[Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
To whomever can answer: The fact that the following link is up on the wiki: http://edgemaster.dev.openstreetmap.org/streetview_tiles/ossv.html?zoom=15 http://edgemaster.dev.openstreetmap.org/streetview_tiles/ossv.html?zoom=15; lat=60.16917lon=-1.16243layers=BTF lat=60.16917lon=-1.16243layers=BTF. Does this mean we can (gasp!) start tracing in Potlatch and JOSM? If so, what's the final verdict on source=* tags? Thanks Tim (Who's pretty excited at getting roads up North of Northampton...) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
On 05/04/2010 12:31, Tim Francois wrote: Does this mean we can (gasp!) start tracing in Potlatch and JOSM? If so, what's the final verdict on source=* tags? Hold your horses, please. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata for a summary of what's happened so far, what could happen and what shouldn't happen. Everything's up for discussion, but there's a feeling that if we just dive in straight away and start tracing/importing willy-nilly we'll just shoot ourselves in the foot. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
That's all well and good (I've been editing some of that wiki, so am aware of it!!) but all I see in this mailing list is quick discussions of comparisons, but no real conclusions. Also, why bother to spend the vast amount of time creating tiles if we're not gonna trace it? Street names we can just visually add by opening the tiff in an image viewer, so have we gone to fast by creating the tiles? Or was it all just to create pretty comparison pictures? It's 5 days since the data came out (kinda) - am I being too impatient? Tim --- On Mon, 5/4/10, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: From: Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 12:58 On 05/04/2010 12:31, Tim Francois wrote: Does this mean we can (gasp!) start tracing in Potlatch and JOSM? If so, what's the final verdict on source=* tags? Hold your horses, please. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata for a summary of what's happened so far, what could happen and what shouldn't happen. Everything's up for discussion, but there's a feeling that if we just dive in straight away and start tracing/importing willy-nilly we'll just shoot ourselves in the foot. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
... but there's a feeling that if we just dive in straight away and start tracing/importing willy-nilly we'll just shoot ourselves in the foot. Yes, but Tim only mentioned tracing, not importing. The Wiki is clearly out of date. It says that We are still assessing the open data releases but we seem to have gone past the assessment stage and are able to produce sites like the one Tim first mentioned. Who is this we that's referred to here and on the Wiki that is doing this assessment? We (Tim, myself and I dare say a few others) also want to start doing some tracing. Personally I will have plenty to do over the next month making sure existing roads are in the right place and adding significant buildings and so on that this data, from my own assessment, seems perfectly good for. Assuming that bulk uploads aren't going to change what's there, and I trust the people doing them not to cock anything up, I'm not particularly interested in them and may make use of them if and when they happen. In the meantime, I, as part of the wider community, would like to know more details about what's actually happening at the moment and what the outcomes of these assessments are. Thanks, Steve - Original Message - From: Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:58:29 +0100 On 05/04/2010 12:31, Tim Francois wrote: Does this mean we can (gasp!) start tracing in Potlatch and JOSM? If so, what's the final verdict on source=* tags? Hold your horses, please. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata for a summary of what's happened so far, what could happen and what shouldn't happen. Everything's up for discussion, but there's a feeling that if we just dive in straight away and start tracing/importing willy-nilly we'll just shoot ourselves in the foot. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
Um, what he said. That's what I really meant with my previous rant! --- On Mon, 5/4/10, Seventy 7 seven...@operamail.com wrote: From: Seventy 7 seven...@operamail.com Subject: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 13:32 ... but there's a feeling that if we just dive in straight away and start tracing/importing willy-nilly we'll just shoot ourselves in the foot. Yes, but Tim only mentioned tracing, not importing. The Wiki is clearly out of date. It says that We are still assessing the open data releases but we seem to have gone past the assessment stage and are able to produce sites like the one Tim first mentioned. Who is this we that's referred to here and on the Wiki that is doing this assessment? We (Tim, myself and I dare say a few others) also want to start doing some tracing. Personally I will have plenty to do over the next month making sure existing roads are in the right place and adding significant buildings and so on that this data, from my own assessment, seems perfectly good for. Assuming that bulk uploads aren't going to change what's there, and I trust the people doing them not to cock anything up, I'm not particularly interested in them and may make use of them if and when they happen. In the meantime, I, as part of the wider community, would like to know more details about what's actually happening at the moment and what the outcomes of these assessments are. Thanks, Steve - Original Message - From: Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:58:29 +0100 On 05/04/2010 12:31, Tim Francois wrote: Does this mean we can (gasp!) start tracing in Potlatch and JOSM? If so, what's the final verdict on source=* tags? Hold your horses, please. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata for a summary of what's happened so far, what could happen and what shouldn't happen. Everything's up for discussion, but there's a feeling that if we just dive in straight away and start tracing/importing willy-nilly we'll just shoot ourselves in the foot. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OSM highway coverage reworked using OS boundaries
There is more sophisticated analysis of OSM coverage using OS vector data (http://povesham.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/openstreetmap-completeness-evaluat ion-march-2010/ ), but for what it's worth, I have produced another simple comparison between DfT statistics and the length of roads plotted on OSM. My previous attempts used OSM boundary data to isolate each local authority, but this one uses OS boundary data for each local authority in Great Britain. Boundaries for Northern Ireland are not included in the OS data as far as I can see, so they do not appear. Within each authority I measure the length of roads of each type, then compare them to the statistics published by the Department for Transport. The results are here - http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/OSMCoverOSApr2010.png for the image, and the data is here - http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/OSMCoverOSApr2010.csv The eagle-eyed might notice that I have simplified the boundaries to speed plotting of the image, but the original calculations were done on the full OS boundary detail. The results differ slightly from my previous attempts at doing this using OSM boundary data. Partly this will be due to the new boundaries, but I have also been more stringent in classifying roads that have ambiguous tags. With ward boundaries now available from OSM, I'm hoping that I can now take some of this to a more detailed level ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
Put differently -- can anyone think of any specific reason why we can't start tracing? The only thing I can think of is to make sure that we are very careful to include: source=os_meridian2 source=os_streetview source=os_etc Or whatever the particular dataset you are using is, on each way (or node if applicable) you are editing or creating. I don't think the suggestion of hampering import work is a real point, because any import will have to work around all of our other data anyway -- right? Just be prepared for the potential that any tracing work done with the above tags wiped in an import later. (Note, I am geniunly asking a question above, what does everyone think?...) Thanks, JR On 5 April 2010 13:54, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Um, what he said. That's what I really meant with my previous rant! --- On Mon, 5/4/10, Seventy 7 seven...@operamail.com wrote: From: Seventy 7 seven...@operamail.com Subject: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 13:32 ... but there's a feeling that if we just dive in straight away and start tracing/importing willy-nilly we'll just shoot ourselves in the foot. Yes, but Tim only mentioned tracing, not importing. The Wiki is clearly out of date. It says that We are still assessing the open data releases but we seem to have gone past the assessment stage and are able to produce sites like the one Tim first mentioned. Who is this we that's referred to here and on the Wiki that is doing this assessment? We (Tim, myself and I dare say a few others) also want to start doing some tracing. Personally I will have plenty to do over the next month making sure existing roads are in the right place and adding significant buildings and so on that this data, from my own assessment, seems perfectly good for. Assuming that bulk uploads aren't going to change what's there, and I trust the people doing them not to cock anything up, I'm not particularly interested in them and may make use of them if and when they happen. In the meantime, I, as part of the wider community, would like to know more details about what's actually happening at the moment and what the outcomes of these assessments are. Thanks, Steve - Original Message - From: Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:58:29 +0100 On 05/04/2010 12:31, Tim Francois wrote: Does this mean we can (gasp!) start tracing in Potlatch and JOSM? If so, what's the final verdict on source=* tags? Hold your horses, please. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata for a summary of what's happened so far, what could happen and what shouldn't happen. Everything's up for discussion, but there's a feeling that if we just dive in straight away and start tracing/importing willy-nilly we'll just shoot ourselves in the foot. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
