Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
On 5/29/2012 1:09 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: I used to agree with you, but in terms of minimum labor, updates are best performed by retaining the original upload data, then doing a conflation between the original data and a later update. That will highlight only changes from the original source, and only those differences will need to be manually merged into OSM. Except you won't see possible errors introduced after the first import by OSM editors. I think it's useful to see the diff between the current state of both databases. In an ideal OSM world, those errors would be caught by the 'Gardeners' in the area who tend their regions by watching OWL or an equivalent edit monitor. The best time to catch errors is while they can serve as a learning experience for a new contributor who can remember what he intended to do, as well as easier to revert if necessary. Doing a diff between the updated database and the OSM database calls out many changes that shouldn't need to be reviewed: a fence terminating at a building, gardens, plazas, sidewalks and stairways that connect to buildings. It's just a trade off in the effort needed to perform the import synchronization task. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 27/05/12 20:40, Ian Dees wrote: Worst Fixer wrote Hi I want know why importer uses following tags: * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users). I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given. As I discussed with you, I am no longer uploading data with the tag and will go back to remove the tag from the existing data. Worst Fixer wrote * addr:street:name (173 882 objects, used by 7 users), * addr:street:prefix (173 882 objects, used by 3 users), * addr:street:type (173 874 objects, note: different numbers, used by 7 users) Not discussed anywhere. Used by low number of users. Not documented. No justification for this tag was given. Tags don't need justification. If you have a problem with how the data is represented, then let's have a discussion about how to better represent the data. What for do you need these tags ? Does addr:street:name + addr:street:prefix not both fit under addr:street ? Addr:street:type seems to belong to the highway and not the buildings. I wonder why you add these tags but leave out the number of levels of each building. Cheers Colliar -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREIAAYFAk/DUvEACgkQalWTFLzqsCtD1ACgttY0oMAU49GyD6NRXTpQpTxs sBwAoIeLeOB+f1VMGWbNYurLxoOmhCzJ =kVdA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
Ian Dees wrote: Worst Fixer wrote: It is absent from following web page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue There are dozens of imports absent from the Import Catalog. If you'd like to add it to the catalog, be my guest. Without wanting to validate Worst Fixer (though I'm pleased he's stopped the Ich double-bluff ;) ), we need the smart guys like you, Ian, to do things _properly_ - which includes documentation on the wiki - so that we can exert pressure on the less skilled to follow your lead. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-of-buildings-in-Chicago-tp5710269p5710343.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
On 5/27/2012 2:53 PM, Alan wrote: As I discussed with you, I am no longer uploading data with the tag and will go back to remove the tag from the existing data. I object. An ID tag is highly useful for future reconciliation and/or synchronization later. I used to agree with you, but in terms of minimum labor, updates are best performed by retaining the original upload data, then doing a conflation between the original data and a later update. That will highlight only changes from the original source, and only those differences will need to be manually merged into OSM. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
At 2012-05-28 05:02, Mike N wrote: On 5/27/2012 2:53 PM, Alan wrote: As I discussed with you, I am no longer uploading data with the tag and will go back to remove the tag from the existing data. I object. An ID tag is highly useful for future reconciliation and/or synchronization later. I used to agree with you, but in terms of minimum labor, updates are best performed by retaining the original upload data, then doing a conflation between the original data and a later update. That will highlight only changes from the original source, and only those differences will need to be manually merged into OSM. Except you won't see possible errors introduced after the first import by OSM editors. I think it's useful to see the diff between the current state of both databases. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
Hello. There is on going import of Buildings in city Chicago. Import is held by following account: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chicago-buildings I found no discussions of this import. No announcement. I searched bad? It is absent from following web page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue I want know why importer uses following tags: * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users). I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given. * addr:street:name (173 882 objects, used by 7 users), * addr:street:prefix (173 882 objects, used by 3 users), * addr:street:type (173 874 objects, note: different numbers, used by 7 users) Not discussed anywhere. Used by low number of users. Not documented. No justification for this tag was given. If not needed this tags are, I hope they will be removed and not imported. Not sure who does that remove: I, Ian Dees, Frederik Ramm or some other body. We have data working group. Data working group ban, delete, revert. Have we working group will help clean imports, not ban? I want not ban chicago building import. I want clear answers for reasons why it is done this way. I think it can be better. I found this on wiki, but it seems dead: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Import_Support_Working_Group -- WorstFixer, twitter: http://twitter.com/WorstFixer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
On 27/05/2012 17:54, Worst Fixer wrote: Hello. There is on going import of Buildings in city Chicago. Import is held by following account: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chicago-buildings I found no discussions of this import. No announcement. I searched bad? It is absent from following web page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue I want know why importer uses following tags: * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users). I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given. Who has the right to ban a tag? Where does it say that a tag has to be justified? I understand your concerns about the import process, but not your allergy to tags which don't fit your idea of what's valid. Colin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
