Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
Great to see all the progress in London.
We should also note that person (or persons unknown) have been beavering
away in Scotland which is now 50%+ in all areas and the Edinburgh-Glasgow
corridor is 95%+ complete almost from coast to coast.
I (and a few other people) have been plugging away heading east from Ipswich
since Xmas. Building on everyone elses good work we have now nearly joined
the Suffolk coast to B'ham with a solid strip of blue. Suffolk is completely
Blue and Cambridgeshire is nearly there. The next challenge will be join
that strip to Greater London through Bedfordshire and Herts.
It has just occurred to me are our colours ('blue', 'red') too overtly
political? Suffolk went 'completely blue' in the last general election!
Regards,
Peter Miller
ITO World
On 2 March 2011 13:28, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
Following Steve's happy email about Enfield, we now have Southwark up to
100% accuracy against OS Locator with 56 (!) discrepancies identified in the
OS data, compared to 9 in Enfield.
We're also plowing ahead with buildings, and have perhaps 1/2 to 2/3rds of
the borough's buildings now traced, with a big chunk my way in East
Dulwich/Peckham also fully addressed.
I see Barnet is also up to 100% - congrats! That takes us up to 9 local
authorities in the UK with 100% accuracy.
Tom
--
http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
blue-red is the standard for cold-hot display, though it's being
displaced by red/amber/green in most management reporting.
I might add green for those who've got to the blissful state of 100%
I hope you update the algorithm to recognize all highway tags soon.
Oxford's never going to get above 99.87% until you do.
I think you might also consider a path density map or a
shop/pub:street density map. That's the sort of stuff where OSM can
really do much better than OS / Google.
Richard
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
Great to see all the progress in London.
We should also note that person (or persons unknown) have been beavering
away in Scotland which is now 50%+ in all areas and the Edinburgh-Glasgow
corridor is 95%+ complete almost from coast to coast.
I (and a few other people) have been plugging away heading east from Ipswich
since Xmas. Building on everyone elses good work we have now nearly joined
the Suffolk coast to B'ham with a solid strip of blue. Suffolk is completely
Blue and Cambridgeshire is nearly there. The next challenge will be join
that strip to Greater London through Bedfordshire and Herts.
It has just occurred to me are our colours ('blue', 'red') too overtly
political? Suffolk went 'completely blue' in the last general election!
Regards,
Peter Miller
ITO World
On 2 March 2011 13:28, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
Following Steve's happy email about Enfield, we now have Southwark up to
100% accuracy against OS Locator with 56 (!) discrepancies identified in the
OS data, compared to 9 in Enfield.
We're also plowing ahead with buildings, and have perhaps 1/2 to 2/3rds of
the borough's buildings now traced, with a big chunk my way in East
Dulwich/Peckham also fully addressed.
I see Barnet is also up to 100% - congrats! That takes us up to 9 local
authorities in the UK with 100% accuracy.
Tom
--
http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
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] Southwark update
On 03/03/2011 09:51, Richard Mann wrote: I think you might also consider a path density map or a shop/pub:street density map. That's the sort of stuff where OSM can really do much better than OS / Google. Richard This was exactly what I was trying to do with my various pub density maps http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/02/updating-pub-density.html. I did do various attempts to normalise pub density to highway length but none of them showed anything interesting. I have also looked at turn restrictions, and public toilets as potential proxies for things mapped on the ground versus things mapped remotely. A recent diary entry pointing to Gregory Williams cycle-parking heatmap highlighted another possible candidate. Unfortunately most of these maps (like the Botanical Society's maps http://www.bsbimaps.org.uk/atlas/map_page.php?spid=2952.0sppname=Cotoneaster%20rehdericommname=Bullate%20Cotoneasterof distribution of /Cotoneaster /species) mainly show where mappers live or are active. As more of the highway network gets completed by remote mapping, the more important it is to find handles for on the ground mapping. Pete Reed did some nice comparisons http://tlatet.blogspot.com/2010/04/more-osm-coverage.html between highway length by authority as reported by the DoT and OSM road length. I'm not aware of him having updated these recently. Incidentally, 0% discrepancy between OSM and OS Locator is inadequate as an indication of streetname completion: the next test would be to check OSM names against PAF to see how many address elements were missing. Unfortunately, we would not be able to use any of the detail: but even headline figures by LA might be interesting. I've noticed a trend in new in-fill huosing developments for houses facing a main road to have a separate name (e.g., here http://osm.org/go/eu8Z4HWl1--), which does not appear in Locator, nor do side terraces in late-19C/early-20C housing (e.g., here http://osm.org/go/eu8ZmJWOR-- or here http://osm.org/go/eu8Zn0fu1--). All these examples are places I've added this year. Jerry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM SK53_osm@...; writes: Incidentally, 0% discrepancy between OSM and OS Locator is inadequate as an indication of streetname completion My measure of completeness is that all the noname streets are gone. (That does depend on someone having traced everything from aerial imagery or OS Street View so that they can then be visited on the ground.) On that measure there are still a few council estates and odd spots in Southwark that need visiting, but I am working through them. There are quite a few names on the ground and in OSM that don't appear in OS Locator. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: Almost on-topic and because I found it interesting is this [1] article on the use of colour in reporting scientific and technical results. In my line of work I see so many people making the same mistakes mentioned in the article so I'm trying to spread the work :) [1] http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/people/l/lloydt/color/color.HTM Excellent link. Monochrome is best most of the time. I'd add though, that any map-based presentation somehow has to crack the underlying density problem - the fact that there's a lot more measurable stuff in some places (towns) than in others (countryside). I'd guess that varying the colour in two dimensions (maybe hue and intensity) might do it. A logarithmic scale might be helpful too. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
On 3 March 2011 03:21, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: Tom, I've noticed you've added a large number of trees with species details supplied by Southwark Council. Some of the trees appear a bit random eg http://osm.org/go/euuuYWULe-- Whats the story behind this? I wondering if they're from Southwarks TPO list? or list of plum trees? I got the council's tree database off them with permission to use it. I've not put them all in as the default Mapnik render gives them too high a priority and you end up with almost no road names at certain zoom levels. I started in my patch of Southwark (East Dulwich) and then stopped when I noticed this problem: http://osm.org/go/euuuX2dM I've submitted a bug report on trac: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3511 In order to be useful for non-experts, I've also tried to crowdsource the common names for all of the species in the data set and add those in, along with any fruit/nuts they produce for people like me who are interested in foraging. The work-in-progress is here: http://bit.ly/hvv0Ok (help appreciated!) To test it out, I tried importing the trees in the Prunus genus that have edible fruit (plums, damsons, cherries, etc.) You can see the results pulled out into a KML file overlaid on OSM maps here: http://bit.ly/fp6LJF Those are the slightly random trees you might notice. Noticed Southwark are one of the better councils for providing maps on their website showing important info (hopefully they can start using OSM as the base map) Alas, they were considering this for some time but really wanted a dataset with building outlines and I've been too slow in my mass-tracing efforts. In the end they went for a third party product based on OS Mastermap. But the council are still interested in OSM as a data source repository, e.g. some work I'm doing with Southwark and on a pan-London level to map food growing spaces. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
Tom Chance tom@... writes: [Southwark council using OSM] Alas, they were considering this for some time but really wanted a dataset with building outlines and I've been too slow in my mass-tracing efforts. In the end they went for a third party product based on OS Mastermap. Out of interest do you know how precise they wanted building outlines? In other words might they have been satisified with the blocky rectangles of OS Street View, or would manual tracing from Bing be needed, or would even that be too poor-quality? I wonder if it would be possible to simply purchase the building outlines from OS for the borough of Southwark and import them into OSM. I suppose they would want a ton of money for that. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
Tom Chance tom@... writes: Tom, I've noticed you've added a large number of trees with species details supplied by Southwark Council. I've also tried to crowdsource the common names for all of the species in the data set and add those in, along with any fruit/nuts they produce for people like me who are interested in foraging. I think to get the common name you could grind your list against Wikipedia. Ideally, only the scientific name would need to be tagged in OSM, with natural language versions added automatically when rendering. Is that the plan? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
On 3 March 2011 15:19, Steve Doerr steve.do...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Row 78 says 'Cedrus SPP': this means /Cedrus/ spp., i.e. /Cedrus/ species (plural), i.e. multiple species of the /Cedrus/ genus (cedar). Stands for the Latin SPecies Pluralis -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
Southwark's map is here http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/index.jsp?tooltip=yes It is humbling to look at the Master Map-derived tiles and realize just how far we have to go. Tracing just a square kilometre from Bing is an hour or two's work, and then adding building names and house numbers requires a visit. But I don't need to tell you this :-(. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
