in OSSV. How should it be tagged?

name=Arnolds Way
alt_name=Arnold's Way

?

Richard

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> At the risk of reopening the apostrophes war, my point is that 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.  Similarly, we
> do not report a mismatch between High Street and HIGH STREET, even though the 
> OS
> map and data uses upper case, and most councils use it for street signs.
>
> However, I've changed my mind - we might as well clear up apostrophes and
> abbreviations at the same time as other things, it's not an obstacle to fixing
> the more serious discrepancies.  So I'm happy for them to be flagged.
>
> --
> 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes

[Tim François]

"...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

[Ed Avis]

At the risk of reopening the apostrophes war, my point is that 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.  Similarly, we
do not report a mismatch between High Street and HIGH STREET, even though the OS
map and data uses upper case, and most councils use it for street signs.

However, I've changed my mind - we might as well clear up apostrophes and
abbreviations at the same time as other things, it's not an obstacle to fixing
the more serious discrepancies.  So I'm happy for them to be flagged.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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

[Tim François]

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes

[Chris Hill]

Ed Avis wrote:
> Bob Kerr  writes:
>
>   
>> I can easily understand that apostrophes and the name bypass are annoying,
>> however I think there is an opportunity here. 
>>
>> For example, bypass or by-pass. This highlights an inconstancy in the OS 
>> data,
>> which will be useful for them to correct and standardise. 
>> 
>
> Perhaps, but it will take them at least six months to do this (I believe the
> OS Locator data is updated on that schedule), and probably longer.  In the
> meantime we'd like to get on with adding the missing streets and names.
>
> I expect we all agree that while standardizing apostrophes, Saint/St, and so 
> on
> between OS and OSM may be a worthwhile goal, it is a much lower priority than
> completing the map.  So for now it would help us more to ignore such
> discrepancies in the Locator-comparison tiles.  It might however be worth 
> making
> a separate 'pedantic' version of the tiles in which every small difference is
> highlighted.
>   
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes

[Ed Avis]

Bob Kerr  writes:

>I can easily understand that apostrophes and the name bypass are annoying,
>however I think there is an opportunity here. 
> 
>For example, bypass or by-pass. This highlights an inconstancy in the OS data,
>which will be useful for them to correct and standardise. 

Perhaps, but it will take them at least six months to do this (I believe the
OS Locator data is updated on that schedule), and probably longer.  In the
meantime we'd like to get on with adding the missing streets and names.

I expect we all agree that while standardizing apostrophes, Saint/St, and so on
between OS and OSM may be a worthwhile goal, it is a much lower priority than
completing the map.  So for now it would help us more to ignore such
discrepancies in the Locator-comparison tiles.  It might however be worth making
a separate 'pedantic' version of the tiles in which every small difference is
highlighted.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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

[Bob Kerr]

Hi,
I can easily understand that apostrophes and the name bypass are annoying, 
however I think there is an opportunity here. 
For example, bypass or by-pass. This highlights an inconstancy in the OS data, 
which will be useful for them to correct and standardise. 
Apostrophes are the same, they can convey different meanings for example we 
have some House O' Hill data in Edinburgh
after the OS and OSM data have been checked against each other then what is 
left is the most useful to both our groups and will disappear in time.
In Edinburgh we will have to do the same again because all the names of the 
streets and house numbers are controlled by the local council. I know that the 
OS data is not as accurate as the council data. So again we will be able to 
highlight the exact inconsistancies and once we have the exact data as the 
council then this highlights that OSM is a useful tool for the council to use.
Cheers
Bob 

--- On Sun, 13/6/10, Richard Mann  
wrote:

From: Richard Mann 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - 
apostrophes
To: "Ed Avis" 
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Date: Sunday, 13 June, 2010, 9:17

Differences on the naming of sections of trunk road (Southern Bypass
vs Southern Bypass Road) are also a little distracting.

Richard

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Could the OS versus OSM name comparison be changed to strip apostrophes from
> both names before comparing?
>
> See 
> http://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=16&lat=51.54886&lon=-0.20997&layers=B0TF
> for example - neither OS nor OSM have any real consistency in whether to use
> apostrophe or not.
>
> I've no wish to re-open the great apostrophe debate on this mailing list, 
> rather
> I think it would be sensible to leave them to one side when doing the name 
> check.
>
> --
> 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



  ___
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

[Richard Mann]

Differences on the naming of sections of trunk road (Southern Bypass
vs Southern Bypass Road) are also a little distracting.

Richard

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Could the OS versus OSM name comparison be changed to strip apostrophes from
> both names before comparing?
>
> See 
> http://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=16&lat=51.54886&lon=-0.20997&layers=B0TF
> for example - neither OS nor OSM have any real consistency in whether to use
> apostrophe or not.
>
> I've no wish to re-open the great apostrophe debate on this mailing list, 
> rather
> I think it would be sensible to leave them to one side when doing the name 
> check.
>
> --
> 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes

[Ed Avis]

Could the OS versus OSM name comparison be changed to strip apostrophes from
both names before comparing?

See 
http://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=16&lat=51.54886&lon=-0.20997&layers=B0TF
for example - neither OS nor OSM have any real consistency in whether to use
apostrophe or not.

I've no wish to re-open the great apostrophe debate on this mailing list, rather
I think it would be sensible to leave them to one side when doing the name 
check.

-- 
Ed Avis 


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

[Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Peter Miller]

On 7 Jun 2010, at 11:11, Tim Francois wrote:

> In answer to myself, the reason they are missed out in the ITO layer  
> is
> obvious: within the OSL bounding boxes the ITO script finds ways named
> Cleeve Green, Cameley Green etc in OSM, but these ways are actually
> named footpaths - the unnamed roads next door are ignored.

Correct! However there was also a problem with apostrophes which we  
have now fixed and it shows up a new set of errors. In Ipswich the OS  
seems to contradict the street signs (and OSM) in a number of places  
so possibly OS data is not so good in this respect, or possibly they  
are going by the legal name and the sign-writers were at fault.

Fyi we are working on the ITO layer as you speak! We have fixed the  
apostropies issue which is on-line already but in the process we have  
broken the tests relating to footpaths and pedestrian routes  
generally. We are reinstating them within the next hour and then we  
should be fully functional.

The one problem we can't resolve (as suggested above) is that when  
there are two features within the OS Locator bounding box with the  
same name then we will be happy with only one being present in the  
bounding box - one feature which even partially intersects with the OS  
Locator bounding box is good enough for us at present.



Regards,


Peter Miller
ITO World Ltd



>
> oslVosm finds these discrepancies because it doesn't use the OSL
> bounding box, only the OSL road centroid.





>
> I'll be using both to mop up the area!
>
> Tim
>
> 
> I've just been having a go with the ITO layer and the results from the
> oslVosm script, and there are some discrepancies between the two:
> namely, the ITO tiles seem to be missing some missing-roads (to coin a
> phrase!) which the oslVosm script IS picking up.
>
> One example is a road called Shaws Way in OS Locator, but Shaw Way in
> OSM. The ITO tiles which I have setup as a backdrop in JOSM do not  
> flag
> this up.
>
> Other examples include Cleeve Green, Cameley Green and Pennard Green
> (all OSL names). These names coincide with unnamed ways in OSM, but
> again ITO does not flag these.
>
> (All these road names are in Bath).
>
> Is there a reason for these missing missing-roads?
>
> 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Tim Francois]

In answer to myself, the reason they are missed out in the ITO layer is
obvious: within the OSL bounding boxes the ITO script finds ways named
Cleeve Green, Cameley Green etc in OSM, but these ways are actually
named footpaths - the unnamed roads next door are ignored.

oslVosm finds these discrepancies because it doesn't use the OSL
bounding box, only the OSL road centroid.

I'll be using both to mop up the area!

Tim


I've just been having a go with the ITO layer and the results from the 
oslVosm script, and there are some discrepancies between the two:
namely, the ITO tiles seem to be missing some missing-roads (to coin a
phrase!) which the oslVosm script IS picking up.

One example is a road called Shaws Way in OS Locator, but Shaw Way in
OSM. The ITO tiles which I have setup as a backdrop in JOSM do not flag
this up.

Other examples include Cleeve Green, Cameley Green and Pennard Green
(all OSL names). These names coincide with unnamed ways in OSM, but
again ITO does not flag these.