On 27 May 2012 18:11, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 27/05/2012 17:54, Worst Fixer wrote: Hello. There is on going import of Buildings in city Chicago. Import is held by following account: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chicago-buildings I found no discussions of this import. No announcement. I searched bad? It is absent from following web page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue I want know why importer uses following tags: * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users). I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given. Who has the right to ban a tag? Where does it say that a tag has to be justified? The DWG has the right to block imports with unjustified tags and has done that on many occasions, and also made it clear on the imports@ list that this would happen. It's also documented on the wiki. However the partial street name tags have been discussed on talk-us@ several times and were considered to be useful. I'd also say that a single id tag referring to another database may be useful and not an overkill to the OSM database. Not saying that the precise tagging shouldn't have been discussed beforehand. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
Worst Fixer writes: I want know why importer uses following tags: * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users). Very likely it's the database number in the source database. This is Yet Another import from a database being maintained by someone else. This is why we need a closedstreetmap.org, which publishes, in OSM format using the OSM API, data which cannot be sensibly edited. If not needed this tags are, I hope they will be removed and not imported. Why? Does it make sense to remove something which can be useful to someone else? Remember: it's not important (AT ALL) that everyone use tag X to map feature Y. It *is* very important that everyone who uses tag X, use it to map feature Y. It seems as if you think that feature Y should always be mapped using tag X, and that if tag X does not correspond to a physical characteristic of feature Y, it should be removed. I don't think you will find much agreement on that. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
I guess the data source is https://data.cityofchicago.org/Buildings/Building-Footprints/w2v3-isjw . It is nice and rich data, but certainly importing this way is wrong. Jaak On May 27, 2012, at 6:54 PM, Worst Fixer worstfi...@gmail.com wrote: Hello. There is on going import of Buildings in city Chicago. Import is held by following account: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chicago-buildings I found no discussions of this import. No announcement. I searched bad? It is absent from following web page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue I want know why importer uses following tags: * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users). I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given. * addr:street:name (173 882 objects, used by 7 users), * addr:street:prefix (173 882 objects, used by 3 users), * addr:street:type (173 874 objects, note: different numbers, used by 7 users) Not discussed anywhere. Used by low number of users. Not documented. No justification for this tag was given. If not needed this tags are, I hope they will be removed and not imported. Not sure who does that remove: I, Ian Dees, Frederik Ramm or some other body. We have data working group. Data working group ban, delete, revert. Have we working group will help clean imports, not ban? I want not ban chicago building import. I want clear answers for reasons why it is done this way. I think it can be better. I found this on wiki, but it seems dead: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Import_Support_Working_Group -- WorstFixer, twitter: http://twitter.com/WorstFixer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
On 27/05/2012 17:11, Colin Smale wrote: On 27/05/2012 17:54, Worst Fixer wrote: I want know why importer uses following tags: * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users). I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given. Who has the right to ban a tag? Where does it say that a tag has to be justified? I understand your concerns about the import process, but not your allergy to tags which don't fit your idea of what's valid. Indeed, users need such tags. If you have a database that it is not appropriate to include in OSM, it is important to have a means of linking the items in each, and using OSM IDs is not usually viable because they change at the drop of a hat. Using a reference scheme to link the two database is a widely used technique. Most of the bus stops in the UK are done like this because they are linked to a third party database of bus stops from which they were derived. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
On 27/05/2012 18:21, andrzej zaborowski wrote: On 27 May 2012 18:11, Colin Smalecolin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 27/05/2012 17:54, Worst Fixer wrote: Hello. There is on going import of Buildings in city Chicago. Import is held by following account: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chicago-buildings I found no discussions of this import. No announcement. I searched bad? It is absent from following web page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue I want know why importer uses following tags: * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users). I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given. Who has the right to ban a tag? Where does it say that a tag has to be justified? The DWG has the right to block imports with unjustified tags and has done that on many occasions, and also made it clear on the imports@ list that this would happen. It's also documented on the wiki. Searched the wiki but couldn't find anything covering the justification of tags and the role of DWG...Do you have any links/references? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
Worst Fixer wrote Hello. There is on going import of Buildings in city Chicago. Import is held by following account: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/chicago-buildings I found no discussions of this import. No announcement. I searched bad? I discussed it with people in Chicago and received several positive reactions. Worst Fixer wrote It is absent from following web page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue There are dozens of imports absent from the Import Catalog. If you'd like to add it to the catalog, be my guest. Worst Fixer wrote I want know why importer uses following tags: * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users). I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given. As I discussed with you, I am no longer uploading data with the tag and will go back to remove the tag from the existing data. Worst Fixer wrote * addr:street:name (173 882 objects, used by 7 users), * addr:street:prefix (173 882 objects, used by 3 users), * addr:street:type (173 874 objects, note: different numbers, used by 7 users) Not discussed anywhere. Used by low number of users. Not documented. No justification for this tag was given. Tags don't need justification. If you have a problem with how the data is represented, then let's have a discussion about how to better represent the data. Worst Fixer wrote If not needed this tags are, I hope they will be removed and not imported. Not sure who does that remove: I, Ian Dees, Frederik Ramm or some other body. We have data working group. Data working group ban, delete, revert. Have we working group will help clean imports, not ban? I want not ban chicago building import. I want clear answers for reasons why it is done this way. I think it can be better. I found this on wiki, but it seems dead: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Import_Support_Working_Group -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-of-buildings-in-Chicago-tp5710269p5710291.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
