80n wrote: > 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 > >
I wasn't saying not to upload them - just that I'm personally not that keen to see a raw GPS track layer on the map. I do upload them, that's why it would show up... Mark _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