(All these road names are in Bath).

Is there a reason for these missing missing-roads?

Tim



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

[Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Tim Francois]

I've just been having a go with the ITO layer and the results from the
oslVosm script, and there are some discrepancies between the two:
namely, the ITO tiles seem to be missing some missing-roads (to coin a
phrase!) which the oslVosm script IS picking up.

One example is a road called Shaws Way in OS Locator, but Shaw Way in
OSM. The ITO tiles which I have setup as a backdrop in JOSM do not flag
this up.

Other examples include Cleeve Green, Cameley Green and Pennard Green
(all OSL names). These names coincide with unnamed ways in OSM, but
again ITO does not flag these.

(All these road names are in Bath).

Is there a reason for these missing missing-roads?

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

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I prefer the elephant contour line on a map of Ghana (in Gold Coast days), 
which I remember seeing at a British Library exhibition many years ago. I think 
it featured in QI at some stage, but cant find an image on the web.





From: Ed Loach 
To: SomeoneElse ; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Fri, 4 June, 2010 8:47:59
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

  
SomeoneElse wrote:
 
> The recent radio 4 map series mentioned that
"BILL" was drawn
> into the
> cliffs on the south of the Isle of Wight (it's
southeast of
> Blackgang
> Chine; due west of Niton if you're interested). 
It's been
> there a few
> years and is not particularly subtle.
 
Thanks for that:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=448572&y=76655&z=120&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf
 
Ed


  ___
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

[Ed Loach]

SomeoneElse wrote:

 

> The recent radio 4 map series mentioned that "BILL" was drawn

> into the

> cliffs on the south of the Isle of Wight (it's southeast of

> Blackgang

> Chine; due west of Niton if you're interested).  It's been

> there a few

> years and is not particularly subtle.

 

Thanks for that:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=448572
 &y=76655&z=120&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf

 

Ed

___
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

[Brad Rogers]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 02:49:53 +0100
SomeoneElse  wrote:

Hello SomeoneElse,

> Chine; due west of Niton if you're interested).  It's been there a few 
> years and is not particularly subtle.

Indeed;



-- 
 Regards  _
 / )   "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)radnever immediately apparent"

White people going to school, where they teach you to be thick
White Riot - The Clash

___
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

[SomeoneElse]

On 03/06/2010 08:56, Ed Loach wrote:
> Robert wrote:
>
>
>> OS have always claimed to not put easter eggs in their actual
>> data, and nobody has, to my knowledge, ever found any in _OS_
>> data.
>>
>> A-Z, collins, etc. are another story.
>>  
> I vaguely remember a story about how when they were digitising their
> data they discovered that decades earlier a draftsman had hidden his
> name in the contour lines, so there *may* be some they aren't aware
> of, but I'm inclined to suspect mistake rather than deliberate.
>
The recent radio 4 map series mentioned that "BILL" was drawn into the 
cliffs on the south of the Isle of Wight (it's southeast of Blackgang 
Chine; due west of Niton if you're interested).  It's been there a few 
years and is not particularly subtle.


___
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

[Robert Scott]

On Thursday 03 June 2010, Peter Miller wrote:
> It's great to hear other people saying they would like to help the OS  
> get there mapping better - I posed the question on one of the OSM  
> lists a few years ago and got an overwhelming 'no' and 'over my dead  
> body'. I could guess about why the mood is different on this list now,  
> but possibly it is in part that we are now getting something from the  
> OS and would like to return the favour.
> 
> I will make my contact in the OS aware of this discussion and invite  
> him to respond. Who knows, we may even get official OS participation  
> on this list which would be great.

I think there's a big attitude of "share and share alike" amongst OSMers rather 
than any animosity to any particular organization or other.

Having said that, I fear the legal issues will not let this idea get very far. 
A name discrepancy between OSM and OSL data itself is a derived work of OSM. 
Although perhaps feeding a list along the lines of "you might like to recheck 
these roads" is different (?). Either way, it's a complex situation.


robert.

___
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

[Peter Miller]

>> snip (see my previous post in response to other comments)


> Another point - has anyone made moves to compare the data in the  
> other direction i.e. comparing OSM roads & names with OS Locator - i  
> have come across a number of 'new villages' (new roads within the  
> last year or two) which i would assume are not in the OS Locator  
> dataset.  I guess this ties in with the feeding back of data to the  
> OS - maybe they should run this using their budget to help guide  
> their surveyors.

I hope ITO will be able to produce the reverse mapping as you propose  
- ie OSM Names that are not in OS Locator. Should be useful to  
highlight both errors in OSM and omissions in OS.

Fyi, we have also just imported OS Vector District into our systems  
today and hope to be able to add a masked OS Vector District geometry  
to the tiles showing where there are roads/paths in OS that are not  
close to roads in OSM. This will highlight the missing geometry.

We are also going to see if we can with any confidence match-up names  
from OS Locator with Geometry with OS Vector District which might give  
us data which we could consider bulk importing into OSM but we would  
look for other OSM experts to handle any import if it was possible.



Regards,



Peter

>
> Sam
>
>
>
>


___
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

[Peter Miller]

On 3 Jun 2010, at 12:20, Ed Avis wrote:

> Sam Larsen  writes:
>
>> In areas where there has been a huge amount of pedal power mapping  
>> by some
>> very enthusiastic mappers in the Fens north of Cambridge, the data  
>> in OSM here
>> is generally of a very high quality, for this reason i would  
>> dispute many of
>> the OS Locator missing name polygons.  I would assume that a number  
>> of these
>> are down to the 'historical' nature of OS data & place names.   
>> There are a
>> number of local names for stretches of A & B roads, which i would  
>> think are
>> probably not signposted or have not even used in the locality for a  
>> long time
>> - these may be covered by historical name tag (which i think does  
>> exist in
>> places).
>
> Yes, there are often roads like this in the countryside.  I tend to  
> add the
> name anyway if there is evidence for its existence in the past or  
> present.
> After all nobody officially strips the name from roads.  The name is  
> still
> there, even if 99% of visitors are ignorant of it as they drive  
> through at
> 60mph.

I agree - the OS almost certainly haven't made it up and I assume that  
the lack of signs is purely because authorities are not legally  
obliged to put signs up in the countryside as they are in the towns.  
Personally I think the names enhance the map, even though we no longer  
go down Wash Lane to do the washing or up Mill Hill to get the flour  
and even if there is not a sign to give the name.

>
>> For that reason i would be hesitant to put too much faith in the  
>> level of
>> accuracy using this measure when completeness becomes something  
>> like 90-95%.
>
> It depends on the application.  There are likely to be older  
> documents - legal
> documents particularly, such as title deeds - which use the name, or  
> it may
> still be valid as a postal address.  For users such as local  
> authorities having
> all this stuff is likely to be important.
>
> I'd also like to '+1' the suggestion of feeding corrections back to  
> OS.  I have
> sometimes added note tags to OSM saying that names were wrong, but  
> that was
> based on the Street View tiles.  The Locator dataset plus the  
> not:name tag will
> be a good way to streamline the reconciliation process.
>
> (It would be nice if we could more generally contribute data to the  
> Ordnance
> Survey, which is still the national mapping agency, but I don't hold  
> out much
> hope for getting the legal issues untangled.)

It's great to hear other people saying they would like to help the OS  
get there mapping better - I posed the question on one of the OSM  
lists a few years ago and got an overwhelming 'no' and 'over my dead  
body'. I could guess about why the mood is different on this list now,  
but possibly it is in part that we are now getting something from the  
OS and would like to return the favour.

I will make my contact in the OS aware of this discussion and invite  
him to respond. Who knows, we may even get official OS participation  
on this list which would be great.


Regards,


Peter

>
> -- 
> 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Ed Loach]

Jason asked:

> 1. How do you get it to appear in JOSM? Pasting the given link
doesnt work in Josm

Try:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#JOSM

and if you don't already have the JOSM SlippyMap plugin see:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/SlippyMap

Note that it is important NOT to include the \ at the end of the url
in the url setting, and you may get cached tile issues which I'm
currently trying to resolve my emptying the cache folder manually
(as per my last email to this group). It's taking a while.

Ed


___
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

[Ed Loach]

Ed Avis suggested

> A suggestion - could the tiles (as well as the 'CC-BY-SA ITO'
> watermark)
> include the date and time of the OSM data that was used?

