Re: [Talk-us] Menlo Park Admin Boundary

[the Old Topo Depot]

Thanks, Apollinaris, for the additional updates.  BTW, what are the
changeset IDs that touched the other admin ways, please ?

Further examination of changeset
11339421
reveals
deletion of Sharon Heights Golf Course, some surrounding ways, and other
point features in the immediate vicinity, including exit numbers on I-280,
emergency call boxes, as well as other features.  See
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.4251091480255&lon=-122.214467525482&zoom=16


It may be prudent to revert the entire changeset, given the number of
deletions contained, and the fact that this changeset is the only committed
by bxbreen (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bxbreen).  Unfortunately, at
least the Sand Hill/I-280 interchange has been subsequently edited by
others.

Thoughts on how best to proceed are appreciated.

Best,

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:

> there is more damage to the borders in the area. I have removed some
> duplicates for Menlo PArk now and fixed PA,EPA,MV,SV too. looks like
> another pretty new user deleted even more boundaries.
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 9:16 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote:
>
> It appears that changeset 
> 11339421 deleted
> way id 108849539, which was a part of the Menlo Park admin boundary.  As
> the changeset is rather large (2,304 nodes; 160 ways) a full revert seems
> undesirable.
> What might be the best way to recover the deleted way and restore the
> associated relation without attempting a full revert ?
> Thanks in advance,
>
> John Novak
>
>
>  ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>


-- 
John Novak
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

[Mike N]

(I was going to talk about the Potlatch license display, but found that 
Potlatch2 still doesn't work for me - blank screen)


http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=16229


On 6/8/2012 4:49 PM, stevea wrote:

I discern a vague remap plan ordering.  If you can, please sharpen this
up or correct it if it is outright wrong:

1)  "The redaction bot" (still being written) will do much (to "ease in"
the license change),
2)  "Nudge nodes to the location where they belong" is smartly next,
somewhat unspecified as to how/where,


  The original TIGER import was of poor resolution.  To set context, 
'blars' originally lined up the streets with aerial imagery or gps 
tracks.  Most of his work shows up as node movements (yellow/orange 
nodes), with a few red nodes (new nodes he added to improve geometry). 
After the redaction bot runs, it will be clear on a grid against Bing 
aerial that the intersections are misaligned.   To remap those ways 
ahead of time, just center those roads and intersections against Bing 
aerial.  Even a tiny movement will be enough to clean those nodes. 
After a day or so, the license information should show as clean.


An example area is here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.9687&lon=-118.208&zoom=14&layers=M

   In JOSM, his edits in that area show mainly as orange nodes, with a 
few red nodes.  JOSM's "View History" shows that most of his edits to 
ways consisted of removing the 'tiger:reviewed=no' tag.   So the 
redaction bot will not change those ways at all.



3)  Perhaps update with TIGER 2011 data in select areas, also
unspecified as to exactly where.


 Now that I've had a chance to look at the areas, I think I'd reserve 
use of TIGER 2011 for only new streets or mountainous,curvy roads with 
original poor geometry, or for streets that blars created or split and 
show as 'red'.   For gridded streets, it's almost certainly easier to 
just move the nodes instead of TIGER, usually to the center line of the 
aerial imagery.



Why ask?  I remain vague how I should prioritize my remap efforts, and
knowing redaction bot algorithm details helps me sharpen that up, I'm
pretty sure.  (I am not alone).  Heck, it could also be true that work
being done in the guts of these steps (does or will) make remap efforts
less or even not necessary.  If so, a lot of people would appreciate
seeing those words outright.  Or at least the necessary semantics to
infer where our efforts are best invested in this project.  (We make
these judgements for ourselves based upon data, preferably excellent data).


These are good questions, the case handling is outlined on the page, in 
the table "What taints data?".


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F

  Other areas may result in a different recommendation; feel free to 
ask as those cases come up.   It's quite a complicated and unusual situation



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

Re: [Talk-us] Special issues in LA remap

[stevea]

  So, the redaction bot will not completely destroy those areas.  If 
no one has touched the road alignment since his work, it will just 
revert back to the original TIGER upload coordinates.  All that is 
required after the redaction bot will be to nudge the nodes to the 
location where they belong.


   A fast preemptive remap for nodes set for redaction-move would be 
to just move the node to align with current Bing aerial.   Note that 
the Bing aerial alignment might not be perfect - try to find some 
GPS tracks in the area to see how close it is.  There should be some 
tracks on the nearest interstate.


I discern a vague remap plan ordering.  If you can, please sharpen 
this up or correct it if it is outright wrong:


1)  "The redaction bot" (still being written) will do much (to "ease 
in" the license change),
2)  "Nudge nodes to the location where they belong" is smartly next, 
somewhat unspecified as to how/where,
3)  Perhaps update with TIGER 2011 data in select areas, also 
unspecified as to exactly where.


I know that sounds vague and is partially unwritten (which is OK, an 
intention must precede a plan must precede a result).  Please simply 
be more clear:  is that the state of our art right now?  To be clear 
on my part, I include no value judgement about that, I just ask for 
clarification about our process(es).  Are roughly those three steps 
(with others, no doubt) "the plan?"  (OK by me if so, though I 
encourage more dialog about process).


Why ask?  I remain vague how I should prioritize my remap efforts, 
and knowing redaction bot algorithm details helps me sharpen that up, 
I'm pretty sure.  (I am not alone).  Heck, it could also be true that 
work being done in the guts of these steps (does or will) make remap 
efforts less or even not necessary.  If so, a lot of people would 
appreciate seeing those words outright.  Or at least the necessary 
semantics to infer where our efforts are best invested in this 
project.  (We make these judgements for ourselves based upon data, 
preferably excellent data).


Charlotte, are you learning more about how OSM communication works 
(or doesn't, or is difficult for some) via talk-us?  I both am and am 
not.  We can be better.  Wasted effort is a waste, and OSM must 
reduce waste.


In advance of "better answers," thank you for sharing with the 
crystal ball more widely as you might,


SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Menlo Park Admin Boundary

[Apollinaris Schoell]

there is more damage to the borders in the area. I have removed some duplicates 
for Menlo PArk now and fixed PA,EPA,MV,SV too. looks like another pretty new 
user deleted even more boundaries.


On Jun 7, 2012, at 9:16 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote:

> It appears that changeset 11339421 deleted way id 108849539, which was a part 
> of the Menlo Park admin boundary.  As the changeset is rather large (2,304 
> nodes; 160 ways) a full revert seems undesirable.
> What might be the best way to recover the deleted way and restore the 
> associated relation without attempting a full revert ?
> Thanks in advance, 
> 
> John Novak
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] Menlo Park Admin Boundary

[the Old Topo Depot]

Thanks much, Nathan, for the assist.

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

> I forgot to mention that you can also use Potlatch 1. Hit U to view
> deleted ways, select the way, and unlock. This is probably the easiest for
> a simple undeletion like this.
>
>
> __**_
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
John Novak
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us