On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I thought the consensus was that we repeat addr:street for each house but > not the other information like addr:city, addr:postcode, addr:country and > whatnot. Imagine what happens to the size of the DB (and all its > derivatives like the planet files), if everybody starts doing that for each > and every house/address in the world! > Potlatch has its limitations, but by choosing to work with it, people > indicate a willingness to live with those limitations. I can only hope the > IDeditor will overcome those limitations one day and that all Potlatch > users will migrate towards it when it does. > > Jo > > +1 We should not map for the renderer, nor for the (simpliest) editor. +1 also on not repeating the same data over and over.
> > 2013/4/16 Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> > >> I use most of these plugins. But recently I started using them less, >> because now I convert my GPX waypoints to OSM data points automatically. >> >> The only thing I do not do is repeating the postal code over and over, >> but since you insist, I'll do that from now on. :-) >> >> Can you look at e.g. >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.16279363632202&lon=4.425258636474609&zoom=16an >> area I mapped this winter. Please let me know if you think it can be >> improved. Yes, the city and the postal code are only in the relation. >> >> Yes, I know I should use building=house more consistently. Yes, I know I >> could add sidewalk, lit, parking lane tags as I did (already partially) in >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.134501695632935&lon=4.385626316070557&zoom=16 >> >> Let me know if you think the data can be improved, as I'm willing to >> improve my tagging habits. >> >> regards >> >> m >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Glenn Plas <gl...@byte-consult.be>wrote: >> >>> It doesn't matter where they are , you still have to put those tags on >>> a relation, so they better be in the correct city to start with ... Wrong >>> postal codes, wrong city.... I would rather _NOT_ have wrong ones than the >>> 'close enough for me' type of data. My point was introducing wrong >>> data.... I admit I'm not a fan of the associatedStreet relation. I just >>> recently learned it makes it even easier for some to f#ck up my work by >>> 'correcting' a streetRelation that wasn't broken. Now it's even more easy >>> to destroy 'en mass' in a single mouse click. >>> >>> There are some amazing josm plugins (Address plugin, adress mapcss etc) >>> to help you do this without pain. We are all repeating 'building=yes' on >>> a building, it's not because we put millions of this on the map that this >>> tag get's to be valued less now than before? It's because it's needed and >>> gives useful info. Why would your thoughts be any different for the >>> addr:street tag that carry much more useful info than a mere >>> 'building=yes'. So no, I don't think we are 'repeating' data, we are >>> detailing it as such ... >>> >>> I sometimes believe I'm the only one in Belgium using OSM data in a >>> non-mapping fashion like geocoding. >>> >>> There are working JOSM plugins that make sure you'll never ever have to >>> type the streetname, you just select the named road + addr node + building >>> and press = shift-T >>> >>> See the Terracer plugin. >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Terracer >>> >>> But also, the FixAddresses plugin. >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/FixAddresses >>> >>> I just wished it supported AssociatedStreet relations, same goes for >>> some of the finer mapCSS I see. I combined them all, and this gives me >>> powerful view on the address situation in the target area. >>> >>> http://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/AddressValidator&style >>> >>> https://github.com/simon04/coloured-addresses.mapcss/raw/master/dist/coloured-addresses.mapcss >>> http://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/Noname&style >>> >>> try them, you'll love the colors per street, very nice to spot problems >>> on corners. >>> >>> Glenn >>> >>> >>> >>> On 04/15/2013 07:33 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