They do include the date and time the tile was generated, it seems.
I'd guess as Peter said it took two days for changes to be visible
(Monday's changes visible on Wednesday for example) that if the tile
was generated about 3am on the 3rd June, that it is using the daily
extract generated at the end of 1st June.

I've also found that I had a JOSM slippymap plugin tile cache issue
and eventually traced the cached files to
C:\Users\Ed\AppData\Local\Temp\JMapViewerTiles_Ed (on my Windows 7
machine). I don't know what the expiry is set to, or whether it can
be changed per slippymap plugin layer, but the files I worked on two
days ago were unchanged in JOSM but had been updated if viewed in
Potlatch. Anyway, I'm emptying the cache folder manually at present.
I did try right-click Flush Tile Cache within JOSM but that didn't
seem to work.

Thanks

Ed


___
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

[Jason Cunningham]

An excellent addition to the tools available in the UK. Well done!

Two questions.

1. How do you get it to appear in JOSM? Pasting the given link doesnt work
in Josm

2. I dont understand the 'not' in the proposed 'not:name' tag. Is the
British_English or Computer English?
I think at tag that got across the use in understandable 'British_English
would be more helpful Something along the lines of osdata:locatorname_wrong

I've already spotted some mistakes I've made/missed and probably would never
have picked up otherwise

Thanks

Jason
___
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

[Sam Larsen]

Assuming one is not comfortable putting 'not' data into OSM,
Has anyone used '[alt|old|loc]_name' & '[alt|old|loc]_name:source' for 
scenarios where OSM has a completely different name for the same feature?

 

Sam Larsen


  

___
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

[Ed Avis]

A suggestion - could the tiles (as well as the 'CC-BY-SA ITO' watermark)
include the date and time of the OSM data that was used?

-- 
Ed Avis 




___
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

[Ed Avis]

Sam Larsen  writes:

>In areas where there has been a huge amount of pedal power mapping by some
>very enthusiastic mappers in the Fens north of Cambridge, the data in OSM here
>is generally of a very high quality, for this reason i would dispute many of
>the OS Locator missing name polygons.  I would assume that a number of these
>are down to the 'historical' nature of OS data & place names.  There are a
>number of local names for stretches of A & B roads, which i would think are
>probably not signposted or have not even used in the locality for a long time
>- these may be covered by historical name tag (which i think does exist in
>places).

Yes, there are often roads like this in the countryside.  I tend to add the
name anyway if there is evidence for its existence in the past or present.
After all nobody officially strips the name from roads.  The name is still
there, even if 99% of visitors are ignorant of it as they drive through at
60mph.

>For that reason i would be hesitant to put too much faith in the level of
>accuracy using this measure when completeness becomes something like 90-95%.

It depends on the application.  There are likely to be older documents - legal
documents particularly, such as title deeds - which use the name, or it may
still be valid as a postal address.  For users such as local authorities having
all this stuff is likely to be important.

I'd also like to '+1' the suggestion of feeding corrections back to OS.  I have
sometimes added note tags to OSM saying that names were wrong, but that was
based on the Street View tiles.  The Locator dataset plus the not:name tag will
be a good way to streamline the reconciliation process.

(It would be nice if we could more generally contribute data to the Ordnance
Survey, which is still the national mapping agency, but I don't hold out much
hope for getting the legal issues untangled.)

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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

[Sam Larsen]

- Original Message 

> From: Peter Miller 
> To: Sam Larsen 
> Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Sent: Wed, 2 June, 2010 18:00:47
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
> 
> 
...
>> 
>> We're now able to get a 
> lot of data for free from OS, I don't think it's unreasonable to report the 
> odd 
> error back to them so they can improve their map.
>> 
> 
> 
> +1

>+1

>Just to say that I was in discussion with the research guys 
> at the OS about this last week and the status reports which we hope to have 
> online next week will include a section of 'not:name's for each district 
> which 
> they have expressed interest in reviewing. The only small issue could be over 
> licencing, however I don't believe that they would ever want to act on a 
> report 
> in OSM without checking it first on the ground so it will purely be treated 
> as a 
> clue for their purposes.

Peter,

Having used the data in a number of vastly different areas in terms of 
completion, i have noticed that as a measure of completeness there are a few 
flaws.
I have done name updates in remote Scotland & Wales where the OS Locator 
missing names tiles provide an incredibly valuable resource - mapping to the 
same extent as a huge number of nonamed roads. However, when attempting to get 
Cambridgeshire up to the top of the list for this measure of completion, i have 
noticed a large amount of really tricky & difficult to diagnose OS Locator 
noname extents.  In areas where there has been a huge amount of pedal power 
mapping by some very enthusiastic mappers in the Fens north of Cambridge, the 
data in OSM here is generally of a very high quality, for this reason i would 
dispute many of the OS Locator missing name polygons.  I would assume that a 
number of these are down to the 'historical' nature of OS data & place names.  
There are a number of local names for stretches of A & B roads, which i would 
think are probably not signposted or have not even used in the locality for a 
long time - these may be covered by
 historical name tag (which i think does exist in places).  For that reason i 
would be hesitant to put too much faith in the level of accuracy using this 
measure when completeness becomes something like 90 - 95%.  I still think that 
for the majority of places which have huge swathes of noname roads we have a 
very useful resource here when used with a bit of common sense and I think you 
have provided a valuable resource/workflow for those who are always on the 
lookout for measures of OSM completeness (in the UK).
Another point - has anyone made moves to compare the data in the other 
direction i.e. comparing OSM roads & names with OS Locator - i have come across 
a number of 'new villages' (new roads within the last year or two) which i 
would assume are not in the OS Locator dataset.  I guess this ties in with the 
feeding back of data to the OS - maybe they should run this using their budget 
to help guide their surveyors.

Sam



  

___
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

[Ed Loach]

Robert wrote:

> OS have always claimed to not put easter eggs in their actual
> data, and nobody has, to my knowledge, ever found any in _OS_
> data.
> 
> A-Z, collins, etc. are another story.

I vaguely remember a story about how when they were digitising their
data they discovered that decades earlier a draftsman had hidden his
name in the contour lines, so there *may* be some they aren't aware
of, but I'm inclined to suspect mistake rather than deliberate.
There are a number they have as Road that I have as Lane that I need
to go double check for example (may be me!).

Ed


___
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

[Robert Scott]

On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:
> I for one would miss a publicly-deployed version. The matching of strings 
> really makes a difference between your data and the ITO one: 
> 
> 1. in well-mapped areas one finds a few places which either have not been 
> surveyed or require a re-survey, whereas the ITO comparison layer largely 
> shows finger trouble. So far I've found them completely complementary: yours 
> for the big picture, ITO locator comparison for the nitty-gritty of getting 
> fluff out of the data.
> 
> 2. in areas with large numbers of nonames the ITO layer just has too much 
> data (and I have been trying to bang in names N of Liverpool).
> 
> 3. Data from Musical Chairs gives a better handle on completeness, but when 
> compared with the ITO figures we can assess quality/validation as well.

Well either way, I'll be dumping the code for whatever I do up on bitbucket for 
anyone to use.


robert.

___
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

[Robert Scott]

On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Roy Jamison wrote:
> This may sound really stupid and may have been discussed before, but
> could some of these errors be related to the Easter Eggs that OS put
> into their maps to fight copyright issues? I know these restrictions
> have been pretty much lifted and are under 'lenient' licenses now, but
> is it possible that some of these may not have been taken out of their
> map data? 

OS have always claimed to not put easter eggs in their actual data, and nobody 
has, to my knowledge, ever found any in _OS_ data.

A-Z, collins, etc. are another story.


robert.

___
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

[Roy Jamison]

This may sound really stupid and may have been discussed before, but
could some of these errors be related to the Easter Eggs that OS put
into their maps to fight copyright issues? I know these restrictions
have been pretty much lifted and are under 'lenient' licenses now, but
is it possible that some of these may not have been taken out of their
map data? 

Just a thought.


