> they are trying to warn that making automated edits to as
> complex a data structure as OSM isn't as simple as it seems.
If that's what people want to say, they should say that. Not "don't
write a bot; they're bad".
> Are you willing to check, by hand, every single change made by this bot
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
Are you willing to check, by hand, every single change made by this bot? If
not, how can you be sure it hasn't created as many problems as it has solved?
That's the problem with automated edits -- people assume they're 100% correct
when experience h
Jonathan Bennett writes:
> On 12/10/2010 20:54, Alan Millar wrote:
>> You can't equate the need for improvement in the data with the method
>> used to improve it. Well, apparently you can, but it is a specious
>> argument.
> Saying that data needs some improvement doesn't prove that a
> particu
Matt Amos writes:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Jan Sandbrink wrote:
>> sorry, but what i see happening on the list a lot of times is, that people
>> who just want to contribute somehow are smashed into the ground.
>
> i welcome mr budny's contribution - as a tool for users to identify
> an
On 12/10/2010 20:54, Alan Millar wrote:
You can't equate the need for improvement in the data with the method
used to improve it. Well, apparently you can, but it is a specious
argument.
Saying that data needs some improvement doesn't prove that a particular
method *will* improve it either.
O
Apollinaris Schoell writes:
> would you trust a routing based on automatic edits?
Do you trust routing with the current data? You shouldn't, because it's
provably wrong.
My main proposal is just to create new relations, which has /no bearing/
on the correctness of the ways.
Secondary to that
> if they haven't been touched what is the advantage to touch them by a bot or
> other automatic edits? obviously they are either good enough in there
> current status or no one cares about it.
Well, finally! We can declare OSM to be DONE! Yay! The map is
complete! That part you thought needed
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Jan Sandbrink wrote:
> obviously they are either good enough in
>> there current status or no one cares about it. there is 0 benefit in
>> automatic edits.
>>
>
> Are you serious?
>
Yes
> What about the guy that wants to use any kind of routing software to go
On 12 October 2010 19:56, Mike N. wrote:
>
>
> I'm not anti-bot; even this auto relation proposal could turn out to be
> useful - as long as it is demonstrated offline rather than just blindly
> uploading it all and hoping it might have a positive effect.
>
>
+1
Emilie Laffray
_
Are you serious?
What about the guy that wants to use any kind of routing software to go
from A to B?
if streets are not connected in a place where nobody cares this means he
will get redirected over some areas where people care.
All of today's routing software ignores route relations. I pre
On 12 October 2010 19:27, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
>>
>> Andy Allan writes:
>>
>> > Also, I'd advise you to leave TIGER data to one side. A very high
>> > percentage of major roads in OSM in the US have been edited, many
>> > multiple times
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Jan Sandbrink wrote:
> Are you serious?
> What about the guy that wants to use any kind of routing software to go from
> A to B?
> if streets are not connected in a place where nobody cares this means he
> will get redirected over some areas where people care.
An
obviously they are either good enough in
there current status or no one cares about it. there is 0 benefit in
automatic edits.
Are you serious?
What about the guy that wants to use any kind of routing software to go
from A to B?
if streets are not connected in a place where nobody cares this me
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Andy Allan writes:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
>>
>>> Writing, testing, and evaluating a bot is within the scope of a class
>>> project for Emerging Database Technologies. Working on osm2pgsql is
>>> not.
>>
>> S
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
>
> Well, I'm already committed to the project. If the general tone is that
> automated edits are not welcome, I'll happily do edits on a local
> database and throw them away later, leaving OSM in exactly the same
> incomplete state it's in no
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Jan Sandbrink wrote:
> sorry, but what i see happening on the list a lot of times is, that people
> who just want to contribute somehow are smashed into the ground.
i welcome mr budny's contribution - as a tool for users to identify
and fix problems with the map.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Andy Allan writes:
>
> > Also, I'd advise you to leave TIGER data to one side. A very high
> > percentage of major roads in OSM in the US have been edited, many
> > multiple times
>
> What about the minor roads? State Roads are exactly the o
I understand that many people say bots are bad because of bad
expierences
but i don't see the point when you say
You seem to be tackling it from the perspective that running
a bot is the right way to solve it, and it's not.