I did some naughty tracing on 1st April to see what the data was like, and I used source=OS StreetView. I do prefer source=os_streetview as it's caps-independent and has no whitespace (much easier to parse if needed...) --- On Mon, 5/4/10, John Robert Peterson jrp@gmail.com wrote: From: John Robert Peterson jrp@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey To: Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 14:10 Put differently -- can anyone think of any specific reason why we can't start tracing? The only thing I can think of is to make sure that we are very careful to include: source=os_meridian2 source=os_streetview source=os_etc Or whatever the particular dataset you are using is, on each way (or node if applicable) you are editing or creating. I don't think the suggestion of hampering import work is a real point, because any import will have to work around all of our other data anyway -- right? Just be prepared for the potential that any tracing work done with the above tags wiped in an import later. (Note, I am geniunly asking a question above, what does everyone think?...) Thanks, JR On 5 April 2010 13:54, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Um, what he said. That's what I really meant with my previous rant! --- On Mon, 5/4/10, Seventy 7 seven...@operamail.com wrote: From: Seventy 7 seven...@operamail.com Subject: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 13:32 ... but there's a feeling that if we just dive in straight away and start tracing/importing willy-nilly we'll just shoot ourselves in the foot. Yes, but Tim only mentioned tracing, not importing. The Wiki is clearly out of date. It says that We are still assessing the open data releases but we seem to have gone past the assessment stage and are able to produce sites like the one Tim first mentioned. Who is this we that's referred to here and on the Wiki that is doing this assessment? We (Tim, myself and I dare say a few others) also want to start doing some tracing. Personally I will have plenty to do over the next month making sure existing roads are in the right place and adding significant buildings and so on that this data, from my own assessment, seems perfectly good for. Assuming that bulk uploads aren't going to change what's there, and I trust the people doing them not to cock anything up, I'm not particularly interested in them and may make use of them if and when they happen. In the meantime, I, as part of the wider community, would like to know more details about what's actually happening at the moment and what the outcomes of these assessments are. Thanks, Steve - Original Message - From: Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:58:29 +0100 On 05/04/2010 12:31, Tim Francois wrote: Does this mean we can (gasp!) start tracing in Potlatch and JOSM? If so, what's the final verdict on source=* tags? Hold your horses, please. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata for a summary of what's happened so far, what could happen and what shouldn't happen. Everything's up for discussion, but there's a feeling that if we just dive in straight away and start tracing/importing willy-nilly we'll just shoot ourselves in the foot. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
So the solution is to just leave it blank? I understand that with an area mapped there is less impetus to head on over and start making tracks and surveying. But just leaving the area blank when we have this fantastic opportunity to populate seems silly, no? This far down the line, it doesn't look like there are any mappers in the immediate area of which I was talking about. I'd also like to point out that nowhere have I mentioned imports, bulk-imports or anything like that - I just wanna manually trace and manually add road names!!! (Tom: I know you also mentioned remote mapping, which *is* what I meant, so thanks!!) Tim --- On Mon, 5/4/10, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: From: Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu Subject: Re: Ordnance Survey To: Tim Francois sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk Cc: r...@phillipsuk.org, 'OSM Talk-GB' Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Date: Monday, 5 April, 2010, 15:26 On 02/04/10 12:02, Tim Francois wrote: I haven't done all the roads yet, nor named all of them, nor added any source tags (not sure which one yet). My intention is just to get the roads in to this forgotten area, for someone else to go verify them with a GPS later (though judging by the lack of tracks in the area, not many mappers about around here?). I added FIXME tags to most roads. The problem is that experience has taught us that once an area has the look of having been mapped by having lots of roads in place it is much less likely that somebody local will jump in and start doing a proper survey of the area. That's why we are much less keen on bulk imports and remote mapping from aerial images etc than we used to be. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