___
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

[Peter Miller]

On 2 Jun 2010, at 17:36, Sam Larsen wrote:

>>
>> From: Andrew Ainsworth 
>> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>> Sent: Wed, 2 June, 2010 16:57:48
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from  
>> ITO
>>
>>
>> Could I just make a silly suggestion that no one seems to have  
>> talked about yet. If we find an error in OS Open Data, rather than  
>> tag our own data to say someone else has got it wrong, why not just  
>> report it to OS. After examining the postcode data for my area  
>> recently I found a couple of errors, reported them to OS who have  
>> replied saying there is indeed an error and they will send someone  
>> out to re-survey the street.
>>
>> We're now able to get a lot of data for free from OS, I don't think  
>> it's unreasonable to report the odd error back to them so they can  
>> improve their map.
>>
>
> +1

+1

Just to say that I was in discussion with the research guys at the OS  
about this last week and the status reports which we hope to have  
online next week will include a section of 'not:name's for each  
district which they have expressed interest in reviewing. The only  
small issue could be over licencing, however I don't believe that they  
would ever want to act on a report in OSM without checking it first on  
the ground so it will purely be treated as a clue for their purposes.

As it happened I met the local OS Surveyor (who covers Ipswich and  
Suffolk Coastal) and I was able to give her a few reports verbally  
which she entered on her tablet!. Given that the surveyors cover  
districts then the proposed district level reports could work really  
well - the OS would just need to alert their surveyors to the place to  
look for problems. We may even be able to give the district level RSS  
feeds which would be the icing on the cake. Until the problem is fixed  
we keep the not:name tag in the OSM DB. When it is fixed I guess we  
could remove the not:name tag for tidiness.

I should have mentioned that we got some funding support for the OS  
Locator tiles from our research project, Ideas in Transit with support  
from the DfT and the Technology Strategy Board.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ideas_in_Transit


Regards,


Peter


>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Sam Larsen]

>
>From: Andrew Ainsworth 
>To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>Sent: Wed, 2 June, 2010 16:57:48
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
>
>
>Could I just make a silly suggestion that no one seems to have talked about 
>yet. If we find an error in OS Open Data, rather than tag our own data to say 
>someone else has got it wrong, why not just report it to OS. After examining 
>the postcode data for my area recently I found a couple of errors, reported 
>them to OS who have replied saying there is indeed an error and they will send 
>someone out to re-survey the street.
> 
>We're now able to get a lot of data for free from OS, I don't think it's 
>unreasonable to report the odd error back to them so they can improve their 
>map.
> 

+1 


  

___
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

[Andrew Ainsworth]

Could I just make a silly suggestion that no one seems to have talked about
yet. If we find an error in OS Open Data, rather than tag our own data to
say someone else has got it wrong, why not just report it to OS. After
examining the postcode data for my area recently I found a couple of errors,
reported them to OS who have replied saying there is indeed an error and
they will send someone out to re-survey the street.

We're now able to get a lot of data for free from OS, I don't think it's
unreasonable to report the odd error back to them so they can improve their
map.

Andrew
On 2 June 2010 16:29, Jerry Clough - OSM  wrote:

>  I for one would miss a publicly-deployed version. The matching of strings
> really makes a difference between your data and the ITO one:
>
> 1. in well-mapped areas one finds a few places which either have not been
> surveyed or require a re-survey, whereas the ITO comparison layer largely
> shows finger trouble. So far I've found them completely complementary: yours
> for the big picture, ITO locator comparison for the nitty-gritty of getting
> fluff out of the data.
>
> 2. in areas with large numbers of nonames the ITO layer just has too much
> data (and I have been trying to bang in names N of Liverpool).
>
> 3. Data from Musical Chairs gives a better handle on completeness, but when
> compared with the ITO figures we can assess quality/validation as well.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry
>
>  --
> *From:* Robert Scott 
> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent:* Wed, 2 June, 2010 12:38:01
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
>
> On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Peter Miller wrote:
> > Great stuff. We would probably be able to work with a dump of excluded
> > OS Locator entries in this DB however users may in the main prefer the
> > convenience/familiarity of working directly in Potlatch or what ever
> > rather than firing up another tool. Let us know when you start getting
> > data into your system and we will see what we can do.
>
> Well, though I say I will probably continue to develop it a bit, I will
> probably not deploy it to the public now (unless there is significant
> interest) because I don't want to fragment any efforts.
>
>
> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I for one would miss a publicly-deployed version. The matching of strings 
really makes a difference between your data and the ITO one: 

1. in well-mapped areas one finds a few places which either have not been 
surveyed or require a re-survey, whereas the ITO comparison layer largely shows 
finger trouble. So far I've found them completely complementary: yours for the 
big picture, ITO locator comparison for the nitty-gritty of getting fluff out 
of the data.

2. in areas with large numbers of nonames the ITO layer just has too much data 
(and I have been trying to bang in names N of Liverpool).

3. Data from Musical Chairs gives a better handle on completeness, but when 
compared with the ITO figures we can assess quality/validation as well.

Regards,

Jerry





From: Robert Scott 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wed, 2 June, 2010 12:38:01
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] >-  Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Peter Miller wrote:
> Great stuff. We would probably be able to work with a dump of excluded  
> OS Locator entries in this DB however users may in the main prefer the  
> convenience/familiarity of working directly in Potlatch or what ever  
> rather than firing up another tool. Let us know when you start getting  
> data into your system and we will see what we can do.

Well, though I say I will probably continue to develop it a bit, I will 
probably not deploy it to the public now (unless there is significant interest) 
because I don't want to fragment any efforts.


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] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

I'm with Andy on this. 

Virtually all the 
disagreements between names of roads which I have walked down and 
entered in OSM were down to thick fingers on my part. The places where 
the OS have got it wrong are few and far between (perhaps a bit less 
than 0.5%), but I had to go searching through photographs, audio files 
etc. to make sure that some of these were indeed OSGB errors, as my own 
transcription error rate is at least 10 times higher. Use of a not:name 
tag need not be widespread: it only needs to be used when there is an 
apparently authoritative source which is wrong (i.e., OSGB).

To give two simple examples, where I have already used it:

Smythson Drive is given as 'Smithson Drive' on StreetView and OS Locator. I 
could quite easily 
have assumed that the it was named after the architect Robert Smythson 
who is buried in the local church, but equally the person who signed the road 
might not have known the likely origin of the name. However, I do 
have photos of the street sign (which took me about 10 minutes to find). A 
not:name tag means that I don't have to do that again, and hopefully, it will 
discourage others from an error of commission.

The 
Chancery located here on OS 
Locator, simply does not exist. It's quite nice not to go off to survey 
some figment of the OSGB's imagination. There is another misplaced 
(duplicate) road nearby. Again some formalised form of the note tag 
seems sensible to identify such cases.

Of course, in the case of 
misnamed roads other more positive evidence can be included, for 
instance links to audio or image files. In the case of The Chancery I have also 
documented this on the 
relevant Wiki page.

Regards,

Jerry







From: Andy Allan 

To: Chris Hill 
Cc: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail) 

Sent: Tue, 1 June, 2010 15:50:41
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Chris Hill  wrote:

> On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is
> potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I 
think
> "not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. 
How about just
> putting source:name=survey on roads that 
contradict OS Locator to show
> they have been checked on the 
ground.

All the roads I've mapped have been from survey, but what of those
ham-fisted moments in front of the computer?

I think positively identifying what you disagree with is better than
side-effects of other statements. After all, source:name=survey
doesn't 
necessarily mean that you've checked the disagreement between
OS and 
OSM and confirmed that OSM is correct.

Cheers,
Andy

___
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] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Robert Scott]

On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Peter Miller wrote:
> Great stuff. We would probably be able to work with a dump of excluded  
> OS Locator entries in this DB however users may in the main prefer the  
> convenience/familiarity of working directly in Potlatch or what ever  
> rather than firing up another tool. Let us know when you start getting  
> data into your system and we will see what we can do.

Well, though I say I will probably continue to develop it a bit, I will 
probably not deploy it to the public now (unless there is significant interest) 
because I don't want to fragment any efforts.


robert.

