Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Kerry Irons wrote: > Yes, but what about when there are two different names on street signs > depending on where you are on the street? It clearly is a mistake on the > part of the sign department, but in this case it probably means you have to > go with the "un- authoritative" data from the local jurisdiction no matter > what the street sign says. I had one case where a road had three different spellings for its name in as many blocks. Given that even the locals didn't know how it was correctly spelt, I tagged the name as signed, so the road changes name in OSM. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
Yes, but what about when there are two different names on street signs depending on where you are on the street? It clearly is a mistake on the part of the sign department, but in this case it probably means you have to go with the "un- authoritative" data from the local jurisdiction no matter what the street sign says. -Original Message- From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 11:46 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads. On 10/12/2017 6:54 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: > > Should we (in OSM) put what the user will probably search for, the > correect (hypothetically) Redwil or should we put the "ground truth" > (REED WILL) which is what the user will see if he acually ever makes > it to that location. Although this has been resolved as a misreading of the site, in this case, correct is the ground truth. For OSM, the data from the city is not authoritative. Ground truth is. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
On 2017.10.13. 05:06, Nick Hocking wrote: > AAAH - all my questions are answered. > > The City of Austin's use of google base map has "fooled" me into > thinking that the map data was theirs rather than googles. If I click on > the "blue line" then I see the actual City of Austin data and indeed it > is "REED WILL DRIVE". > > Damm - So I have actually just gone and put in a google mistake into > OSM. Easily fixed tonight and I will check any other roads that I have > "fixed" in the last two days. > > Ok - so after all this, the only error was in the google data, which is > no great surprise. while not too likely, could have been a lye street[1], too. this is a good example why even only taking a street name from google maps is not a good idea. thank you for finding and fixing it :) [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_Easter_Eggs -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
On 10/12/2017 6:54 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: Should we (in OSM) put what the user will probably search for, the correect (hypothetically) Redwil or should we put the "ground truth" (REED WILL) which is what the user will see if he acually ever makes it to that location. Although this has been resolved as a misreading of the site, in this case, correct is the ground truth. For OSM, the data from the city is not authoritative. Ground truth is. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
AAAH - all my questions are answered. The City of Austin's use of google base map has "fooled" me into thinking that the map data was theirs rather than googles. If I click on the "blue line" then I see the actual City of Austin data and indeed it is "REED WILL DRIVE". Damm - So I have actually just gone and put in a google mistake into OSM. Easily fixed tonight and I will check any other roads that I have "fixed" in the last two days. Ok - so after all this, the only error was in the google data, which is no great surprise. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
Clifford wrote "Looking at the data from Austin, the road should be name Reed Will Drive." Hi Clifford. Which site did you find the authoritive data for Austin from? (Tiger has nothing and is not authorative anyway, as far as I can tell) The Cit of Austin site https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-and-Maps/Street-Segment/t4fe-kr8c has "Redwill Drive" CAPCOG http://regional-open-data-capcog.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/roads-2015 has "Reed Will Drive" There is annecdotal evidence that the street signs have (or maybe had) "Reed Will Drive" So, firstly I think we need to find out what the street signs say currently. Then we need to contact all authoritive holders of this data to clarify what name is correct and to ensure all occurrences are fixed as necessary. In the meantime what would you suggest is the best action to take? Lets say the street sign is wrong (REED WILL) and the correct data is City of Austin's Redwil. Should we (in OSM) put what the user will probably search for, the correect (hypothetically) Redwil or should we put the "ground truth" (REED WILL) which is what the user will see if he acually ever makes it to that location. PS - I have just noticed that the City of Austin website has an attribution of "Map data @2017 Google" Does this mean that the displayed names are from google rather than City of Austin and therefore not usable by us. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Nick Hocking wrote: > Nathan wrote > > > has the road listed as REED WILL and with a type of DR. I've been told > that this is an acceptable source or road names, > > > Maybe somebody could drive past this road and report back what the actual > street signs do say. If they do say "Reed Will" then I will try to contact > the Austin authorities to clarify the situation. > Nathan, I haven't been following this discussion closely. Looking at the data from Austin, the road should be name Reed Will Drive. The pre_dir and pre_type are null. Plus the full_name is shown as Reed Will Dr. Let me apologize in advance if I misunderstood your question. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
