Re: [Talk-us] Remapping is good
At 2012-02-01 06:08, Nick Hocking wrote: Ok I've found a few more close typos Gassen not Glassen Correct. source=LACDPW;LACA + source_ref=PWFB1521-265;TR0044-020;ABK5456-016 Tropico not Tropica Correct. Tropico Way in LA 90065: source=LACDPW;LACA + source_ref=TR0726-039;ABK5464-006 Tropico Ave in Whittier: source=LACDPW;LACA + source_ref=TR0518-006;ABK8228-010 Lavell not lavel Correct. source=LACDPW;LACA + source_ref=PWFB1521-257;TR0023-102a;ABK5462-006 Pleasant View not Pleasent View Correct. source=LACDPW;LACA + source_ref=TR0012-064;ABK5454-023 Seymour not Seymore This one was interesting. See the notes at the bottom of the tract map for the name changes - the previous name was, in fact, Seymore. Name changes aren't always noted on these docs, so it's important to look at the dates, but it's nice when they are. source=LACDPW;LACA + source_ref=TR0016-042b;ABK5453-019 Arroyo Seco not Aroyo Seco Correct. source=LACDPW;LACA + source_ref=TR0049-071;ABK5446-022 Parrish not Parish It depends: In LA 90065, Parrish Ave: source=LACDPW;LACA + source_ref=PWFB1521-257;TR0101-001;ABK5462-008 In Burbank, Parish Pl: source=LACDPW;LACA + source_ref=PWFB1718-924;TR0128-041;ABK2444-009 Shilburn not Shelburn In LA 90065, Shelburn Ct is correct. source=LACDPW;LACA + source_ref=PWFB1422-333;TR0022-115b;ABK5451-008 Shelburne is used in two other places. I've have not fixed the Parrish/Lavell ones since there is something really wrong with either or both of OSM and TIGER. I believe that this area really needs another survey. I do have an unprocessed photo survey of the area I did in January and August 2010. Maybe if we ever get past the license change fixes... It would be great if TIGER2011 could be in one half of Frederik's compare tool and OSM in the other, however putting Google in the other half allows you to easily spot where there are potential spelling mistakes in the OSM data. In small areas, I've generated a unique list of names from an OSM file and then from TIGER or some county source and done a diff to identify the obvious ones. Of course, you have to re-abbreviate the OSM street types, and do various other manual things, but it's better than a visual compare. -- Alan Mintz ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Remapping is good
At 2012-01-31 13:52, Nick Hocking wrote: This morning I decided to remap another street off Cypress Avenue L.A. I randomly choose "Ariva Street" and lo and behold the TIGER2011 overlay said that it was Arvia Street. TIGER is usually spot on with names and since a Bing search and Google maps/street view also agree about "Arvia" this street is now correctly named (courtesy of TIGER). Sorry I missed this earlier... 1. I've researched many hundreds of naming issues in southern Cal. I can't give you a specific percentage, but neither TIGER05 nor TIGER11 could be considered "usually spot on", nor could most other sources. 2. AFAIK, you cannot use Google Maps/Earth as a source for naming, due to licensing. Same applies to Bing Maps, though we are specifically allowed use of their satellite imagery. Using them, anyway, would just be repeating an unknown source - not necessarily conducive to better map quality. 3. For LA County, there are great online sources of public records: 3a. Tract Maps: http://gis.dpw.lacounty.gov/website/SurveyRecord/tractMain.cfm and http://gis.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/index.cfm?docType=TM and parcel maps: http://gis.dpw.lacounty.gov/website/SurveyRecord/parcelMain.cfm and http://gis.dpw.lacounty.gov/landrecords/index.cfm?docType=PM . These are "official" and should generally be given the most weight, particularly newer ones. Tract maps are preferable to parcel maps Streets that surround the subject tract or parcel will occasionally have mistakes in them. I tag objects based on these with source=LACDPW + source_ref=TR-ppp or MB-ppp for tract maps, or PMbbb-ppp for parcel maps. 3b. Assessor's maps: http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/mapping/viewer.asp Note that the basemap used in the viewer is not necessarily accurate, as it's sourced from a different place than the official assessor's maps. Find a property parcel along the street you want and use the (i)nfo tool to select it. Then, click on the "Click here to view Assessor's Map", which will open a PDF map http://maps.assessor.lacounty.gov/mapping/viewAssessorMapPDF.asp?val=-ppp where is the 0-padded book number and ppp is the 0-padded page number (there are some exceptions to this format for very old areas). I tag objects based on these with source=LACA + source_ref=ABK-ppp or AM-ppp. 3c. You can check a parcel address against the USPS address database here: https://tools.usps.com/go/ZipLookupAction!input.action (not sure about legality here - it's arguable). 