Tim François wrote: So the solution is to just leave it blank? Maybe the soution is to encourage people to treat OSM as an outdoor sport, gathering GPS tracks and LOTS of extra data that no one else's maps have, rather than an armchair hobby copying other people's maps. Cheers, Chris P.S. There are large chunks of GB 'up North of Northampton' that are already better quality than OS Streetview ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
On 05/04/10 15:43, Tim François wrote: I understand that with an area mapped there is less impetus to head on over and start making tracks and surveying. But just leaving the area blank when we have this fantastic opportunity to populate seems silly, no? This far down the line, it doesn't look like there are any mappers in the immediate area of which I was talking about. I speak from personal experience - when we first got the Yahoo imagery I enthusiastically traced the nearest largely unmapped area to me (Harlow) from the images. That was several years ago and to this day most of the roads in Harlow exist but are unnamed because nobody has taken up the baton. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
On 5 April 2010 16:28, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 05/04/10 15:43, Tim François wrote: I understand that with an area mapped there is less impetus to head on over and start making tracks and surveying. But just leaving the area blank when we have this fantastic opportunity to populate seems silly, no? This far down the line, it doesn't look like there are any mappers in the immediate area of which I was talking about. I speak from personal experience - when we first got the Yahoo imagery I enthusiastically traced the nearest largely unmapped area to me (Harlow) from the images. That was several years ago and to this day most of the roads in Harlow exist but are unnamed because nobody has taken up the baton. On the other hand, when I first started in OSM I didn't have a GPS logger. However, I was lucky enough to live in an area where despite having no roads yet in the database we did have fairly good Yahoo coverage. I traced all the roads in a ~2 mile radius. Since then I have had plenty a nice walk around the area naming roads, finding addresses and other POIs. For me it was enough to get over the initial barrier and now the area round me is one of the most complete in the area. I think we can all agree than mass imports of OS data into OSM isn't the way to go, but providing raster images for tracing and comparing can really help. We must of course be careful that people treat it with the caution it deserves - going out and surveying the roads yourself should always be done but quickly getting roads traced/surveyed lets us OSMers get on to mapping the stuff that gives OSM the advantage over the 'competition' -- the POIs, local knowledge, secret footpaths, traffic restrictions etc. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
On 05/04/2010 16:38, Tim François wrote: So then the question is: what's more of a problem? Features with no name, or no features at all? Personally, I'd rather see the road on the map with no name than not see a road at all, especially when using the maps for in-car navigation. Which would you rather see: * A map with just streets (maybe including names) or a map with: * streets and names * speed limits * turn restrictions * postboxes * shops * leisure facilities * tourist attractions * footpaths * bridleways * litter bins ...et cetera If someone who is completely new to OSM sees the streets in their area complete, they may assume the map is complete and there's nothing for them to do. If you're going to trace an area, you should be in a position to fill in the rest of the details, otherwise you're just taking the low-hanging fruit and leaving the hard stuff for someone else. Lots of mappers *do* do this, but putting off potential mappers is a good reason not to go charging into imports and/or tracing, or any other sort of non-survey based mapping. Besides, how do you know the source you're tracing is correct? -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
I thought it was very interesting to look at the OS and OSM overlaid on each other on the WMS link someone posted. 1. I was very impressed with how really accurate OSM is compared to OS where I know it has been done systematically 2. I was disappointed to see how out of date the OS data is - streets which I know personally have been there for two years still aren't in the OS data - but it's not all that out of date, some recent streets are there. 3. OS street detail has some real problems where a street is closed off part way along - streets where there is a bollard or a section of footway between street ends look like they are continuous streets on OS where I've looked (maybe this will be better in the vector stuff to be released). No wonder we get these tales of trucks following satnav only to end up stuffed. 