Your complain about street being placed in wrong cities, is exactly why we should use associatedStreet relations instead of repeating addr:street & addr:city over and over on individual buildings. In that case you only have to correct it once, on the relation, and the data is corrected.
But I'll admit that I've been to lazy to add associatedStreets recently, as nobody seems to care. And the tools support outside JOSM is not that great. Repeating the street name twice is completely useless IMHO. I think it is possible to combine lot's of house numbers and accuracy, at least I hope that's what I leave behind :-) m On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Glenn Plas <gl...@byte-consult.be> wrote: > On 04/15/2013 02:38 PM, JorenDC wrote: > > Hi, > > In December there was a thread (start: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2012-December/003367.html) > containing some numbers/stats. > > @Sander, *: is it possible to share your used method to pull these stats > (or just pull them again) and publish them on a 'frequent' base (I'm not > saying weekly, but what about +/- every 4 moths or so)? In that way we can > see a bit of our progress regarding this 'project'. > > The method (overpass query) is mentioned in that link thread (Jo points it > out). On the subject..... I've been mapping a lot of housenumbers lately, > verifying my data against AGIV data before committing to OSM... I can only > conclude there is much work to be done, AGIV is far from recent > concerning new built houses, and OSM itself has lots of issues regarding > accuracy. > > I'm not too sure on the scientific significance of such a statistic > either. I would more than love to see stats that compair quality of the > entered addresses. (completeness , including postal code and other addr:* > tags, number of corrections etc. ) I've been correcting a lot of mistakes > and I start seeing a negative tendancy in it: > > The ones that have done a LOT of input but didn't care to quality check > (validating even!) what they entered. I'll state this: I'm cleaning up > far too much crap others leave behind, I'm far from perfect in my > housenumbering too in this small village it's still a huge undertaking, > especially on complex corners where some numbers of the same building > belong to a different street. I have houses I've changed 3 times in a row > after visiting. > > Moreover, I see some people tagging the next city name on a street, > probably because they think it's in the next city, but OSM shouldn't be a > guessing game or a race to enter the most addresses if that info is wrong. > > If someone has such an overpass query, I'm more than interested to see > those results, the rest looks like bragging rights. > > The AGIV site is valuable , even though it's slow. It's great tool to > verify what city a certain street belongs to. for example : > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.998941&lon=4.426396&zoom=18&layers=M > > De "Kleine Parijsstraat" belongs to Zemst, not Mechelen. If you look this > up in nominatim, it will tell you it's in Mechelen, which is totally > wrong. You will not find this street using AGIV in Mechelen. But someone > decided this was Hombeek(Mechelen) instead. So the borders of Zemst where > wrong as well as this was used to determine these. The street above that > "Boterstraat" can be found in Mechelen, not in Zemst. Thanks to AGIV, I'm > more certain when those cases present. ( You can still see the old cached > tile in some zoom levels) > > But then again, I saw AGIV containing WRONG housenumbers too. > Verification in the field (twice) confirmed that what I had in mind was > matching reality. So it's like a triple check: a) know the place b) visit > it c) check with AGIV d) map a decent hous e) be complete, using the > plugins to add Country/postal code/streetname to an address node so the > data is easily searchable later. > > I really, really have to plea to everyone to enter _better_ data than more > ...., just instead of looking at the sheer number of address info/nodes > entered. It's quickly getting tired when I have to keep cleaning up behind > the top providers. > > I'll get off the soapbox now. > > Glenn > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