On 2017.10.13. 01:15, Nick Hocking wrote: > Nathan wrote > "Best to stay well on the correct side of the line "**//___^ > **//___^ > Ok - point taken. yes, google so far has not flat out denied permission, but their terms of service would make data not usable in some countries. it's safer to do a bit of an extra effort now to avoid data removal later. > Did I mention that at the location I posted (using OSM) the CAPCOG > website (roads dataset) > > http://regional-open-data-capcog.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/roads-2015 > > has the road listed as REED WILL and with a type of DR. I've been told > that this is an acceptable source or road names, it might be, cannot comment > Maybe somebody could drive past this road and report back what the > actual street signs do say. If they do say "Reed Will" then I will try > to contact the Austin authorities to clarify the situation. they could also consider taking mapillary and/or osv images - if we had them, this would be easily resolved ;) as far as i know, austin has published quite a lot of data and is fairly open. it might be possible to reach somebody there who would appreciate feedback. definitely worth trying. -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
Nathan wrote "Best to stay well on the correct side of the line " Ok - point taken. Did I mention that at the location I posted (using OSM) the CAPCOG website (roads dataset) http://regional-open-data-capcog.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/roads-2015 has the road listed as REED WILL and with a type of DR. I've been told that this is an acceptable source or road names, Maybe somebody could drive past this road and report back what the actual street signs do say. If they do say "Reed Will" then I will try to contact the Austin authorities to clarify the situation. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
The problem as I understand it is less copyright violation (in the US, so long as what you see in Google isn't ever put into the OSM database), and more database licensing difficulty in the rest of the world where the law is less permissive and even using Google to identify possible errors in to be corrected by survey or open data could be legally questionable in terms of sublicensing the work as a whole. Best to stay well on the correct side of the line just to avoid any possible issues since we have to be legal globally, not just in the US or UK or the EU. -Nathan On October 12, 2017 6:04:37 AM EDT, Nick Hocking wrote: >richlv wrote "just a quick reminder that we should try not to use >google >maps or >streetview, the legal status of "just looking" is also fuzzy :)" > > >Ok, so I if want to find out what a road is called, I'm not allowed to >use >a street directory to do this? This would be extremely weird. > >If I am allowed to use a street directory for this, then I'm not >allowed to >tell anybody else what I think the name of the road is. Also extremely >weird. > >I don't believe that writing what someone else thinks is the name of >the >roads constitutes republishing their proprietary work and I'm certainly >not >putting this information into any other work or database. (Mind you >IANAL). > >A few years ago this topic came up and IIRC Google said that it was ok >to >look at "some" amount of their published data but not systematically >trawl >through a LOT of it. >All very subjective, I know. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
richlv wrote "just a quick reminder that we should try not to use google maps or streetview, the legal status of "just looking" is also fuzzy :)" Ok, so I if want to find out what a road is called, I'm not allowed to use a street directory to do this? This would be extremely weird. If I am allowed to use a street directory for this, then I'm not allowed to tell anybody else what I think the name of the road is. Also extremely weird. I don't believe that writing what someone else thinks is the name of the roads constitutes republishing their proprietary work and I'm certainly not putting this information into any other work or database. (Mind you IANAL). A few years ago this topic came up and IIRC Google said that it was ok to look at "some" amount of their published data but not systematically trawl through a LOT of it. All very subjective, I know. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
On 2017.10.11. 13:37, Nick Hocking wrote: > Andrew wrote "I would check out the City of Austin's OpenData portal: > https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-and-Maps/Street-Segment/t4fe-kr8c > > The license is the same (PD) as when the initial building import was > completed, so you are good to go." > > Thanks Andrew, I'm now replacing some names adding new roads and > neighbourhoods etc. > > One interesting road is Redwil Drive. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/30.23189/-97.59361 > > Tiger has no name, Google maps and Austin-gov have Redwill Drive but > google street view shows both street signs as Reed Will Drive. just a quick reminder that we should try not to use google maps or streetview, the legal status of "just looking" is also fuzzy :) -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
Andrew wrote "I would check out the City of Austin's OpenData portal: https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-and-Maps/Street-Segment/t4fe-kr8c The license is the same (PD) as when the initial building import was completed, so you are good to go." Thanks Andrew, I'm now replacing some names adding new roads and neighbourhoods etc. One interesting road is Redwil Drive. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/30.23189/-97.59361 Tiger has no name, Google maps and Austin-gov have Redwill Drive but google street view shows both street signs as Reed Will Drive. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.
Nick- I would check out the City of Austin's OpenData portal: https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-and-Maps/Street-Segment/t4fe-kr8c The license is the same (PD) as when the initial building import was completed, so you are good to go. -Andrew OSM: Andrew Matheny On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Nick Hocking wrote: > at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/30.23990/-97.57717 > > Openstreetmap has three missing roads, that Bing and Google have as, Joe > Lane, Cleto Street and Fifnella way. > > Tiger 2017 does not have these. Is there any usable source for these Texas > roads or, if not, does anyone have local knowledge of them or the ability > to survey them? > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