4. I'm disappointed how many street names are missing on OS, especially short ones (short street not short name). Mapnik is a much prettier rendering as well, IMO. While I agree with Tom and Jonathan about tracing putting people off doing the base level survey, I have found that where the basic street level survey has been done properly, people will make small corrections from local knowledge and quick checks and surveys, where they aren't prepared to spend a whole day doing something. Quality has improved in most areas I've done over time (though it's still clear to me that we are very poorly represented in very rural villages). I'm not sure tracing is quite so problematic as from satellite, because OS has street names as well, but someone is still going to have to go back and get detail and check it (otherwise what is the point - if all we are going to do is trace OS, the user might as well use OS in the first place). I think one of the problems of this completeness is people don't know. Now I know Harlow needs attention I might well put it on my list for a visit. We did that for King's Lynn where we had the street pattern but no names and no other detail (though we've not finished yet), but only because I looked carefully at what had already been done. Personally I don't see the attraction of just sitting for hours in front of a computer duplicating someone else's product. For me the interest in OSM is the exploring, the wind in my face, the exercise. I think it's actually a shame that if people start tracing everywhere we can't say this is the fruit of our own labours. I'd still really like to complete Cambridgeshire by surveying. At 93%, we're so nearly there, and I'd really like to be able to say yes, *we* did it. Where I think I'll use the OS base most is if I miss a street name by accident, and will save going back to check it. But poersonally I won't be spending yet more time at my computer mindlessly copying. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View
Hi all, I was looking at the available OS data and one of the things they have but is not really in the current OSM database is building shapes. Individual buildings appear in the Street View data. The VectorMap District data seems to focus on land use and only has important buildings. The Street View data is much more complete in terms of individual buildings. I guess the questions we have to address are: is this data worth having in OSM? and are there any better sources of building outline? I think it would be a valuable addition for highly detailed mapping of urban areas, campuses, etc. The other sources of building outlines I know of are the 1st edition OS sheets (which are rather old), Yahoo imagery (which takes work to trace), and manual surveying (which is a major hassle since buildings tend to throw off GPS positions). Another source would be preferable to these. If we do want this data, it seems to be only available as a raster layer. (Does anyone know if this will be available as a vector layer?) Converting raster map data to vector data is non trivial but I think it is achievable. The building colour in the raster map seems to be unique. The raster maps could be selected by colour, vectorised and simplified (to remove redundant nodes). Since we have a significant number of buildings mapped in the UK, we could presume that we don't want to overwrite or duplicate what is already there. Buildings could be imported if it would not overlap with an existing building in OSM. One problem is some buildings are marked as leisure=stadium without a building=*. We might end up with duplicates of stadiums, leisure centres, churches and so on. Would we want the import to be more cautious to prevent this? I won't be importing anything until the rectification of Street View is complete (and I get a feel for the consensus on the mailing list) but I have demoed most of the method in python using the shapely module to do some geometry transforms. Any general thoughts on buildings and imports? Will this data be officially available in vector form at some point? We don't seem to have much comment on the legal issues and the implications of ODbL yet. Do we have a view as to if our attribution is sufficient? Regards, TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:57 PM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: I guess the questions we have to address are: is this data worth having in OSM? Yes are there any better sources of building outline? OS Mastermap. But since we won't get access to that any time soon If we do want this data, it seems to be only available as a raster layer. Yes. So we can trace the areas that we're working on, like we've been using Yahoo! Converting raster map data to vector data is non trivial but I think it is achievable. Ummm The building colour in the raster map seems to be unique. The raster maps could be selected by colour, vectorised and simplified (to remove redundant nodes). aaahh Buildings could be imported ... No. No no no no a thousand times no. Any general thoughts on buildings and imports? Don't import stuff. I'll be happy to see you import things that you are willing, personally, to maintain and update, and I'd prefer you imported using Potlatch or JOSM and used the Street View, Yahoo, GPS and local knowledge all mixed in as your sources. But no bulk imports of automatically generated buildings please. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View
