Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
2008/6/11 Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Vincent Zweije wrote: You can only do this in very rare circumstances, otherwise the errors-to-be-ignored drown out the errors you need to see and fix. An unnamed street is not such a rare circumstance, IMO. I don't think that's true. There really aren't that many, in my experience. At least roads larger than service -- unnamed service roads are very common. So much so that they shouldn't be in warnings at all. Do you have an example of a place with many unnamed roads? Here, in the city centre most public roads are named, some aren't and the buildings on them seem to get addresses at random from surrounding named roads... However... Each 'block' of about 1km x 0.5km typically contains a housing area, normally with a guard booth at entrances and normally with gates, even if, as is quite common in some areas, the gates are never closed... There can be as many as 8 entrances with roads running in various patterns through these areas providing access to the residences enclosed within... In many cases there are real through routes though traffic would be typically encouraged to follow the main roads around the area... Sometimes, one or two of the roads within one of these areas is named, many times none are named... I'd consider these to be residential roads within an urban gated community, I'm not sure if you consider them to be larger than service roads, but if so, this is a good example of nameless roads... d ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 11:04:55AM -0500, Alex Mauer wrote: || -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- || Hash: SHA1 || || SteveC wrote: || I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that || they drop off the noname map. || || http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/ || || I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal. || Maybe name:__none__. Or something. || || Sounds overcomplicated to me. If you know something to be correct, just || ignore the warnings. You can only do this in very rare circumstances, otherwise the errors-to-be-ignored drown out the errors you need to see and fix. An unnamed street is not such a rare circumstance, IMO. Ciao.Vincent. -- Vincent Zweije [EMAIL PROTECTED]| If you're flamed in a group you http://www.xs4all.nl/~zweije/ | don't read, does anybody get burnt? [Xhost should be taken out and shot] |-- Paul Tomblin on a.s.r. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 03:08:28PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: || On 9 Jun 2008, at 12:43, 80n wrote: || noname=yes seems like a perfectly good solution. Why do you think || it might not be optimal? || || SteveC wrote: ||coz it makes me think of no=yes ||and that would just be silly || || Use noname=true then ;) Or rather, use name:absent=true. The :absent suffix to the tag name is nicely extensible to other tags, should that become needed: loc_name:absent=true (no local name, should you expect one) maxspeed:absent=true (although in this case perhaps better maxspeed=none) ncn_ref:absent=true Ciao.Vincent. -- Vincent Zweije [EMAIL PROTECTED]| If you're flamed in a group you http://www.xs4all.nl/~zweije/ | don't read, does anybody get burnt? [Xhost should be taken out and shot] |-- Paul Tomblin on a.s.r. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Vincent Zweije wrote: You can only do this in very rare circumstances, otherwise the errors-to-be-ignored drown out the errors you need to see and fix. An unnamed street is not such a rare circumstance, IMO. I don't think that's true. There really aren't that many, in my experience. At least roads larger than service -- unnamed service roads are very common. So much so that they shouldn't be in warnings at all. Do you have an example of a place with many unnamed roads? -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
SteveC wrote: I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that they drop off the noname map. [..] Maybe name:__none__. Or something. Sounds good to me.. +1 What about just name=? Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
SteveC wrote: I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that they drop off the noname map. [..] Maybe name:__none__. Or something. Sounds good to me.. +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On 9 Jun 2008, at 11:15, Nick Whitelegg wrote: SteveC wrote: I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that they drop off the noname map. [..] Maybe name:__none__. Or something. Sounds good to me.. +1 What about just name=? Editors don't allow for empty tags values. I believe the next version of the API will prevent it completely. Also the nonames render excludes the names that have just whitespace in them. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
El Lunes, 9 de Junio de 2008, Nick Whitelegg escribió: Maybe name:__none__. Or something. Sounds good to me.. +1 What about just name=? Some editors *cough*JOSM*cough*potlach*cough* won't let you enter an empty value for a tag. -- -- Iván Sánchez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Dave Stubbs wrote: The good point about name=__none__ is that I can bet large amounts of money that no street is actually named __none__ -- the bad points are that renderers that don't know about it are going to write it in the street name So maybe named=no (or unnamed=yes)? cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
noname=yes seems like a perfectly good solution. Why do you think it might not be optimal? On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't find much on the wiki, has anyone looked at defining streets without names? I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that they drop off the noname map. http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/http://dev.openstreetmap.org/%7Erandom/no-names/ I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal. Maybe name:__none__. Or something. Best Steve ___ 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
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