This is just "you are not of my opinion and as long as you are n
Andy Allan writes:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
>
>> Writing, testing, and evaluating a bot is within the scope of a class
>> project for Emerging Database Technologies. Working on osm2pgsql is
>> not.
>
> So? If you were running a class project on "Rearranging geospati
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
>
>
> Road routes are useful because it avoids the dreaded semicolon (as
> someone else called it).
>
>
agreed this is useful. but it's not the whole story
> For instance: I would love to see the correct symbol for roads on the
> map--an Inter
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Andrew wrote:
> Matt Amos gmail.com> writes:
>
>> of course, the best thing is that these automated edits never happen
>> at all, instead that tools are provided (like the geofabrik inspector,
>> keep-right or the duplicate nodes map) to help the community fix the
of course, the best thing is that these automated edits never happen
at all, instead that tools are provided (like the geofabrik inspector,
keep-right or the duplicate nodes map) to help the community fix these
errors themselves. we need to start cracking down on these disruptive
and counter-produ
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Writing, testing, and evaluating a bot is within the scope of a class
> project for Emerging Database Technologies. Working on osm2pgsql is
> not.
So? If you were running a class project on "Rearranging geospatial
data into the shape of flow
Matt Amos writes:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
>> Matt Amos writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Serge Wroclawski
>>> wrote:
3) The road to hell in OSM is paved with bot intentions.
OSM has a long, negative history with bots. We have a very
Matt Amos gmail.com> writes:
> of course, the best thing is that these automated edits never happen
> at all, instead that tools are provided (like the geofabrik inspector,
> keep-right or the duplicate nodes map) to help the community fix these
> errors themselves. we need to start cracking down
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Andy Allan writes:
>>
>> Wait, so you haven't got the time to fix the problem properly, but
>> you've got the time to write and test a bot, and get agreement from
>> all the people who will be affected by it?
>
> Writing, testing, and evaluat
For instance: I would love to see the correct symbol for roads on the
map--an Interstate shield, a US Highway shield, or a State Road shield
with the shape of the state. In a road relation, a URL to this is
stored in the symbol=* key. The renderer would just find all the road
relations a way i
"Mike N." writes:
>>Example 2: One-way roads. TIGER isn't good about indicating the
>>directionality of a road, and there are a lot of rural areas that
>>haven't seen any editing yet. Consequently, there are a lot of
>>dual-carriageways that are not marked as oneway=yes. A robot could make
>>i
Andy Allan writes:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
>> Andy Allan writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
>>>
Relations are the cleaner solution here. You /could/ accomplish the
same thing with regular tags, but who wants to see symbol
I thought there were already tools for this. There's the wiki, where
people leave comments like "Complete from Cobb to Bartow county".
There's OpenStreetBugs, where we can mark things like overlapping nodes
that don't connect. Putting data into these where the robot can't make
a good decision is
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Example 1: Un-joined ways (due to chunks of a road being part of
> multiple imports, usually at county or state boundaries).
> Currently, there are hundreds of thousands of these out there, lurking
> unknown. A robot could notice that there i
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Andy Allan writes:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
>>
>>> Relations are the cleaner solution here. You /could/ accomplish the
>>> same thing with regular tags, but who wants to see symbol=*, symbol_1=*,
>>> symbol_2=
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Matt Amos writes:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>>> 3) The road to hell in OSM is paved with bot intentions.
>>>
>>> OSM has a long, negative history with bots. We have a very small
>>> number of good imports,
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Ian Dees writes:
>
> > Regardless, how do you plan on handling the situation where a human
> > has to fill in the blanks?
>
> I thought there were already tools for this. There's the wiki, where
> people leave comments like "Complete from Co
Ian Dees writes:
> Regardless, how do you plan on handling the situation where a human
> has to fill in the blanks?
I thought there were already tools for this. There's the wiki, where
people leave comments like "Complete from Cobb to Bartow county".
There's OpenStreetBugs, where we can mark th
Matt Amos writes:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>> 3) The road to hell in OSM is paved with bot intentions.