Tim, I think this is a really good idea, and is one of the main benefits of the StreetView data. I have been wondering how to do this, but haven't got far. I would like to see a plugin for josm that takes a raster input (landsat, yahoo, StreetView) and processes it into 'draft' ways around areas of constant(ish) colour - the user then tidies it up and tags it before uploading (ie I would be very wary of a 'blind' import!). I think streetview would be the easiest because of the high contrast - I would like to see it work for landsat because I am colourblind and can't trace the outline of woods, and the North Yorkshire moors need some more detail!. Someone (I think it was Mike DuPont) reported doing this with gdal_contour, but I haven't tried it yet, and I haven't looked at how to turn this into a josm plugin. If I'd thought of it earlier I would have suggested this as a GSoC student project! Regards Graham. On 5 April 2010 17:57, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi all, I was looking at the available OS data and one of the things they have but is not really in the current OSM database is building shapes. Individual buildings appear in the Street View data. The VectorMap District data seems to focus on land use and only has important buildings. The Street View data is much more complete in terms of individual buildings. I guess the questions we have to address are: is this data worth having in OSM? and are there any better sources of building outline? I think it would be a valuable addition for highly detailed mapping of urban areas, campuses, etc. The other sources of building outlines I know of are the 1st edition OS sheets (which are rather old), Yahoo imagery (which takes work to trace), and manual surveying (which is a major hassle since buildings tend to throw off GPS positions). Another source would be preferable to these. If we do want this data, it seems to be only available as a raster layer. (Does anyone know if this will be available as a vector layer?) Converting raster map data to vector data is non trivial but I think it is achievable. The building colour in the raster map seems to be unique. The raster maps could be selected by colour, vectorised and simplified (to remove redundant nodes). Since we have a significant number of buildings mapped in the UK, we could presume that we don't want to overwrite or duplicate what is already there. Buildings could be imported if it would not overlap with an existing building in OSM. One problem is some buildings are marked as leisure=stadium without a building=*. We might end up with duplicates of stadiums, leisure centres, churches and so on. Would we want the import to be more cautious to prevent this? I won't be importing anything until the rectification of Street View is complete (and I get a feel for the consensus on the mailing list) but I have demoed most of the method in python using the shapely module to do some geometry transforms. Any general thoughts on buildings and imports? Will this data be officially available in vector form at some point? We don't seem to have much comment on the legal issues and the implications of ODbL yet. Do we have a view as to if our attribution is sufficient? Regards, TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Dr. Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK email: grahamjones...@gmail.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: The idea of OSM, as I see it, is to create a free-as-in-speech map of the world. All data which goes into the map must be the same sort of 'free'. Whether that be surveying or copying other people's maps is irrelevant - the end goal is to create a complete map. It's not irrelevant. There are many of us who believe, and have much evidence to show, that making the map in a certain way produces superior results. We're not interested in building a crappy-but-free map of the world (see TIGER) but in an awesome-and-free map of the world. And if there are things that seem to help but actually don't (see imports) then many of us will defend the ultimate end-goal - the awesome-and-free map. However, I disagree with the crowd on the tracing of OS Street View. Crack on with it, and make a good job of it. But if you're going to trace areas that you've got no knowledge of or intention to visit, then take it apon yourself to increase the awesomeness of the mapping - maybe organise a mapping party, or write to their local paper asking for help or somesuch. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View
On Monday 05 April 2010, Andy Allan wrote: Any general thoughts on buildings and imports? Don't import stuff. I'll be happy to see you import things that you are willing, personally, to maintain and update, and I'd prefer you imported using Potlatch or JOSM and used the Street View, Yahoo, GPS and local knowledge all mixed in as your sources. But no bulk imports of automatically generated buildings please. What about supervised 'imports', using a josm/potlatch plugin (a la cadastre-fr) to do vectorization and manually merging the results street by street? What about automatic generation of buildings countrywide to an osm layer that users manually merge with osm.org, again, street by street or block by block? I'm just cowering at the hundreds of thousands of man hours of unnecessary clickety-click-click-click that could be hugely accelerated by machine vision algorithms. robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
