(Meant to send this to the list. Thanks for Martijn for bringing it to my attention. -sej)
+1 I think it's a great idea, from the standpoint that it could be mutually beneficial to OSM and to USDOT's National Bridge Inventory. In the past, there are some data quality issues with the NBI and resources to maintain the data have always been scarce. For USDOT to benefit from OSM efforts, the data have to be useful to them. In that case, it would be good to start with the specification to understand what tags/attributes they're would be looking for. Martijn points out that there are some specialized attributes that wouldn't be available to the layperson, in which case I don't think there's much the community can do about those. However, I think the community can update those things that can be verified by observation (length, construction type, matl, etc). I also think that USDOT probably has only a subset of bridges (say, those in the US highway system) and probably lacks a number of state- and locally-maintained bridges. If that's the case, the OSM community can contribute from the standpoint of completeness and currency. -- SEJ -- twitter: @geomantic -- skype: sejohnson8 "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." -- Einstein On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 20:45, Steven Johnson <sejohns...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oops! I meant to reply to the list, not off list! Sent in haste, I > suppose... > > > -- SEJ > -- twitter: @geomantic > -- skype: sejohnson8 > > "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." > -- Einstein > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 13:31, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Steven Johnson <sejohns...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > +1 I think it's a great idea, from the standpoint that it could be >> mutually >> > beneficial to OSM and to USDOT's National Bridge Inventory. In the past, >> > there are some data quality issues with the NBI and resources to >> maintain >> > the data have always been scarce. For USDOT to benefit from OSM >> efforts, the >> > data have to be useful to them. In that case, it would be good to start >> with >> > the specification to understand what tags/attributes they're would be >> > looking for. >> > >> Steven, >> >> Any particular reason for sending this off-list? >> Looking at the attribute definitions in the PDF I linked to, there is >> basically three types of attributes in my view. >> 1) specialized attributes that cannot be surveyed by a layperson >> 2) attributes that could be surveyed by a layperson but are basically >> immutable (length, construction type, location, ...). That is assuming >> they are correct to begin with. >> 3) attributes that could be surveyed by a layperson and are mutable >> (condition of the bridge surface, for example). >> >> Which route do you see as feasible? Importing may be tricky (because >> matching with existing OSM features is going to be tricky). I like the >> KeepRight-like idea that was mentioned. >> >> Martijn >> -- >> martijn van exel >> geospatial omnivore >> 1109 1st ave #2 >> salt lake city, ut 84103 >> 801-550-5815 >> http://oegeo.wordpress.com >> > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