3d. Photo survey. A good old local observation of the street sign(s), hopefully with photo evidence can be helpful. I tag these source=survey;image + source_ref=AM909_DSCx (my picture number). Do note, though, that these are sometimes "wrong" (particularly street type). However, they at least warrant an alt_name tag until they are corrected. When I find incorrect signs, I generally research the responsible authority (incorporated city or county) and tell them about it. There are often instances where you have to decide which is correct, or you can't, in which case you should add an alt_name tag, all your source tags (semi-colon separated), and a note tag to explain the research done. Don't forget to remove the tiger:reviewed tag from ways you verify or edit, too. If people are going to spend an entire night armchair mapping, wouldn't it be great if they all remapped L.A. Maybe. As always, please look at the existing description, note, source and source_ref tags and/or history to see previous edits. It's not nice to incorrectly armchair-edit an object that someone else spent some time researching. Ways with tiger:reviewed tags (highlighted in various editors) are a good start, as they have usually not been edited. -- Alan Mintz ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Remapping is good
On 2/1/2012 5:04 PM, David Fawcett wrote: I have seen more frequent reference to confirming street names using Google Maps or Google Streetview lately. Is this practice compatible with producing clean ODBL and TOC data? Is is compatible with Google TOS? Google Maps, no. Street View photos, yes, at least in small doses: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-April/057473.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Remapping is good
I have seen more frequent reference to confirming street names using Google Maps or Google Streetview lately. Is this practice compatible with producing clean ODBL and TOC data? Is is compatible with Google TOS? People seem to scream very loudly whenever Google has allegedly used OSM data for something. (And for good reason!) If this practice is not legal/ethical/compatible, it would be good to have that reaffirmed by the OSM community. David. On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: > This morning I decided to remap another street off Cypress Avenue L.A. > > I randomly choose "Ariva Street" and lo and behold the TIGER2011 > overlay said that it was Arvia Street. > > TIGER is usually spot on with names and since a Bing search and Google > maps/street view also agree about "Arvia" this street is now correctly > named (courtesy of TIGER). > > Luckily I also checked around the neighbourhood and found that, > last night I had messed up Pepper Av (now fixed). > > If people are going to spend an entire night armchair mapping, > wouldn't it be great if they all remapped L.A. > > ___ > 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] Remapping is good
It would be massively awesome if OSM had a mini-streetview type mobile application that did nothing but OCR street signs, and compare them to OSM. You'd need a kinda weird window mount for the phone, but it seems within reach. It could pick up address ranges at the same time (e.g. "Ariva Street 400 ->") ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Remapping is good
Ok I've found a few more close typos Gassen not Glassen Tropico not Tropica Parrish not Parish Lavell not lavel Pleasant View not Pleasent View Seymour not Seymore Arroyo Seco not Aroyo Seco Shilburn not Shelburn I've have not fixed the Parrish/Lavell ones since there is something really wrong with either or both of OSM and TIGER. I believe that this area really needs another survey. It would be great if TIGER2011 could be in one half of Frederik's compare tool and OSM in the other, however putting Google in the other half allows you to easily spot where there are potential spelling mistakes in the OSM data. I think there will be many hundreds of errors in LA alone and finding them all would increase the accuracy of the OSM data by a LOT. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Remapping is good
Nathan wrote >On 1/31/2012 4:07 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: >>* Blimey - two streets up from Arvia, Asbury Street was incorrectly *>>* named in OSM as Ashbury. *>>* Just how many typos are there in L.A. *>>* Hey - now there's a good idead for a competition!!! * >What you mean is that imports are better than surveying (since mappers >make typos). The correctness of this is left to the reader No, What I mean is that any info in OSM should be desk checked at least once by another mapper. When I mapped Canberra, I desk checked everything at least twice against about four independent sources. Where there were any discrepencies, I resurveyed the road/s in question to get the correct data, and yes, some of the typos were mine. In about a dozen cases I could prove that the street sign was wrong and the government fixed these in less than two months. Now, the real question is, is there a programatic way to check OSM against TIGER2011 and report and naming differences? Being able to do this would be of enormous benifit to OSM in the USA. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Remapping is good
