On Fri, 10 May 2019, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Their data is highly accurate,
Yes, that seems to me as well to be the case. We're just awaiting more images to be uploaded to the site (every feature has two images, but not all are GDPR-cleared yet).
I'd welcome as many eyes as possible on the sample data to get a good assessment of the data quality.
https://tflcid.cyclestreets.net/
and there's definitely going to need to be some clever conflation tooling. Bike stands are fine, but advance stop lines, etc. are specialist subjects in my book. I'm sightly overawed by the quantity and am unsure whether volunteers are going to be able to get through it, but again that is something you'll be talking about in your report, no?
Yes, that will be a key issue. Bear in mind that the sample data is only one of *25* areas, so there's a lot of data.
Clearly, pre-translations in the data to convert the CID schema to OSM tagging would remove a lot of manual work, and a conflation tool could work on a similar basis to the England Cycling Data project tool [1]. I think there's scope for some pre-processing (e.g. eliminating locations in the CID data that clearly already exist in OSM based on a nearness search), and the ability for multiple features to be done at once, e.g. a screen where say 10-20 cycle parking locations could be reviewed at once. Again, views on this would be extremely welcome.
There would need to be some tool development regardless of who does the conflation.
Indeed. I'd welcome pointers to up-to-date information on the state of such tools at the moment, e.g. the JOSM tool, and other developments currently happening.
[1] See images on: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/England_Cycling_Data_project
Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