coz it makes me think of no=yes and that would just be silly On 9 Jun 2008, at 12:43, 80n wrote: noname=yes seems like a perfectly good solution. Why do you think it might not be optimal? On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't find much on the wiki, has anyone looked at defining streets without names? I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that they drop off the noname map. http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/ I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal. Maybe name:__none__. Or something. Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On 2008-06-09, SteveC wrote: coz it makes me think of no=yes and that would just be silly :) how about nameless=yes ? -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Hi, On 9 Jun 2008, at 12:43, 80n wrote: noname=yes seems like a perfectly good solution. Why do you think it might not be optimal? SteveC wrote: coz it makes me think of no=yes and that would just be silly Use noname=true then ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Nick Whitelegg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SteveC wrote: I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that they drop off the noname map. [..] Maybe name:__none__. Or something. Sounds good to me.. +1 What about just name=? The problem with name= is that it isn't blindingly obvious what that means to other mappers... people are likely to just delete it as an unnecessary empty tag. There are also probably a few of these about already. The good point about name=__none__ is that I can bet large amounts of money that no street is actually named __none__ -- the bad points are that renderers that don't know about it are going to write it in the street name, and that if little Bobby Tables gets elected to a council somewhere we may be in trouble ;-) I'd also be keen on something that no sane yahoo tracer could think was a good thing to add. Dave So now instead of tagging for renderers we're tagging for validators? ;-) Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 SteveC wrote: I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that they drop off the noname map. http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/ I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal. Maybe name:__none__. Or something. Sounds overcomplicated to me. If you know something to be correct, just ignore the warnings. - -Alex Mauer hawke -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFITVSn66h/gpo37v8RAiwFAJwOlSMubRPwqZz9qYumylKvSKE7/QCdGUwY NtBEjFKWSPnKWxoec6uzlAs= =B1NX -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 SteveC wrote: I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that they drop off the noname map. http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/ I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal. Maybe name:__none__. Or something. Sounds overcomplicated to me. If you know something to be correct, just ignore the warnings. But how do you tell someone else that it's correct? If I see there is an unnamed street I may go out of my way to find its name, only to discover it doesn't have one and that about 300 different people before me have done the same thing. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 SteveC wrote: I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that they drop off the noname map. http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/http://dev.openstreetmap.org/%7Erandom/no-names/ I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal. Maybe name:__none__. Or something. Sounds overcomplicated to me. If you know something to be correct, just ignore the warnings. But how do you tell someone else that it's correct? If I see there is an unnamed street I may go out of my way to find its name, only to discover it doesn't have one and that about 300 different people before me have done the same thing. Dave What about borrowing an idea from the TIGER import and have a reviewed=yes tag? That would indicate that the information present has been independently checked. This doesn't directly address the no name issue but it might prevent 299 unnecessary visits. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Karl Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 SteveC wrote: I'd like to define some roads that really don't have a name so that they drop off the noname map. http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/ I've been adding noname:yes but I can see that might not be optimal. Maybe name:__none__. Or something. Sounds overcomplicated to me. If you know something to be correct, just ignore the warnings. But how do you tell someone else that it's correct? If I see there is an unnamed street I may go out of my way to find its name, only to discover it doesn't have one and that about 300 different people before me have done the same thing. Dave What about borrowing an idea from the TIGER import and have a reviewed=yes tag? That would indicate that the information present has been independently checked. This doesn't directly address the no name issue but it might prevent 299 unnecessary visits. Maybe, but you're then asking, reviewed what/how?. And you're back to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only probably in a more complicated way. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But how do you tell someone else that it's correct? If I see there is an unnamed street I may go out of my way to find its name, only to discover it doesn't have one Define doesn't have one. A) No evidence of the name B) Evidence of it not having a name Doesn't have a sign? Or some authority agrees it actually has no name? The two are different and should be handled differently, since the first might be resolvable by means other than streetsign hunting (out of copyright maps, or some such) whereas the second will only be resolved by someone giving it a name. So it Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Dave Stubbs wrote: Maybe, but you're then asking, reviewed what/how?. And you're back to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only probably in a more complicated way. Furthermore, I would expect the default (meaning the value to be assumed if the key doesn't exist) to be yes. I doubt anyone who would put in a named road without bothering to put in the name would bother to enter a reviewed=no tag anyway. That said, I still doubt the utility of a no name meta-value. No conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they have a name, and no one should be going out of their way to check if a road that has no name in the db actually has no name. What next, going out of your way to double-check that the name is (still) correct? (Yes, I've had a road where the name was changed. I caught it because I happened to drive past that way, not because I'm going around repeatedly checking the same routes just in case. Treat an unnamed road as the simple notification that it is, not as a problem to be corrected. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Alex Mauer wrote: That said, I still doubt the utility of a no name meta-value. No conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they have a name Wuh? That statement is just... wrong. Really, really flabbergastingly wrong. I cycled 420 miles recently, to do the Pennine Cycleway (NCN 68) from start to finish - with GPS, of course. When I got home, I mapped what I'd seen on OSM. So now if you look at http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/ osm/, we have the most usable webmap in existence of the route. By your logic I should have either stopped at the bottom of every hill to note down the street name, throwing away 30mph worth of momentum (er, I don't think so), or not bothered mapping it at all. Not everyone is the same type of mapper as you, and it doesn't help to assume that they are. OSM is and should remain a broad church. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Stubbs wrote: Maybe, but you're then asking, reviewed what/how?. And you're back to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only probably in a more complicated way. Furthermore, I would expect the default (meaning the value to be assumed if the key doesn't exist) to be yes. I doubt anyone who would put in a named road without bothering to put in the name would bother to enter a reviewed=no tag anyway. That said, I still doubt the utility of a no name meta-value. No conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they have a name, and no one should be going out of their way to check if a road that has no name in the db actually has no name. So how are we going to fix London then? Because this is happening on a massive scale thanks to tracing aerial imagery. We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother. This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap for the sake of it. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Andy Allan wrote: A) No evidence of the name B) Evidence of it not having a name Doesn't have a sign? Or some authority agrees it actually has no name? The two are different and should be handled differently, since the I think one of the principles of OSM is mapping things as they are on the ground. As such, I would say that those two situations are the same. The latter situation might warrant a note=Officially called Foo Road tag or some such. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Stubbs wrote: Maybe, but you're then asking, reviewed what/how?. And you're back to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only probably in a more complicated way. Furthermore, I would expect the default (meaning the value to be assumed if the key doesn't exist) to be yes. I doubt anyone who would put in a named road without bothering to put in the name would bother to enter a reviewed=no tag anyway. That said, I still doubt the utility of a no name meta-value. No conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they have a name, and no one should be going out of their way to check if a road that has no name in the db actually has no name. So how are we going to fix London then? Because this is happening on a massive scale thanks to tracing aerial imagery. We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother. This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap for the sake of it. Dave Why don't you just go to the unnamed road, and if it has a name, add it, otherwise drop a note=name not signed on the way? Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On 9 Jun 2008, at 18:46, Karl Newman wrote: On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Stubbs wrote: Maybe, but you're then asking, reviewed what/how?. And you're back to specifying that you've reviewed that the road has no name, only probably in a more complicated way. Furthermore, I would expect the default (meaning the value to be assumed if the key doesn't exist) to be yes. I doubt anyone who would put in a named road without bothering to put in the name would bother to enter a reviewed=no tag anyway. That said, I still doubt the utility of a no name meta-value. No conscientious mapper should be putting in roads with no name if they have a name, and no one should be going out of their way to check if a road that has no name in the db actually has no name. So how are we going to fix London then? Because this is happening on a massive scale thanks to tracing aerial imagery. We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother. This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap for the sake of it. Dave Why don't you just go to the unnamed road, and if it has a name, add it, otherwise drop a note=name not signed on the way? That isn't useful for validators or special renderings if you want to put a note for something else too. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On 9 Jun 2008, at 19:22, Alex Mauer wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: That statement is just... wrong. Really, really flabbergastingly wrong. Well, it's my opinion. You're going to have to revisit the route anyway to find out the road names, so why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone? Why do you think Richard 'has' to revisit it? Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Alex Mauer wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: That statement is just... wrong. Really, really flabbergastingly wrong. Well, it's my opinion. You're going to have to revisit the route anyway to find out the road names, so why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone? It's not you're going to, though; it's the OSM community is going to. On a cross-country bike route like that, I'd actually say there's not much point taking down the road names. The rural roads don't have names anyway. In the villages and towns, meanwhile, there's not much point in one passing cyclist taking down the name of a single through- route - you're going to need a cul-de-sac mapper to do all the adjacent roads anyway. Same goes for an inter-urban project like http:// wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_A_Roads . It's a very good use of people's time to get this done quickly, even at the expense of neglecting street names along the way - it makes OSM much more useful for routing and for small-scale maps. But you have to accept that in that case you're not doing everything you could be. Oh sure, I'm not going to dispute that (things like work get in the way there too). But to say it's not conscientious isn't right. Ultimately many mappers make all completeness issues shallow anyway. ;) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Dave Stubbs wrote: We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother. When it's a single road or far out of the way of where you're mapping, would be my suggestion. It's probably fine to go a few blocks out of the way to check out one unnamed road, and probably fine to go few mile or two out of the way to check a whole neighborhood of unnamed roads. I for one will not be going 100 miles out of the way to check an unnamed road (or indeed to map at all). It's a judgment call, so your mileage may vary. No pun intended. This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap for the sake of it. Good! Karl suggested using the reviewed tag, and I agree with that. Mark all unnamed roads in the area you're mapping with reviewed=no, and then once you've reviewed them, delete the tag. I just don't see a need to mark out that the name specifically has been reviewed. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
SteveC wrote: Why do you think Richard 'has' to revisit it? He personally doesn't, but if a road has a name, and that name is to be in the database, someone has to go there and find out what it is. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On 9 Jun 2008, at 19:38, Alex Mauer wrote: Dave Stubbs wrote: We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother. When it's a single road or far out of the way of where you're mapping, would be my suggestion. It's probably fine to go a few blocks out of the way to check out one unnamed road, and probably fine to go few mile or two out of the way to check a whole neighborhood of unnamed roads. I for one will not be going 100 miles out of the way to check an unnamed road (or indeed to map at all). It's a judgment call, so your mileage may vary. No pun intended. Take a look at http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15lat=6718359.62403lon=859.10713layers=B000 You will find lots of unnamed roads highlighted. We'll be holding a mapping party there on Wednesday evening to name the streets. You are welcome to join us. This is one side effect of the Yahoo Tracers. Hence why we need to do this mapping. This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap for the sake of it. Good! Karl suggested using the reviewed tag, and I agree with that. Mark all unnamed roads in the area you're mapping with reviewed=no, and then once you've reviewed them, delete the tag. I just don't see a need to mark out that the name specifically has been reviewed. That requires a mass data change, and causes a significant jump in data. This effectively needs to be done for all Yahoo traced areas. It would be far simpler to say unnamed=true. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Oh sure, I'm not going to dispute that (things like work get in the way there too). But to say it's not conscientious isn't right. It may have been a poor choice of words (British/American usage difference maybe?). I meant that someone leaving off the names is being less thorough than is possible, not that they are wrong in so doing. In retrospect, meticulous (marked by extreme or excessive care in the consideration or treatment of details) would have been a better choice. Ultimately many mappers make all completeness issues shallow anyway. ;) Absolutely, and fortunately for us. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On 9 Jun 2008, at 19:40, Alex Mauer wrote: SteveC wrote: Why do you think Richard 'has' to revisit it? He personally doesn't, but if a road has a name, and that name is to be in the database, someone has to go there and find out what it is. Yes, but that's not what you said. And, some data is better than no data. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Stubbs wrote: We have literally thousands of miles of unnamed roads in London... and the vast, vast majority of these /should/ have names. And I'm going to go try and fix them, and would like to know when not to bother. When it's a single road or far out of the way of where you're mapping, would be my suggestion. It's probably fine to go a few blocks out of the way to check out one unnamed road, and probably fine to go few mile or two out of the way to check a whole neighborhood of unnamed roads. I for one will not be going 100 miles out of the way to check an unnamed road (or indeed to map at all). It's a judgment call, so your mileage may vary. No pun intended. Pity. It would have been a good pun. :-) But yes, this is what I'm trying to do, but wasting as little time as possible on the diversions. This is one of those cases where we have actually identified a problem and are figuring out how to fix it, rather than just inventing crap for the sake of it. Good! Karl suggested using the reviewed tag, and I agree with that. Mark all unnamed roads in the area you're mapping with reviewed=no, and then once you've reviewed them, delete the tag. I just don't see a need to mark out that the name specifically has been reviewed. Mostly because this is the property that we're most interested in at the moment. Reviewed feels to me too open ended. A little like the concept of completeness. We can't really (easily) mark in the unreviewed areas because so many have already been added without it, but we can tell they don't have a name so then we just want to quickly deal with the false positives that throws up. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Shaun McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a look at http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15lat=6718359.62403lon=859.10713layers=B000 Actually, those areas aren't the problem at hand - we know someone needs to go get the names, it's pretty obvious someone was tracing and there's plenty of names to be had. The issue is the partially-done, somewhat scrappy areas, like http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15lat=6718359.62403lon=859.10713layers=B000 I don't know whether Dave or Shaun or Harry or anyone else has gone and checked these roads. And there's no point in me checking them, finding that they don't have a name, and also finding on Wednesday in the pub that all three of them have also checked these roads in the last few weeks. That would be a waste of time, and its this double-over-checking that Dave and SteveC are trying to avoid. And it's a problem that's only really apparent in urban areas with both Yahoo! imagery and lots of overlapping mappers, so it's a concept that only really applies there. I wouldn't suggest that someone goes adding noname tags to rural areas like http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15lat=6718359.62403lon=859.10713layers=B000 , and if you're not trying to deal with the same problem as we are then the problem might seem nonsensical to you. Cheers, Andy Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Andy Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The issue is the partially-done, somewhat scrappy areas, like http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15lat=6718359.62403lon=859.10713layers=B000 [...] that only really applies there. I wouldn't suggest that someone goes adding noname tags to rural areas like http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15lat=6718359.62403lon=859.10713layers=B000 Permalink FAIL. Scrappy urban area, noname tag useful: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15lat=670.32587lon=-17089.25868layers=B000 Rural area, noname tag waste of time: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=11lat=6659550.89814lon=-129528.10292layers=B000 Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Dave Stubbs wrote: Mostly because this is the property that we're most interested in at the moment. Reviewed feels to me too open ended. It is a bit, but I think it's great for this sort of localized, map party sort of thing. You put the tags on in the area you're about to do and take them off when you're done. Any unreviewed roads remaining in the area you (or the mapping party) is working on, you know still need to be done. A little like the concept of completeness. We can't really (easily) mark in the unreviewed areas because so many have already been added without it, but we can tell they don't have a name so then we just want to quickly deal with the false positives that throws up. I think you can fairly easily add a reviewed=no tag to all unnamed roads in an area (using JOSM). Then once you've gone through and reviewed them, any unnamed road in that area without a reviewed=no tag can be assumed to be a truly unnamed street (false positive in the no-names map). This does make a couple of assumptions: *The mapping of the area is fairly complete, so you don't have someone adding a bunch more unnamed roads later on. *You're not going to go out of your way into this area again any time soon to check on the very few unnamed roads that are still there. This is fairly likely, since the area in question hasn't been mapped by hand yet (i.e. there is no mapper local to the area) -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] noname streets
Andy Allan wrote: The issue is the partially-done, somewhat scrappy areas, like http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=15lat=6718359.62403lon=859.10713layers=B000 I don't know whether Dave or Shaun or Harry or anyone else has gone and checked these roads. And there's no point in me checking them, finding that they don't have a name, and also finding on Wednesday in the pub that all three of them have also checked these roads in the last few weeks. That would be a waste of time, and its this double-over-checking that Dave and SteveC are trying to avoid. That (or the corrected link in the followup) is a better example than Shaun's, but surely more of a coordination problem than a tagging problem. Adding a tag (be it reviewed=no, unnamed=yes, or anything else) cannot solve it, and is simply tagging to remove warnings from the validator. Both examples seem to be Look at all the streets that show up in the validator: there might be one or two in there that are truly unnamed!. And the solution there is not to mark the ones that are truly unnamed, it's to go and find out the names of the ones that are named. Once that's done, you can probably assume that the one or two roads that still don't have a name are truly unnamed. And if occasionally someone just passing through anyway double checks the roads because they're on the validator, it's no big deal. I could be mistaken there. If all the roads in that link are truly unnamed, then I could see where the validator could mislead someone by suggesting that there's a need to actually go there to fix up the largish cluster of missing road names in the area. And if so, there's probably a need to clean up the validator. But I don't believe that to be the case. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