On Monday 05 April 2010, Andy Allan wrote: It's not irrelevant. There are many of us who believe, and have much evidence to show, that making the map in a certain way produces superior results. This may be true when we are the best available source of Free data for a country, but there is the potential for a massive brain-drain on OSM in the UK now that OS have released their data. We stand to lose a lot of participants who are just interested in the source that has the best data available to them for their licensing requirements. If we don't import a lot of OS, that source will be OS. We need to become a superset of what OS can offer (for Free) if we are to remain relevant to anyone other than us Freedom 'nuts'. But of course I agree that this should not be rushed. robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View
Kevin Peat wrote: Sent: 05 April 2010 7:50 PM To: David Earl; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View In the absence of vector data I agree that a controlled way of auto-tracing the building outlines (a JOSM plug-in would be ideal for me) is the way to go. But what is the point of just doing building=yes. Does that really add to OSM? Surely tracing buildings (with aids or not) would be better associated with address data inclusion rather than just making a pretty map? For my area, unless something like this comes along there will never be building outlines in OSM as the local demographics mean mappers are in short supply and I can't imagine that those that there are would want to manually trace 10s of thousands of buildings anyway. I don't think the we shouldn't sully OSM with OS data argument stands up as looking at my area (Devon) most of the coastline + almost all names of natural features and numerous other stuff has come from the NPE and 1st Edition maps. The StreetView coastline and waterways data is way better than what we currently have here and unless there is better data coming in the near future then we should trace this stuff in asap. Which is fine in the absence of anything else, or dedicated mappers on the ground. Eventually mappers will visit those areas and improve them, I regularly do and I'm often removing the NPE tags because I have a better source or an actual tracklog. Cheers Andy Kevin On 5 April 2010 19:14, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 05/04/2010 18:41, Graham Jones wrote: I would like to see a plugin for josm that takes a raster input (landsat, yahoo, StreetView) and processes it into 'draft' ways around areas of constant(ish) colour - the user then tidies it up and tags it before uploading (ie I would be very wary of a 'blind' import!). On 05/04/2010 18:52, Robert Scott wrote: What about supervised 'imports', using a josm/potlatch plugin Much, much better IMO. I dread the idea of any automated imports for the UK into OSM. Tools to automate tracing while being manually aware of what is already there and the flaws in the automation is so much better than trying to import and screwing up what's already there, duplicating stuff and adding poor quality automation flaws. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2792 - Release Date: 04/05/10 07:32:00 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] UK Ordnance Survey: VectorMap District shapefiles loadable in Merkaartor
Hi, For UK Merkaartor users, I've fixed some projections issues in the SHP loading in Merkaartor trunk so that the sample shapefiles at http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/vectormap/district/ could be loaded. Regards - Chris - ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
Jason Cunningham wrote: Sent: 05 April 2010 7:53 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey On 5 April 2010 14:10, John Robert Peterson jrp@gmail.com wrote: Put differently -- can anyone think of any specific reason why we can't start tracing? Thanks, JR JR, you might spend hours tracing Streetview images only to find someone replaces it with 'VectorMap District' vector data in a couple of weeks. Why trace the road when the vector data behind streetview will be released next month? Different products and covering the ground in different ways. Don't assume what you see on StreetView is in 'VectorMap District because the trial data they have released suggests not. I've had my first look through the various datasets this afternoon and I'm really pleased. I agree with those who say we need to wait before tracing, because we'll probably be using 'VectorMap District which is released next month VMD may be useful for targeted importing but Streetview is probably going to be better for general stuff. For instance, VMD doesn't appear to have minor streets named, eg residential streets. Each of the products released by OS contains data which may be of use to OSM. We now need to look at the data within each product, decide what we want to use, and how the data enters OSM. The dominant source of data looks like being the data 'VectorMap District' product, because its vector data and accurate. But there will be data in