>>
>> OSM has a long, negative history with bots. We have a very small
>> number of good imports, and dozens (if not more) bad imports. Bad
>> imports are so
Andy Allan writes:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
>
>> Relations are the cleaner solution here. You /could/ accomplish the
>> same thing with regular tags, but who wants to see symbol=*, symbol_1=*,
>> symbol_2=*, etc. on every way in a city? (Or worse, a giant symbol=*
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Ian Dees writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
> >
> > Frederik Ramm writes:
> >
> > > But if, as I suspect, your plan was merely to collect everything
> > > tagged ref= and then stuff that into a rou
Ian Dees writes:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
>
> Frederik Ramm writes:
>
> > But if, as I suspect, your plan was merely to collect everything
> > tagged ref= and then stuff that into a route relation
> > called , that's not an added value in my book
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> 3) The road to hell in OSM is paved with bot intentions.
>
> OSM has a long, negative history with bots. We have a very small
> number of good imports, and dozens (if not more) bad imports. Bad
> imports are so commonplace in OSM that wit
Serge Wroclawski writes:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
>
>> If route relations are not required, then what are
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_Routes for?
>
> Not required and "don't exist" aren't quite the same things.
>
> One major issue with r
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Relations are the cleaner solution here. You /could/ accomplish the
> same thing with regular tags, but who wants to see symbol=*, symbol_1=*,
> symbol_2=*, etc. on every way in a city? (Or worse, a giant symbol=*
> tag with semicolon-separa
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
> Frederik Ramm writes:
>
> > But if, as I suspect, your plan was merely to collect everything
> > tagged ref= and then stuff that into a route relation
> > called , that's not an added value in my book.
>
> In most cases, these ref=* tags don'
Frederik Ramm writes:
> But if, as I suspect, your plan was merely to collect everything
> tagged ref= and then stuff that into a route relation
> called , that's not an added value in my book.
In most cases, these ref=* tags don't exist yet. If we suppose that
it's decided to forget the relati
Jochen Topf writes:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 04:36:34AM -0400, Peter Budny wrote:
>> Frederik Ramm writes:
>> > Peter Budny wrote:
>> >> I'm building a robot as a school project that will use data from TIGER
>> >> imports and automatically create route relations for US state roads.
>> >
>> > My
> My advice is not to do it; if it can be done automatically, route
> relations are not required
If route relations are not required, then what are
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_Routes for?
Good question. What are they for? I never understood that either. :-)
I don'
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Peter Budny wrote:
> If route relations are not required, then what are
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_Routes for?
Not required and "don't exist" aren't quite the same things.
One major issue with relations in general is very little sof
Peter,
Peter Budny wrote:
If route relations are not required, then what are
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_Routes for?
There's two reasons why people do this.
One is that it allows them to easily access all ways that form a certain
road (simply request the relation a
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:12:44PM +0200, Matthias Julius wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:48:29 +0200, Jochen Topf wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 04:36:34AM -0400, Peter Budny wrote:
> >> They /are/ required, because roads may be discontiguous in various
> ways:
> >> a road may change names (e
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:48:29 +0200, Jochen Topf wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 04:36:34AM -0400, Peter Budny wrote:
>> They /are/ required, because roads may be discontiguous in various
ways:
>> a road may change names (e.g. Main Street North becomes Main Street
>> South, but to a driver or ped
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 04:36:34AM -0400, Peter Budny wrote:
> Frederik Ramm writes:
> > Peter Budny wrote:
> >> I'm building a robot as a school project that will use data from TIGER
> >> imports and automatically create route relations for US state roads.
> >
> > My advice is not to do it; if it
Frederik Ramm writes:
> Peter Budny wrote:
>> I'm building a robot as a school project that will use data from TIGER
>> imports and automatically create route relations for US state roads.
>
> My advice is not to do it; if it can be done automatically, route
> relations are not required
If route
Hi,
Peter Budny wrote:
I'm building a robot as a school project that will use data from TIGER
imports and automatically create route relations for US state roads.
My advice is not to do it; if it can be done automatically, route
relations are not required, and many in our community view bots
I'm building a robot as a school project that will use data from TIGER
imports and automatically create route relations for US state roads.
There are tens of thousands of these, so some automation seems
appropriate.
I'm not sure what the best way to access the data is. The robot will
have to make
54 matches
Mail list logo