On 1/31/12 4:41 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 1/31/2012 4:07 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: Blimey - two streets up from Arvia, Asbury Street was incorrectly named in OSM as Ashbury. Just how many typos are there in L.A. Hey - now there's a good idead for a competition!!! What you mean is that imports are better than surveying (since mappers make typos). The correctness of this is left to the reader. All mappers make some errors, whether you are talking about the mappers who originally created the data found in TIGER, OSM mappers, or even Google Maps. I found a case in Google Maps the other day where, if you searched for a certain street address, it would point you to a location that was on the correct street, but a couple of miles from the correct location. in the case of Tiger 200 vs Tiger 2011, a change in street name is probably a correction. in a case of Tiger 20 vs an edit by a local mapper, i'd stick with the local mapper. in all cases, one should look at the source and make an informed decision what to preserve. there will no doubt be some mistakes committed during this process, nothing is ever completely error free. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Remapping is good
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:41 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Nathan Edgars II wrote: > > All mappers make some errors, whether you are talking about the mappers > who originally created the data found in TIGER, OSM mappers, or even Google > Maps. I found a case in Google Maps the other day where, if you searched > for a certain street address, it would point you to a location that was on > the correct street, but a couple of miles from the correct location. > > Oh, Google's next to useless outside urban areas in the midwest. It's only able to identify one location I lived in Oklahoma as "approximate" where it's approximation and reality differ by nearly two miles, and misses similarly rural addresses by up to 10 miles. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Remapping is good
Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 1/31/2012 4:07 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: > > Blimey - two streets up from Arvia, Asbury Street was incorrectly > > named in OSM as Ashbury. > > Just how many typos are there in L.A. > > Hey - now there's a good idead for a competition!!! > > What you mean is that imports are better than surveying (since mappers > > make typos). The correctness of this is left to the reader. > All mappers make some errors, whether you are talking about the mappers who originally created the data found in TIGER, OSM mappers, or even Google Maps. I found a case in Google Maps the other day where, if you searched for a certain street address, it would point you to a location that was on the correct street, but a couple of miles from the correct location. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Remapping is good
On 1/31/2012 4:07 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: Blimey - two streets up from Arvia, Asbury Street was incorrectly named in OSM as Ashbury. Just how many typos are there in L.A. Hey - now there's a good idead for a competition!!! What you mean is that imports are better than surveying (since mappers make typos). The correctness of this is left to the reader. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Remapping is good
Blimey - two streets up from Arvia, Asbury Street was incorrectly named in OSM as Ashbury. Just how many typos are there in L.A. Hey - now there's a good idead for a competition!!! ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Remapping is good
This morning I decided to remap another street off Cypress Avenue L.A. I randomly choose "Ariva Street" and lo and behold the TIGER2011 overlay said that it was Arvia Street. TIGER is usually spot on with names and since a Bing search and Google maps/street view also agree about "Arvia" this street is now correctly named (courtesy of TIGER). Luckily I also checked around the neighbourhood and found that, last night I had messed up Pepper Av (now fixed). If people are going to spend an entire night armchair mapping, wouldn't it be great if they all remapped L.A. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
