On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Mark Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Hope wrote: > > This would be good. But even better, let me select a portion of a > > track log and upload it. My track logs tend to be a nightmarish > > tangle, with possibly hours of stuff before, after and during the > > interesting bits. I can use them because I was there, and know where > > I went, when and why (this is why I take notes). But somebody looking > > at the raw track would actually be confusing, and possibly wrong. > > > > However - bits that I'm actually mapping tend to be much better - > > actually tracking roads, paths etc. If I could easily select the bad > > bits of the track log (just points) in JOSM and remove them, then > > upload the rest, I'd be willing to put them up. > > > > I keep meaning to go back over my old track logs (all of which I have) > > and clean them up with some 3rd party tool, bit I always seem to have > > new stuff to work on instead. > > > > On 22/02/2008, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think we should provide a track upload facility within JOSM. I > >> started work on that once but got distracted, maybe its time to > >> revisit that. > >> > > > > Stephen > > One other point is that a track layer will highlight all our homes in a > very public way; at present you have to download something eg josm + GPX > trackdata to see this at a meaningful scale (ie not Potlatch, for this > purpose). This effectively reduces the casual browsers chance of > noticing the possibility, but posting it publicly hangs out a banner. > > I am aware of at least one user with a node marking his home, so we > don't all care, but it's worth considering first! > > Also, I don't really see the utility of this, even after reading the > preceding posts. You can't use the data from a visual map of traces for > much, and areas where doubt exists eg changes to roads, will have a mass > of new & old to make a mess there... > 1) They prove the source of your contribution, in the same way that a good Wikipedia article cites its sources. Several of the reasons listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why_sources_should_be_citedare equally applicable to OSM. 2) Track logs from multiple sources are aggregated. Different users, at different times, and using different equipment will result in a much better dataset than a single track log ever can. It is very common for parts of a single track to be off by a considerable amount, this type of error can be reduced and eliminated if there are multiple tracks to refer to. If you download the tracks for a part of the M25 motorway, for example, you will see that the aggregated result is much better than any one single track. You'll also notice outlier tracks which can easily be discounted. 3) There may be uses of the track logs in the future that have not yet been developed or thought of. For example, it might be that detection of edits in places that are distant from any track log could help to monitor for vandalism, or indicate a higher priority for peer review. Analysis of average speed and direction might help routing software to determine journey times and one-ways streets. etc. etc. You raise the point about some of your tracklogs being a bit of a mess. In my opinion you can and should still upload them. Any analysis of tracks will have to use statistical techniques to filter out noise, so anomalies will get removed as part of this process. In fact, many years from now, historians and archaeologists will be horrified that our enormous archive of GPS data was so badly mutilated before it was uploaded. 80n > > Mark > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