Tom Chance tom@... writes: Tom, I've noticed you've added a large number of trees with species details supplied by Southwark Council. Ideally, only the scientific name would need to be tagged in OSM, with natural language versions added automatically when rendering. No, I want to put the species, genus, common name and produce into OSM wherever possible. It's good for OSM users to have this information but if it's derived from a simple lookup of species name then it's not ideal to duplicate it on every object. For example suppose there was a mistake in your list mapping species to common name. If the common name was tagged on every tree, then correcting the mistake would involve retagging every tree object. On the other hand, if the tree is tagged with just the key needed for lookup (the species) then the information about common name can be corrected in a single place. Purely from a data modelling point of view I don't think it right to populate data into OSM when that data is not new information, but can be automatically derived from existing OSM data. Better to keep the lookup table of species information in a central place and give OSM the necessary data to point to it. On the other hand, if there is some new fact about the world, such as a particular tree which is known to give particularly tasty figs, then this can certainly be tagged. The key point is that it's information which could not be deduced from what's already there. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
On 3 March 2011 16:15, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: It's good for OSM users to have this information but if it's derived from a simple lookup of species name then it's not ideal to duplicate it on every object. For example suppose there was a mistake in your list mapping species to common name. If the common name was tagged on every tree, then correcting the mistake would involve retagging every tree object. On the other hand, if the tree is tagged with just the key needed for lookup (the species) then the information about common name can be corrected in a single place. Purely from a data modelling point of view I don't think it right to populate data into OSM when that data is not new information, but can be automatically derived from existing OSM data. Better to keep the lookup table of species information in a central place and give OSM the necessary data to point to it. That's elegant from a logical and maintenance point of view, but adds hurdles for the data user. For example, it would mean you couldn't just download OSM data and stick it into OpenLayers for the public like so: http://tomchance.dev.openstreetmap.org/trees.html A data user would need the skills to use the reference source to add that into the interface or merged dataset. By comparison, the experienced data maintainer could simply use JOSM and XAPI (if it actually worked these days) to fix the error quite easily. I'm not sure this solution of adding the genus+species+common name+produce data to every tree is Quite Right, but in my view it's preferable as a botanical name isn't very meaningful to the average data user. Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
On 03/03/2011 03:21, Jason Cunningham wrote: Well done to all those who finished off the road network in Southwark. I was drawn into OSM when searching for a mapping solution in the far south of Southwark, and it's brilliant to see how things have come along. Tom, I've noticed you've added a large number of trees with species details supplied by Southwark Council. Some of the trees appear a bit random eg http://osm.org/go/euuuYWULe-- Whats the story behind this? I wondering if they're from Southwarks TPO list? or list of plum trees? Noticed Southwark are one of the better councils for providing maps on their website showing important info (hopefully they can start using OSM as the base map) cheers Jason Tom posted a picture on Flickr a while ago and I asked him the same question: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomchance/5415845316/. The best place to get a sense of completeness is Peckham Rye Common Park http://osm.org/go/euuudw2m: I confess to having corrected http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7439566 a typo on a couple of the trees. I find this an exciting development: a place where I can point to and put pressure on other councils to make their tree databases available. My particular interests lie with good specimen trees and relatively unusual ones which are hosts to particular insects (e.g., Gleditsia, Holm Oak). I have two minor reservations, which the Southwark data set shows: 1) Overlaying individual trees on an existing closed way showing woodland (see Peckham Rye Park). My suspicsion is that although this is closed canopy it's not really a wood (its nigh on impossible to keep accurate records of trees in woodland as the Lady Park Wood experience has shown). Of course this can be handled by post-processing in the renderer, but I think it needs a little thought as to how such things are mapped. 