___
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

[Chris Hill]

Andy Allan wrote:
> I believe we need to track these false positives. If Ipswich is any
> guide, and there is about a dozen errors per town, then there is going
> to come a point where we are all repeatedly examining the same false
> positives trying to track down the remaining few actual mistakes in
> OSM. So we need to track them, and we want to make sure that mappers
> notice that someone else has already marked the false positives. How
> do we make sure that such record keeping works with ITO, and Robert
> Scott's tool, and any other tool that compares OSM and OS Locator? How
> do we make sure that all the mappers are aware of the situation,
> whether they are using potlatch or JOSM (or merkaartor, or potlatch2,
> or osm2go, or mapzen, or...).
>
>   
Having thought about the situation, I think that adding the not:*=* tags 
is only like other metadata tags like source=*, note=*, fixme=* etc. It 
will be used on a modest number of places. It provides a means of 
signalling many different difficulties, even the nonames problem which 
still lingers. So in spite of my original reservations I now feel this 
is a useful tag, and quite possibly useful beyond OS data.

Sorry for the noise.

Cheers, Chris

___
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

[Roy Jamison]

I completely misinterpreted what was going on, just ignore me :)
By the way, great to have OSL vs OSM overlay, definitely helps!


___
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

[Ed Avis]

It is quite common to add 'note' tags to OSM documenting why the data is tagged
as it is, e.g.

note=This used to be a pub, but is now closed
note=There is no street sign, but locals confirm the name
note=It appears OS has the wrong name 'Abbey Road'; street sign is Abbey Way

Now, none of these strictly correspond to information on the ground.  They are
all meta-information of some kind.  All the 'not:name' tag is doing is to take
the third of these examples and formalize it a bit so that it can be used by
automated tools.  I think this is useful information to have in OSM.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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

[Peter Miller]

On 2 Jun 2010, at 11:13, Andy Allan wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Roy Jamison  
>  wrote:
>> then these could probably just be ignored instead of having
>> millions of not:* tags for all the possible permutations that  
>> *could* be
>> entered incorrectly by an end user.

snip

>
> Anyway, the whole discussion is detracting from getting on with stuff.
> For example, we have 98% of street names missing in Oswestry. 98%!!
> Half the regions in Peter's CSV have less than half the streets named.
> Let's focus our discussions on fixing the map rather than discussing
> the rare edge cases.

Totally agree.

If anyone want to get a quick win, then how about 'doing' the Scilly  
Isles.

There are a total of 57 streets in OS Locator and there are only 37 in  
OSM. Looks like one hours work and we could have our first 'perfect'  
administrative area. Possibly a quick email would be needed to the  
authority to sort out an final uncertainties.



Regards,



Peter


>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> ___
> 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] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Roy Jamison  wrote:
>  then these could probably just be ignored instead of having
> millions of not:* tags for all the possible permutations that *could* be
> entered incorrectly by an end user.

I think you've misunderstood the issue under discussion. We're not
discussing "millions" of tags, and we're not discussing "all the
possible permutations" of names. We're discussing the occasional
situation where OS Locator disagrees with OSM, and where the OS
Locator turns out to be wrong. Exaggerating the situation doesn't help
sensible discussion.

I believe we need to track these false positives. If Ipswich is any
guide, and there is about a dozen errors per town, then there is going
to come a point where we are all repeatedly examining the same false
positives trying to track down the remaining few actual mistakes in
OSM. So we need to track them, and we want to make sure that mappers
notice that someone else has already marked the false positives. How
do we make sure that such record keeping works with ITO, and Robert
Scott's tool, and any other tool that compares OSM and OS Locator? How
do we make sure that all the mappers are aware of the situation,
whether they are using potlatch or JOSM (or merkaartor, or potlatch2,
or osm2go, or mapzen, or...).

The simple, effective way that we can use right now is by tagging the
OSM data. We could build another system, and change every editor and
the relevant processing tools to support and use such a system, but
since that doesn't actually exist yet I struggle to see how anyone
could use it right now.

Anyway, the whole discussion is detracting from getting on with stuff.
For example, we have 98% of street names missing in Oswestry. 98%!!
Half the regions in Peter's CSV have less than half the streets named.
Let's focus our discussions on fixing the map rather than discussing
the rare edge cases.

Cheers,
Andy

___
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

[Ian Spencer]

Peter Miller wrote on 02/06/2010 10:17:
> On 2 Jun 2010, at 09:48, Ed Loach wrote:
>
>
>> Gregory wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> But what if a 3rd source says something different. Should
>>> we record that too, and how?
>>>
>> not:name=Something,Somewhat,SomePlace,...
>>
>> This perhaps relates to a discussion I just had on the irc channel
>> about how to tag a road with two names. I've not checked the OS
>> Locator source data, but there is a road in Wrabness which seems to
>> have two names - Rectory Road and Primrose Hill. The best
>> suggestions on how to tag this involved using the alt_name tag or
>> using ; as a separator in the name tag as is commonly used for
>> separating values already. (This arose as I'd tagged the name as
>> Primrose Hill and the ITO comparison layer highlighted that Rectory
>> Road was missing).
>>
>> So I'd suggest if it doesn't already that the layer recognise
>> ;-separated lists in both name and not:name tag values.
>>
>>  
> I believe that Gregory was actually talking about a list of names that
> the road isn't called rather than alternative valid names.
>
> With references to an earlier comment about the OSM DB being 'flooded'
> with 'not:name' data I estimate that only 0.3% of roads in OS Locator
> have errors so we are talking about a very small number of entries,
> but they may be important entries. In that case that there are
> multiple not:names, then possibly the ';' separator would be
> appropriate to create a list, but I can't think of any instance where
> I would use it at present.
>
> I guess what we are saying is that there is a difference between an
> error (calling it High Street when it is actually Rectory ROad and
> High Street is somewhere else in the village) and where some locals
> refer to it as Rectory Road. The former go in not:name and the later
> in alt:name. Or OS Locator layer should probably also check 'alt-name'
> fields and treat them as matches.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>> Ed
>>  
>
I haven't really got my head into the database design to know of where 
it is weak or strong, but the critical issue is to have distinct, 
understandable entries where different meanings are around.

If you introduce a new tag that has a distinct and clear purpose, then 
you can readily backtrack and merge it with something else.

If you try and adapt and interpret tags, then you head down a path where 
the ambiguity allows others to take other views, and then you cannot 
manipulate the data.

In this case, there are a couple of interesting issues. One it is 
country specific, and secondly we are talking about data that is not for 
publication.

My suggestion would be:

1) That there should be a GB/UK specific group of tags (or more 
specifically country specific) so there is no need for these projects to 
seek world-wide consensus.
2) A country specific tag is assumed never to be rendered.
3) A country specific tag can be converted according to whatever rules 
are deemed appropriate into a formal tag, but there would need to be a 
convention on whether the conversion was one time (and therefore the tag 
should then be removed) or ongoing.
4) Within the tags, there could be a convention for working data.

So we could have:

gb:work:invalid-name   Chelsee
gb:way   Unclassified County Road   -->  Highway:unclassified
gb:project:OSVector:validated no

Just a thought.

Spenny


___
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

[Peter Miller]

On 2 Jun 2010, at 09:48, Ed Loach wrote:

> Gregory wrote:
>
>> But what if a 3rd source says something different. Should
>> we record that too, and how?
> not:name=Something,Somewhat,SomePlace,...
>
> This perhaps relates to a discussion I just had on the irc channel
> about how to tag a road with two names. I've not checked the OS
> Locator source data, but there is a road in Wrabness which seems to
> have two names - Rectory Road and Primrose Hill. The best
> suggestions on how to tag this involved using the alt_name tag or
> using ; as a separator in the name tag as is commonly used for
> separating values already. (This arose as I'd tagged the name as
> Primrose Hill and the ITO comparison layer highlighted that Rectory
> Road was missing).
>
> So I'd suggest if it doesn't already that the layer recognise
> ;-separated lists in both name and not:name tag values.
>

I believe that Gregory was actually talking about a list of names that  
the road isn't called rather than alternative valid names.

With references to an earlier comment about the OSM DB being 'flooded'  
with 'not:name' data I estimate that only 0.3% of roads in OS Locator  
have errors so we are talking about a very small number of entries,  
but they may be important entries. In that case that there are  
multiple not:names, then possibly the ';' separator would be  
appropriate to create a list, but I can't think of any instance where  
I would use it at present.

I guess what we are saying is that there is a difference between an  
error (calling it High Street when it is actually Rectory ROad and  
High Street is somewhere else in the village) and where some locals  
refer to it as Rectory Road. The former go in not:name and the later  
in alt:name. Or OS Locator layer should probably also check 'alt-name'  
fields and treat them as matches.