Streetview not available in VectorMap District which will need tracing. Define accurate. I'd expect the position of most roads and major features to be at least as good as we have now but is it up to date. Just because it's the OS doesn't automatically mean its better than what we have in OSM already. At this moment I do not support a straight import of any data from 'VectorMap District' because much of the data is already present in OSM. I'd suggest something along the lines of converting the 'VectorMap Discrict' data for each 2km grid square and making it available as a download that can be used as a layer in JOSM. The corresponding area in OSM can be downloaded into JOSM and the two 'brought together' if needed. Which I guess may mean deleting a lot of existing OSM data because OS have mapped more accurately in many situations. Its going to need a lot of care this, It could be a great aid to someone who is mapping on the ground. It would save editing time. But if its done remotely we may be no better off than the situation with Yahoo! imagery. If VMD doesn't have naming attributes on all objects, and the trial data suggests it doesn't, then it may not be of as much use as we think. I've had a look at the vector data provided for Milton Keynes and it's clear we will need to discuss the individual layers available. Hopefully on the wiki? For example the 'water area' contains far more detail than I ever hoped to see, and its a very important layer for many map users. It inclusion really stands out when you consider the missing fence lines and 'Rights of Way'. OS appear map the 'areas' of waterways over 1m wide, something OSM has not been able to do with GPSr's and Yahoo imagery. (Waterways under 1m are shown as lines by OS) Yes, I can see that water features is one area the OS vector data could be a big improvement for OSM currently. Looking at the waterways layer (and woodland layer) provides examples of why we couldn't directly import it. Whenever there is a bridge over the waterway the water way stops existing. Similarly the existence of a path causes woodland not to exist over the path, so instead of one large woodland, it's broken up into several small woodlands. (Maybe this is one of the issues OS will address before the release of 'VectorMap District' next month?) Don't hold your breath! For example I used the example vector data for Milton Keynes to look at the water layer. Below the first link show you can see example of the very accurate vector data within 'VectorMap District'. Its a stream running through Milton Keynes and less than two metres wide. But the layer is broken up because the stream is not considered to exist under bridges! The bridges/paths can be seen in the second link to Where's the path http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd132/jamicu/grassvectorofwaterinMiltonK eynes.jpg http://snipurl.com/v9xsq One very good example of using OS data as a reference resource and not wholly relying upon it for direct import. Cheers Andy Cheers, Jason Cunningham No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2792 - Release Date: 04/05/10 07:32:00 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey Landform Panorama data
Phil James wrote: Aah! Thanks Richard, I've had a closer look now (I'd only quickly skimmed the SD folder). I took the file numbers to be the same as the sheet references on the First Series sets - don't know why - especially as they are derived from 1:50k data! Just as a matter of interest, I'm viewing the files in Openoffice. The drawing app. provides a quick and easy way to view the files graphically. Phil. How useful, I didn't realise OpenOffice supported DXF, even if it isn't so great with the 20MB file of the Snowdon mountain range that I use as my test case! I've spent most of today working with different tools to convert the raw contour data into other, more useful forms such as a DEM dataset (which is essentially just an image coloured according to height. I've generally found a successful method to do this, and hope to publish my results later this week. Thomas ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Separation of sources
With all of the current excitement over OS OpenData, I have been thinking about how tracing, imports, etc, affect what data is actually surveyed. In my mind, I’m preferring having a project where data is obtained purely from ground survey, other projects dealing with other sources of data, and maybe another project to combine them. I’m a fan of ground surveys, and think they mostly tend to produce better results when available, so I may be a little bit biased. Having a project dedicated to ground survey means less chance of peoples’ hard work being trodden over by people tracing maps from the 60’s, or trying to make out features from poor resolution aerial imagery. Combining the data, however, will have more of an overhead than if all data was contributed to one project in the first place. This might deter people from the idea, but is it really that bad? Ground surveyed data tends to be more accurate. If people want other sources so much, won’t they encourage the effort to combine the independent sources? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