2) Tagging the botanical name. There is little point in pushing individual trees into OSM without this. There are three (perhaps more) schemes : name:botanical=*, species=* and taxon=*, each with various merits and demerits. The former is the most popular (a JOSM preset I think), but although comprehensible, it does horrible things to the meaning of the name tag, as name is usually used to things, not types of things. (I am not named /Homo sapiens/ under any nomenclature, nor am I going to tag phone boxs name=K5). Species is fine until we start using it for varieties like /Prunus cerasifolia/ 'Pissardi' (called by Alan Mitchell, Pissards 'orrible Plum) and /Prunus cerasifolia/ 'Nigra'. Or for things like /Prunus /'Kanzan', which is such a mix of genetics no-one knows where it came from therefore it does not have a specific name. That is why I have preferred taxon, the generic term which covers any scientific name whether for a species, a variety, a cultivar, genus or aggregate. I labour this point because experience tells me that this type of pedantry is important for maintaining credibility with naturalists: ultimately it is naturalists and tree enthusiasts who might maintain this data. If my local council is anything to go by there will be plenty of mis-identified trees, or ones which it hasn't been possible to identify (typically Victorian oddities), plus new planting which has been badly sourced and thus isn't what it purports to be. Thanks again to Tom for seeing this through. Jerry P.S. just seen Tom's comment about trees obscuring street names too. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM SK53_osm@...; writes: There are three (perhaps more) schemes : name:botanical=*, species=* and taxon=* You are right that name:botanical is a bit odd. It might be better as species:name:botanical or perhaps taxon:name:botanical That also allows for species:name:en and so on to store the common name in various languages (subject to earlier grumbles about tagging such redundant data in OSM itself). -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
On 3 March 2011 16:34, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.ukwrote: I find this an exciting development: a place where I can point to and put pressure on other councils to make their tree databases available. My particular interests lie with good specimen trees and relatively unusual ones which are hosts to particular insects (e.g., Gleditsia, Holm Oak). I'm glad others find it useful! If someone could attend to the Mapnik bug ( http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3511) I'd happily import the remaining data so people can fix errors and play with it. 1) Overlaying individual trees on an existing closed way showing woodland (see Peckham Rye Park). This is really me naughtily tagging for the renderer. Zoom out and the natural=tree disappear, but the natural=wood doesn't. Many stylesheets omit trees. I've used the natural=wood area to cover the largeish area that is covered by fairly dense trees rather than odd isolated ones or spaced out rows. 2) Tagging the botanical name. There is little point in pushing individual trees into OSM without this. There are three (perhaps more) schemes : name:botanical=*, species=* and taxon=*, each with various merits and demerits. Interesting, I just went with the schema on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree On getting other councils to release data, you may find a report due to be published soon by the London Assembly Environment Committee interesting. Darren Johnson, a Green member, chairs the committee that has tried to update a previous report on the state of London's trees. We've had all sorts of fun and games getting data on totals out of borough tree officers. Some of the key recommendations address releasing open data on trees and getting better at maintaining it. Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
On 03/03/2011 17:16, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM wrote: I must completely agree with Tom on this. (When has OSM cared about 3NF?). This may be completely off the wall, but what about creating a relation for each species and adding the individual trees to the appropriate relation? The name tags etc. would be on the relation. -- Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
Relations are not categories. The members of a relation need to be in some geospatial relationship to each other, and these are not! Richard On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Steve Doerr steve.do...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: On 03/03/2011 17:16, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM wrote: I must completely agree with Tom on this. (When has OSM cared about 3NF?). This may be completely off the wall, but what about creating a relation for each species and adding the individual trees to the appropriate relation? The name tags etc. would be on the relation. -- Steve ___ 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] Southwark update
Well done to all those who finished off the road network in Southwark. I was drawn into OSM when searching for a mapping solution in the far south of Southwark, and it's brilliant to see how things have come along. Tom, I've noticed you've added a large number of trees with species details supplied by Southwark Council. Some of the trees appear a bit random eg http://osm.org/go/euuuYWULe-- Whats the story behind this? I wondering if they're from Southwarks TPO list? or list of plum trees? Noticed Southwark are one of the better councils for providing maps on their website showing important info (hopefully they can start using OSM as the base map) cheers Jason On 2 March 2011 13:28, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: Following Steve's happy email about Enfield, we now have Southwark up to 100% accuracy against OS Locator with 56 (!) discrepancies identified in the OS data, compared to 9 in Enfield. We're also plowing ahead with buildings, and have perhaps 1/2 to 2/3rds of the borough's buildings now traced, with a big chunk my way in East Dulwich/Peckham also fully addressed. I see Barnet is also up to 100% - congrats! That takes us up to 9 local authorities in the UK with 100% accuracy. Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
