Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - handling already-tagged fixmes
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 t...@compton.nu 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
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 e...@waniasset.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 - handling already-tagged fixmes
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 06:14:42PM +, Ed Avis wrote: ael law_ence@... 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
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 e...@waniasset.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 - handling already-tagged fixmes
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
Tom Evans tom.evan...@... 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 e...@waniasset.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 - handling already-tagged fixmes
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
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
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
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 ianmspen...@gmail.com 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
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
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
Robert Scott li...@... 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 e...@waniasset.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 - handling already-tagged fixmes
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
ael law_ence@... 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 e...@waniasset.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 - handling already-tagged fixmes
Ed Avis e...@... 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
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 e...@waniasset.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 - handling already-tagged fixmes
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
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: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39003466 but the tiles, even though dated July 10th, haven't picked up the change: http://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=18lat=51.52339lon=-0.17639layers=B0TF 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
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 -apostrophes
Peter Miller peter.mil...@... 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 e...@waniasset.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 -apostrophes
- Original Message - From: Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:56 AM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO -apostrophes Peter Miller peter.mil...@... 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] 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. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.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 - apostrophes
...issues such as Saint vs St, or Queen's Drive versus Queens Drive, are not ones that can be resolved by survey. They are merely orthographic conventions Is this true? I was under the impression that we mapped what we saw - i.e. the definitive name is the one we see on the street signs during a survey? Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes
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 e...@waniasset.com 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes
Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@... 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 e...@waniasset.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 - apostrophes
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
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
- Original Message - From: Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 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
On 14 Jun 2010, at 15:11, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 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
Could the OS versus OSM name comparison be changed to strip apostrophes from both names before comparing? See http://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=16lat=51.54886lon=-0.20997layers=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 e...@waniasset.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 - apostrophes
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 e...@waniasset.com wrote: Could the OS versus OSM name comparison be changed to strip apostrophes from both names before comparing? See http://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=16lat=51.54886lon=-0.20997layers=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 e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes
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 richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: From: Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes To: Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com 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 e...@waniasset.com wrote: Could the OS versus OSM name comparison be changed to strip apostrophes from both names before comparing? See http://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=16lat=51.54886lon=-0.20997layers=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 e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ 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 openstreetmapcraigmil...@... 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 e...@waniasset.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 - apostrophes
Ed Avis wrote: Bob Kerr openstreetmapcraigmil...@... 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
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 o...@raggedred.net wrote: If I'm going out to check some anomalies, it would be very annoying to have to go out to the same area again in six months time to repeat the process because apostrophes or some other extra anomaly type suddenly appeared. I would like to see as much as possible for an area so I can clean it up all at once. There's nothing to stop anyone else ignoring some elements for now. Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
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 previous 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
Re: [Talk-GB] - Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 02:49:53 +0100 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk 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; http://www.streetmap.co.uk/idld.srf?x=448645y=76705z=120sv=448645,76705st=4ar=ymapp=idld.srfsearchp=ids.srfdn=716ax=448645ay=76705lm=0 -- 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 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 http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=448572y=76655z=120searchp=i ds.srfmapp=map.srf y=76655z=120searchp=ids.srfmapp=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
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 e...@loach.me.uk To: SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk; 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=448572y=76655z=120searchp=ids.srfmapp=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
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
- Original Message From: Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com To: Sam Larsen samlars...@yahoo.co.uk 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
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 e...@waniasset.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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Roy Jamison xtee...@googlemail.com 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
On 2 Jun 2010, at 11:13, Andy Allan wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Roy Jamison xtee...@googlemail.com 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 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
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 sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk 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 li...@humanleg.org.uk *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
From: Andrew Ainsworth andrew.ainswo...@gmail.com 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
On 2 Jun 2010, at 17:36, Sam Larsen wrote: From: Andrew Ainsworth andrew.ainswo...@gmail.com 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
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
Peter Miller peter.mil...@... 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 e...@waniasset.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
Peter Miller peter.mil...@... 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 e...@waniasset.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
On 1 June 2010 12:18, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com 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
On 1 Jun 2010, at 12:18, Ed Avis wrote: Peter Miller peter.mil...@... 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
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 peter.mil...@... 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 e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ 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 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
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
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=52.38863lon=-1.75422zoom=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
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
On 1 Jun 2010, at 15:50, Andy Allan wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net 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
[Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
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
On 31 May 2010 11:02, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com 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
Re: [Talk-GB] - Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
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
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
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
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
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 xtee...@googlemail.com 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
[Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
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. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd www.itoworld.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
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