Regards,


Peter




> Ed

>
>
> ___
> 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] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Ed Loach]

Gregory wrote:

> But what if a 3rd source says something different. Should 
> we record that too, and how?
not:name=Something,Somewhat,SomePlace,...

This perhaps relates to a discussion I just had on the irc channel
about how to tag a road with two names. I've not checked the OS
Locator source data, but there is a road in Wrabness which seems to
have two names - Rectory Road and Primrose Hill. The best
suggestions on how to tag this involved using the alt_name tag or
using ; as a separator in the name tag as is commonly used for
separating values already. (This arose as I'd tagged the name as
Primrose Hill and the ITO comparison layer highlighted that Rectory
Road was missing).

So I'd suggest if it doesn't already that the layer recognise
;-separated lists in both name and not:name tag values.

Ed


___
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

[Gregory]

I've used old_name=* in places that might also be good to be a
warning suppressor.
Sometimes visible signs remain but may fade away, sometimes it's been a
place I've resurveyed for OSM (changes from marketing during new development
and road sign installation). There was one case where the end of the road
had a big name(some mews) carved into the house but the sign at the entrance
was different (some close), when I got home I noticed my photo of the sign
actually said in small print "formerly some mews".

I don't see too much problem with the not:name tag, it's what would be
stored under the 'note' tag but gives it a maachine-readable format.
But what if a 3rd source says something different. Should we record that
too, and how? not:name=Something,Somewhat,SomePlace,...

On 1 June 2010 22:46, Roy Jamison  wrote:

> Totally agree. Flooding OSM with not: tags is both pointless and
> counter-productive. Why not implement a search engine type feature like
> google suggest that spell checks and autocorrects. If the differences
> between OS Locater and OSM are only minor, i.e. apostrophes, spaces in
> names, etc then these could probably just be ignored instead of having
> millions of not:* tags for all the possible permutations that *could* be
> entered incorrectly by an end user.
> >
> > It just feels that the not:* tag is adding data to OSM to placate a lint
> > tool, rather than adding geographic data to the database. Surely the way
> > to do it is to add to your OS Locator data to stop your lint tool
> > reporting the error, rather than adding the not:* tag to OSM?
> >
> > Still an interesting tool.
> >
> >
> > Cheers, Chris
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 
Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
___
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

[Roy Jamison]

Totally agree. Flooding OSM with not: tags is both pointless and
counter-productive. Why not implement a search engine type feature like
google suggest that spell checks and autocorrects. If the differences
between OS Locater and OSM are only minor, i.e. apostrophes, spaces in
names, etc then these could probably just be ignored instead of having
millions of not:* tags for all the possible permutations that *could* be
entered incorrectly by an end user.
> 
> It just feels that the not:* tag is adding data to OSM to placate a lint 
> tool, rather than adding geographic data to the database. Surely the way 
> to do it is to add to your OS Locator data to stop your lint tool 
> reporting the error, rather than adding the not:* tag to OSM?
> 
> Still an interesting tool.
> 
> 
> Cheers, Chris
> 
> ___
> 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] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Robert Scott]

On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Peter Miller wrote:
> We did have a similar discussion in-house at the design stage. We  
> could of course implement this and the data would then be locked away  
> into our systems and be hard for others to access and use for other  
> purposes unless we do further work to ensure that it is. We didn't  
> want to give any hint of an impression that we were trying to  
> 'privatise'  knowledge about OSM and wanted to get something out fast.
> 
> It would also ensure that the information was not available to others  
> using other tools unless they went to extra effort to read our files.
> 
> I guess someone could put a monitor onto the minutely feeds to warn  
> about such changes and request that the change be reverted, but this  
> seems to be a lot more complicated.
> 
> All in all the proposed approach ensures that this 'intelligence' is  
> generally available, and will be available on suitable and compatible  
> license to all. It is also flexible to deal with all sorts of 'mis- 
> information' which may have a habit of getting into the DB and can  
> easily be filtered out by people who which to have a more restricted  
> set of features.

You see, this is the way I looked at it:

This way you're taking a list of OSL streets , doing a match and then entering 
information about the OSL database into OSM (which I'll admit has its 
advantages as far as data distribution goes). Among the problems will come up 
is the fact that you don't have _real_ 1:1 correspondence of feature -> 
feature. There are often many OSM ways corresponding to a single OSL entry. 
Even things like bridges or speed limit changes cause us to start a new way. 
Are we supposed to put name:not in all of them?

Rather than doing that, I thought: so, let's treat the OSL database as a list. 
We want to be able to go through the list and for each entry we want to be able 
to tick it off as "Got that"/"OSL is wrong"/"Acceptable alternate 
spelling"/"Not appropriate to be an OSM name"/etc , ideally until we have no 
outstanding disagreements left. In this way, what we'd be doing is making an 
augmented version of the OSL database, rather than shoving this information 
into OSM.

This is what I've been working on -

http://humanleg.org.uk/code/oslmusicalchairs/oslmcscreen_20100601.png [1][2]

- is what I have working at the moment. Each box is an OSL entry. . The 
controls on the right would include the ability to change the status of the OSL 
entry.

I do agree that there are problems with the data being locked away on a 
separate server, but I thought regular published dumps would help there. After 
all, it's just an augmented OSL database.

I could (and probably will once I get more time) get the matching algorithm to 
respect the :not entry, which I think is actually a really good idea for OSM in 
general. Lots of features have common misspellings.


robert.


[1] - Note the coordinate transform offset. It's just a 27700 -> 4326 srid 
transform, but it's not working right! Can anyone please help me with this?!

[2] - Yes, it has the disadvantage of not being in the same screen as the 
editor, necessitating a bit of parallel panning.

___
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

[Peter Miller]

On 1 Jun 2010, at 19:03, Chris Hill wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
>>
>> On 1 Jun 2010, at 15:39, Chris Hill wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Miller wrote:
 We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names
 which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way.

 Details in our blog post of the subject.
 http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html


 To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box
 in  Potlatch (or similar in JOSM).
 http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png

 Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS
 Locator  data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access'
 etc etc. I  hope there is not another convention for blocking tag
 values that we  have overlooked. If there is we will of course
 adjust our code to  accommodate it.

 there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie,
 monday edits will appear on wednesday etc.



>>>
>>> On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is
>>> potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I
>>> think "not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. How
>>> about just putting source:name=survey on roads that contradict OS
>>> Locator to show they have been checked on the ground.
>>
>> I was envisaging a technical development where the server would  
>> refuse
>> to accept tag values that contradicted a not: tag, or possibly it was
>> PotLatch that did so for it. To override the block one could of  
>> course
>> delete the tag, but in time the removal of 'not' tags might be
>> patrolled from the minutely diffs.
> I think that is probably a step too far.

Possibly!

>
> [...]
>> For our more limited purposes we need a clear message in the data  
>> that
>> means 'don't keep on highlighting this discrepancy between OSM and OS
>> Locator' and I think that data belongs in OSM rather than in some  
>> ITO DB.
>>
>
> It just feels that the not:* tag is adding data to OSM to placate a  
> lint
> tool, rather than adding geographic data to the database. Surely the  
> way
> to do it is to add to your OS Locator data to stop your lint tool
> reporting the error, rather than adding the not:* tag to OSM?

We did have a similar discussion in-house at the design stage. We  
could of course implement this and the data would then be locked away  
into our systems and be hard for others to access and use for other  
purposes unless we do further work to ensure that it is. We didn't  
want to give any hint of an impression that we were trying to  
'privatise'  knowledge about OSM and wanted to get something out fast.

It would also ensure that the information was not available to others  
using other tools unless they went to extra effort to read our files.

I guess someone could put a monitor onto the minutely feeds to warn  
about such changes and request that the change be reverted, but this  
seems to be a lot more complicated.

All in all the proposed approach ensures that this 'intelligence' is  
generally available, and will be available on suitable and compatible  
license to all. It is also flexible to deal with all sorts of 'mis- 
information' which may have a habit of getting into the DB and can  
easily be filtered out by people who which to have a more restricted  
set of features.



