Hi Guys,
Axk and I had a bit of a discussion on GNS. Your thoughts please?
I find the thread below so cluttered, im sure you'll also find it the
same way. Sorry about that.
I just thought i should include my first reply so you would know the
start. This is how it goes:
"Hi Ax,
Yeah, i was bored this past few days, wasn't able to go to office for
some reasons. So out of boredom I just thought of reading about GNS. I
noticed that the GNS is a work in progress and that it is frequently
updated. So I did try to crosscheck with the latest updates with what we
currently have now in Phils.
I was convinced of the corrections (of course not all of 'em is
perfectly true), this is one fine example
http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=15&lat=10.55199&lon=123.95908&layers=00B000TTFFFTFF
If you enable both the Mapnik and ToH overlays, you will still notice the
former and the corrected points (Mt Lantoan and Danao Peak). Checking these
with GoogleEarth base, the corrected spots hit closer to the intended points."
Forwarded Message
From: axk
To: anthony.bal...@gmail.com
Subject: [OpenStreetMap] Re: Re: Re: NGA-GNS uploads
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:26:35 +0100
Hi BlueArrow,
axk has sent you a message through OpenStreetMap with the subject Re: Re: Re:
NGA-GNS uploads:
==
hey anthony,
got your msg, tnx. i'm on travel d comin 9 days and only have very limited
internet connectivity from my cellfon, thats why i didnt reply. will do
once im back. if you want, you can forward our conversation to the mailing
list, so there is some time for discussion already. regards, and talk to
you in a week.
ax
--- Original message ---
> From: BlueArrow
> To: axel+...@kollmorgen.net
> Sent: '10-09-20, 8:26
>
> Hi axk,
>
> BlueArrow has sent you a message through OpenStreetMap with the subject
> Re: Re: NGA-GNS uploads:
>
> ==
> Hi Ax,
>
> How are you? Sent you a reply from gmail but seems like it didn't reach
> you.
>
> Resending my responses here in osm mail.
>
>
> Anthony
>
> On 2010-09-17 16:56:20 UTC axk wrote:
>
>> On 2010-09-16 07:55, BlueArrow wrote:
>> > On 2010-09-15 12:47:19 UTC axk wrote:
>> >> i noticed that you have been uploading NGA-GNS place files,
>> >> especially this one:
>> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5778632 (i'm mapping
>> >> in the ormoc area). now while i think that extending osm's coverage
>> >> is good, i don't know if using NGA-GNS place names is a good idea:
>> >>
>> >> * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GEOnet_Names_Server#Caveats :
>> >> + Once a name is put into the database, it is never removed unless
>> >> it is an obvious duplicate. This means that there are many, many
>> >> names that have no modern significance.
>> >> + The geographical resolution is often very coarse, from
>> >> experience features can often be two to three kilometres from there
>> >> actual locations.
>> >> + Places where people live are are generally just classifies as
>> >> "PPL", Populated Place. This can be anything from a city to what is
>> >> now just a farm house.
>> >> + There is a small but significant amount of entries that are
>> >> inaccurate or plain wrong: mistranscriptions, places that are
>> >> listed as in one country but actually somewhere else completely.
>> >>
>> >> * also,
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Data_sources#Gu
>> idelines_for_OSM-PH_bulk_data_import :
>> >>+ All planned imports should be announced to the talk-ph list.
>> >>+ Community-consensus should be made before imports.
>> >>
>> >> * there were some NGA-GNS imports before:
>> >>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Data_sources#Ge
>> onet_Name_Server
>> >> . however, they were
>> >> + coarser (towns and cities, islands and islets, mountains, ridges
>> and
>> >> hills) instead of 60 villages per 0.16 square degrees as in that
>> changeset
>> >> + we are (i am) still struggling with correcting these imports, see
>> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/talk-ph@openstreetmap.org/msg00360.html
>> >>
>> >> so, all in all, i think that - unless you double checked the uploaded
>> >> places with a secondary source - these imports should be rolled back.
>> >>
>> >> what do you think?
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > The other entries, these are the barangays which i thought is a good
>> > way to start the initiative to include in the map, until such time
>> > that it will be corrected on the ground.
>>
>> it is *not* the barangays, but (see above) just "PPL", Populated Places
>> - "which can be anything from a city to just a farm house". plus (also
>> see above), these places might not exist anymore, might be misspelled,
>> might be at the wrong location.
>
> I stand corrected, didn't intend to generalize all as barangays :)
>
>>
>> i checked the accuracy of the places in your changeset 5778632 by
>> overlaying it with a PHL barangay shapefile from GADM [1]. have a look
>> at it:
>>
>>http://osm.kollm.org/nga-gns-accuracy.