On May 27, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Ian Dees wrote: Worst Fixer wrote I want know why importer uses following tags: * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users). I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given. As I discussed with you, I am no longer uploading data with the tag and will go back to remove the tag from the existing data. I object. An ID tag is highly useful for future reconciliation and/or synchronization later. And the chicago: namespace is, in my opinion, definitely the correct way to do it, because it clearly defines the scope of the id. The chicago:building_id should stay.Not including it is dumping data into OSM; including it is enabling collaborative use. - Alan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Alan grunthos...@yahoo.com wrote: On May 27, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Ian Dees wrote: Worst Fixer wrote I want know why importer uses following tags: * chicago:building_id (314 330 objects, used by 2 users). I sent letter to importer, and he said he will not import this tag any more. But, he continues to. No justification of need for tag was given. As I discussed with you, I am no longer uploading data with the tag and will go back to remove the tag from the existing data. I object. An ID tag is highly useful for future reconciliation and/or synchronization later. And the chicago: namespace is, in my opinion, definitely the correct way to do it, because it clearly defines the scope of the id. The chicago:building_id should stay.Not including it is dumping data into OSM; including it is enabling collaborative use. I've searched for a reliable way of doing this for years and have yet to find anything worthwhile. Leaving the external ID on the objects doesn't really help when others remove or split the shape later on. On the other hand, they don't hurt anything... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
On 27-5-2012 20:58, Ian Dees wrote: On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Alan grunthos...@yahoo.com mailto:grunthos...@yahoo.com wrote: I object. An ID tag is highly useful for future reconciliation and/or synchronization later. And the chicago: namespace is, in my opinion, definitely the correct way to do it, because it clearly defines the scope of the id. The chicago:building_id should stay. Not including it is dumping data into OSM; including it is enabling collaborative use. I've searched for a reliable way of doing this for years and have yet to find anything worthwhile. Leaving the external ID on the objects doesn't really help when others remove or split the shape later on. On the other hand, they don't hurt anything... I tend to think that keeping the ID has no use. As Ian mentioned, users can (and will) edit the data, so those features become split, merged together, or erased. The way OSM 'works' makes it really hard to deal with the ID's. There is also the principle that imports should not override user-contributed data, so (I assume that) a part of the building won't be imported at all. That will leave the set of ID's in the OSM DB in an incomplete state, which makes it much less useful. Updates, if done at all, could better be done by using geographical matching. It would be great to have some generic tools with which an external datasource can be compared with OSM. This will generate a set of changeset files: one with matching features, one with modified features, one with 'new' features (not existing in OSM), one with 'deleted' features (features which only exist in OSM). Then the user taking care of the import would only need to look at the latter three, to judge what has happened, and manually apply the changes he wishes. In the Dutch community we've been discussing this a while ago, because all buildings in the Netherlands are available in a high quality PD dataset, called BAG (Basisregistratie Adressen and Gebouwen: base registration of adresses and buildings). Ironically, exactly the reason this dataset is existing and freely available, it makes it not worth while the effort to import this into OSM, and impose the burden of updating it onto ourselves. It is much more convenient to take OSM without buildings (and addresses) and merge this with the other dataset. Frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import of buildings in Chicago
This is Yet Another import from a database being maintained by someone else. This is why we need a closedstreetmap.org, which publishes, in OSM format using the OSM API, data which cannot be sensibly edited. I disagree that buildings can't be sensibly edited. I trace them, add addresses to them, give them tags such as school or hospital or restaurant or fire station or library or Sometimes I even delete them if they're not there anymore. Same as streets, or parks, really. Also, I know in San Francisco some people were experimenting with adding more information to buildings such as number of units and construction materials, to make the data more useful for emergency response. (eg, after a large earthquake, maybe we should check the unreinforced masonry buildings with a lot of units first) I also don't see the problem with importing a dataset that someone else is still maintaining. We're just forking their dataset. Pretty much every municipality has a database of their streets...so do we. If they have one of their buildings, why can't we? In the Dutch community we've been discussing this a while ago, because all buildings in the Netherlands are available in a high quality PD dataset, called BAG (Basisregistratie Adressen and Gebouwen: base registration of adresses and buildings). Ironically, exactly the reason this dataset is existing and freely available, it makes it not worth while the effort to import this into OSM, and impose the burden of updating it onto ourselves. It is much more convenient to take OSM without buildings (and addresses) and merge this with the other dataset. I disagree that it would be more convenient to have to merge two different datasets, that are probably in different formats, than it would be to just use one dataset that has all the information in it. Especially seeing as how everyone who wants to use the data will have to do that work, where as if it is in OSM it only has to be merged that one time. If that data were in OSM then all the apps and routers and maps that use OSM, and there are a ton of them, would be able to locate addresses and render buildings. As it is they aren't able to because the data isn't there and each application or map would have to find the data for the Netherlands (and if we do things that way everywhere else, the data for everywhere else, too!) and then figure out how to merge it or how to work with a non-OSM format. More likely this doesn't happen and everybody ends up with much less useful data. Cheers, Greg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