Regards,



Peter


>
> Still an interesting tool.
>
>
> Cheers, Chris
>
> ___
> 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] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Chris Hill]

Peter Miller wrote:
>
> On 1 Jun 2010, at 15:39, Chris Hill wrote:
>
>> Peter Miller wrote:
>>> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names  
>>> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way.
>>>
>>> Details in our blog post of the subject.
>>> http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box 
>>> in  Potlatch (or similar in JOSM).
>>> http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png
>>>
>>> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS 
>>> Locator  data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access' 
>>> etc etc. I  hope there is not another convention for blocking tag 
>>> values that we  have overlooked. If there is we will of course 
>>> adjust our code to  accommodate it.
>>>
>>> there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie,  
>>> monday edits will appear on wednesday etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is 
>> potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I 
>> think "not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. How 
>> about just putting source:name=survey on roads that contradict OS 
>> Locator to show they have been checked on the ground.
>
> I was envisaging a technical development where the server would refuse 
> to accept tag values that contradicted a not: tag, or possibly it was 
> PotLatch that did so for it. To override the block one could of course 
> delete the tag, but in time the removal of 'not' tags might be 
> patrolled from the minutely diffs.
I think that is probably a step too far.

[...]
> For our more limited purposes we need a clear message in the data that 
> means 'don't keep on highlighting this discrepancy between OSM and OS 
> Locator' and I think that data belongs in OSM rather than in some ITO DB.
>

It just feels that the not:* tag is adding data to OSM to placate a lint 
tool, rather than adding geographic data to the database. Surely the way 
to do it is to add to your OS Locator data to stop your lint tool 
reporting the error, rather than adding the not:* tag to OSM?

Still an interesting tool.


Cheers, Chris

___
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

[Philip Stubbs]

On 31 May 2010 11:02, Peter Miller  wrote:
>
> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names
> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way.

This is a great tool. I thought all the roads in my area had been
mapped, but this highlights some new closes etc that have been build
since the Yahoo imagery. It also helps prove that I can't type for
toffee. :-)


-- 
Philip Stubbs

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

[Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Peter Miller]

On 31 May 2010, at 12:00, Robert Scott wrote:

> On Monday 31 May 2010, Peter Miller wrote:
>> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names
>> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way.
>>
>> Details in our blog post of the subject.
>> http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html
>>
>> To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box in
>> Potlatch (or similar in JOSM).
>> http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png
>>
>> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator
>> data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access' etc etc. I
>> hope there is not another convention for blocking tag values that we
>> have overlooked. If there is we will of course adjust our code to
>> accommodate it.
>>
>> there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie,
>> monday edits will appear on wednesday etc.
>
> Oh.
>
> I've been working on something quite similar, only more  
> openstreetbugs-inspired and openlayers-based using my musical chairs  
> results.

I saw that. Very nice and it seems that in this case a bunch of people  
started working on the same problem at almost the same time. It is  
certainly good to have lots of tools and people trying out all sorts  
of analysis. Plenty more to do!

For the record ITO intend to produce some more analysis map views over  
the next few weeks. We have one in preparation to help improve routing  
data where the junctions (nodes) are coloured according to the number  
of links connected to them (their 'valency') and the links will be  
coloured to indicate various classifications and common errors. This  
view was requested by CycleStreets some time ago. We expect to offer  
this one with global coverage but may roll it out in stages to see how  
the servers hold up. A number of other views are also being developed  
although I am not clear about the timeline yet.

We are also really keen to get OSM Mapper updating in under 12 hours  
again as it did in the old days when the DB was much smaller. We have  
sped it up a number of times only to see the DB grow in size again.


Regards,


Peter Miller
ITO World Ltd





>
>
> 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] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Peter Miller]

On 1 Jun 2010, at 15:50, Andy Allan wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Chris Hill  wrote:
>
>> On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is
>> potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I  
>> think
>> "not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. How about  
>> just
>> putting source:name=survey on roads that contradict OS Locator to  
>> show
>> they have been checked on the ground.
>
> All the roads I've mapped have been from survey, but what of those
> ham-fisted moments in front of the computer?
>
> I think positively identifying what you disagree with is better than
> side-effects of other statements. After all, source:name=survey
> doesn't necessarily mean that you've checked the disagreement between
> OS and OSM and confirmed that OSM is correct.

Agreed, the 'not' would only be used when one is sure of the right  
answer based on some clear evidence and where there is a reasonably  
chance that someone might change it to an incorrect value.

Possibly one could stretch the syntax a little more and put structure  
into the note tag as well. For example:

name=Rosehill Road
not:name=Rose Hill Road
not:name:note=There are streetsigns on 'Rosehill Road' show different  
versions at each end, however I checked with the council and they say  
that the formal title is indeed Rosehill Road however they do not  
intend to change the other sign for the time being.

Or

Ref=A999
not:ref=998
not:ref:note=This used to be called the A998 but is now the A999 -  
some maps and signs still show A998 but the designation changed on the  
xx/xx/2010

Incidentally, with reference to Rosehill Road in Ipswich the signs do  
indeed vary at each end of the street - I haven't checked with the  
council though. I believe the OS choose the one with least spaces  
unless they get other guidance.

Here is another example where OS Streetview and Google/TeleAtlas are  
not the same as the sign and I have used the proposed 'not:name:note'  
format for the note field. In this case however OS Locator hasn't  
complained so I think it is an example of where OS Streetview and OS  
Locator are not telling the same story.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4211155




Regards,



Peter



>
> Cheers,
> Andy


___
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

[Peter Miller]

On 1 Jun 2010, at 15:39, Chris Hill wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
>> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names   
>> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way.
>>
>> Details in our blog post of the subject.
>> http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html
>>
>> To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box  
>> in  Potlatch (or similar in JOSM).
>> http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png
>>
>> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS  
>> Locator  data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access'  
>> etc etc. I  hope there is not another convention for blocking tag  
>> values that we  have overlooked. If there is we will of course  
>> adjust our code to  accommodate it.
>>
>> there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie,   
>> monday edits will appear on wednesday etc.
>>
>>
>>
>
> On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is  
> potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I  
> think "not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. How  
> about just putting source:name=survey on roads that contradict OS  
> Locator to show they have been checked on the ground.

I was envisaging a technical development where the server would refuse  
to accept tag values that contradicted a not: tag, or possibly it was  
PotLatch that did so for it. To override the block one could of course  
delete the tag, but in time the removal of 'not' tags might be  
patrolled from the minutely diffs.

There is an equivalent in Wikipedia where one gets a message saying  
'an article of that name has already been deleted, please read the  
discussion before recreating it'. The message here would be 'someone  
suggested that that was not the right value for the tag, could you  
check and then try again'.

For our more limited purposes we need a clear message in the data that  
means 'don't keep on highlighting this discrepancy between OSM and OS  
Locator' and I think that data belongs in OSM rather than in some ITO  
DB.


>
> I will certainly use your work to check any street that shows up on  
> 'my patch'.

Great stuff.

Peter


>
> Cheers, Chris


___
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

[Peter Miller]

On 1 Jun 2010, at 15:00, Ian Spencer wrote:




Peter Miller wrote on 31/05/2010 11:02:


We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names
which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way.

Details in our blog post of the subject.
http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html

To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box in
Potlatch (or similar in JOSM).
http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png



Sure. Someone has already commented on the light coloured text. I  
suggest we darken it. Re small text, we will try making it a little  
larger while avoiding text that all runs in together. Currently one  
can normally zoom in to read it.


With regard to the clipped text, yes I have noticed that and forgot to  
mention it in the post - apologies. I guess it is where the text runs  
over a tile boundary or something. We will take a look at that issue,  
but it might be later this week before we can do so.



Regards,


Peter





Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator
data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access' etc etc. I
hope there is not another convention for blocking tag values that we
have overlooked. If there is we will of course adjust our code to
accommodate it.

there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie,
monday edits will appear on wednesday etc.


Regards,



Peter Miller
ITO World Ltd
www.itoworld.com



Hi

That worked well.

My only request would be can you try and tweak the font sizing, as I  
struggled with some that was too small, and also some that was too  
large and had some clipping problems.


For example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.38863&lon=-1.75422&zoom=17

Here there is a small box where the name extends over the box but  
then gets clipped (DEN CLOSE/ ALLWOOD GROVE). I find that if  
I zoom out it eventually unclips itself and, if the font is big  
enough, the whole word appears, so I guess it is one of those things  
where you need to tweak the font to the clipping rectangle a bit  
better.


However, that is a nitpick - the net result is something clear and  
usable which is not swamping everyone with too much information, and  
appears nicely at a small zoom to pick out where the problems are.


Spenny



___
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

[Andy Allan]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Chris Hill  wrote:

> On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is
> potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I think
> "not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. How about just
> putting source:name=survey on roads that contradict OS Locator to show
> they have been checked on the ground.

All the roads I've mapped have been from survey, but what of those
ham-fisted moments in front of the computer?

I think positively identifying what you disagree with is better than
side-effects of other statements. After all, source:name=survey
doesn't necessarily mean that you've checked the disagreement between
OS and OSM and confirmed that OSM is correct.

Cheers,
Andy

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

[Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Chris Hill]

Peter Miller wrote:
> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names  
> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way.
>
> Details in our blog post of the subject.
> http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html
>
> To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box in  
> Potlatch (or similar in JOSM).
> http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png
>
> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator  
> data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access' etc etc. I  
> hope there is not another convention for blocking tag values that we  
> have overlooked. If there is we will of course adjust our code to  
> accommodate it.
>
> there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie,  
> monday edits will appear on wednesday etc.
>
>
>   

On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is 
potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I think 
"not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. How about just 
putting source:name=survey on roads that contradict OS Locator to show 
they have been checked on the ground.

I will certainly use your work to check any street that shows up on 'my 
patch'.

Cheers, Chris

___
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

[Roy Jamison]

I don't believe there would be any point in creating more tags for
possibly incorrect names that are being searched for. A good search
engine can do all that legwork for the end user giving suggestions like
Google maps or something similar taking the hassle away. 
As far as street names vs OS Locator vs Street signs, they can all be
wrong, no system is infallible, and there are many instances throughout
the UK where even the local Council has had the street signs made wrong,
I know there have been one or two in Swale! Stupid councils lol :)

On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 14:12 +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2010, at 12:18, Ed Avis wrote:
> 
> > Peter Miller  writes:
> >
> >> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names
> >> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way.
> >
> >> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator
> >> data.
> >
> > I have sometimes used incorrect_name for noting mistakes in street  
> > names.
> > The intention was that if somebody tagged it wrongly, it's likely that
> > somebody could also do a search for the incorrect name.  OSM search  
> > engines
> > might want to use incorrect_name for a 'did you mean...' suggestion.
> >
> > It might be useful to distinguish slight spelling mistakes (such as  
> > the
> > "Arthurs Close" mentioned) against cases where OS has a totally  
> > different
> > name for the same bit of street.  For variant spellings, there is no  
> > harm
> > in adding  them all as incorrect_name, alt_name or whatever.  But I  
> > would
> > not want an OSM search engine to pick up names which are known to be  
> > quite wrong.
> 
> Not that the OS version of 'Arthur's Terrace' misses the 'R' as well  
> as the apostrophe! ie 'Athurs Terrace'. I would expect a search to  
> ignore apostrophe's but not 'R's!
> 
> incorrect_name is also fine (but we don't use it at present); if that  
> one is the recommended practice for the community then we will use it.  
> Possibly neither have been used extensively yet and we should talk  
> about what we want. Personally I like the use of ':' because it is the  
> way other tags create a formal hierarchy, for example source:name;  
> 'Not' also has the advantage of being shorter.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > -- 
> > 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



___
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

[Peter Miller]

On 1 Jun 2010, at 12:36, Ed Avis wrote:

> Peter Miller  writes:
>
>> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names
>> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way.
>
>> To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box in
>> Potlatch (or similar in JOSM).
>> http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png
>
> Thanks, this is great work and another good resource for armchair  
> mapping
> and janitorial work.  What is the maximum zoom level for these tiles?
>
The tiles are generated dynamically (and are then cached). We can go  
in as close as Potlatch does. We are working on a slippery map browser  
at present which will be able to produce a summary view for the  
country. More about that next week hopefully.

We are also creating stats for each administrative area (at district/ 
borough level). Here is our first cut - note however that our  
districts are a little out of date so some do not reflect current  
boundaries. We will be up to date with boundaries by net week.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/685499/OSM_OSLocator_stats.csv

In summary, there are 10 authorities with over 90% coverage of OS  
Locator names (out of 400) and there are 7 authorities with less than  
10% coverage of OS Locator names. Half the authorities (200) have over  
half the OS Locator names included.

It is worth noting that OS Locator names include various tracks and  
footpaths without signs so it would be hard to achieve exceedingly  
high coverage without this data.

We intend to make regular updates to these stats available through the  
ITO website from next week some time.



Regards,


Peter





> It might help readability to have the text always in black colour,  
> and in
> a fixed-size, non-anti-aliased font.  Sometimes it is not readable.

The
>
> -- 
> 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Peter Miller]

On 1 Jun 2010, at 12:18, Ed Avis wrote:

> Peter Miller  writes:
>
>> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names
>> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way.
>
>> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator
>> data.
>
> I have sometimes used incorrect_name for noting mistakes in street  
> names.
> The intention was that if somebody tagged it wrongly, it's likely that
> somebody could also do a search for the incorrect name.  OSM search  
> engines
> might want to use incorrect_name for a 'did you mean...' suggestion.
>
> It might be useful to distinguish slight spelling mistakes (such as  
> the
> "Arthurs Close" mentioned) against cases where OS has a totally  
> different
> name for the same bit of street.  For variant spellings, there is no  
> harm
> in adding  them all as incorrect_name, alt_name or whatever.  But I  
> would
> not want an OSM search engine to pick up names which are known to be  
> quite wrong.

Not that the OS version of 'Arthur's Terrace' misses the 'R' as well  
as the apostrophe! ie 'Athurs Terrace'. I would expect a search to  
ignore apostrophe's but not 'R's!

incorrect_name is also fine (but we don't use it at present); if that  
one is the recommended practice for the community then we will use it.  
Possibly neither have been used extensively yet and we should talk  
about what we want. Personally I like the use of ':' because it is the  
way other tags create a formal hierarchy, for example source:name;  
'Not' also has the advantage of being shorter.

Regards,


Peter



>
> -- 
> 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[John Robert Peterson]

On 1 June 2010 12:18, Ed Avis  wrote:

> I have sometimes used incorrect_name for noting mistakes in street names.
> The intention was that if somebody tagged it wrongly, it's likely that
> somebody could also do a search for the incorrect name.  OSM search engines
> might want to use incorrect_name for a 'did you mean...' suggestion.
>


If doing that, might I sugest that we support a wildcard *name* as the part
of the search, that way any type of name including:

old_name
local_name
incorrect_name_5
name_fr

etc will be cought.

JR
___
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

[Ed Avis]

Peter Miller  writes:

>We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names  
>which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way.

>To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box in  
>Potlatch (or similar in JOSM).
>http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png

Thanks, this is great work and another good resource for armchair mapping
and janitorial work.  What is the maximum zoom level for these tiles?

It might help readability to have the text always in black colour, and in
a fixed-size, non-anti-aliased font.  Sometimes it is not readable.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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

[Ed Avis]

Peter Miller  writes:

>We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names  
>which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way.

>Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator  
>data.

I have sometimes used incorrect_name for noting mistakes in street names.
The intention was that if somebody tagged it wrongly, it's likely that
somebody could also do a search for the incorrect name.  OSM search engines
might want to use incorrect_name for a 'did you mean...' suggestion.

It might be useful to distinguish slight spelling mistakes (such as the
"Arthurs Close" mentioned) against cases where OS has a totally different
name for the same bit of street.  For variant spellings, there is no harm
in adding  them all as incorrect_name, alt_name or whatever.  But I would
not want an OSM search engine to pick up names which are known to be quite 
wrong.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
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

[Robert Scott]

On Monday 31 May 2010, Peter Miller wrote:
> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names  
> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way.
> 
> Details in our blog post of the subject.
> http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html
> 
> To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box in  
> Potlatch (or similar in JOSM).
> http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png
> 
> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS Locator  
> data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access' etc etc. I  
> hope there is not another convention for blocking tag values that we  
> have overlooked. If there is we will of course adjust our code to  
> accommodate it.
> 
> there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie,  
> monday edits will appear on wednesday etc.

Oh.

I've been working on something quite similar, only more openstreetbugs-inspired 
and openlayers-based using my musical chairs results.


robert.

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