[talk-ph] Request clarification on access restrictions

[grab osm via talk-ph]

Hi Team,

Request your help in clarifying a couple of questions related to access
restrictions.

1)**Incorrect segments assigned as access=private**
At this location, 14.6792514, 121.0568702, there is a gate with name(Gate
to Pingki-an 2).
Basis gate location and name, we assume segments to the north should be
assigned as access=permissive basis poi's and surrounding landuse polygon
names
Example way id's -
way 655215117
way 655215119
way 655215118
way 129591536
However, access restrictions are given to segments towards south
Example way id's -
way 28296648
way 23172246
way 23172447

2)**Segments assigned as access=private should be changed to
access=permissive**
Below mentioned example way id's are assigned as access=private, however
basis the landuse residential polygons, we assume access should be changed
to permissive.
Example way id's -
way 130960943
way 22952874
way 28296647
way 22952900

Alternatively we have created an issue
 in our github page.
Kindly take time to review and suggest.

Thanks,
GrabTeam
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Request for clarification on road tagging guidelines

[grab osm via talk-ph]

Apologize Erwin.

Here are the further details of our question.

When a way segment that connects to a Major road, please suggest if the the
connector should have same classification as the way segment or that of a
Major Road with link attribute assigned

Below is an example:
[image: image]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/38514914/51738144-70316c00-20b4-11e9-807a-a809f4f1c068.png>
Please suggest, if any further infirnation is needed.

Thanks
Lavanya

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 08:58 Erwin Olario 
> I think it's bad form to just post a ticket link here, without actually
> specifying your question.
>
> If you post something here, expect answers to be answered here as well.
> Your ticket tracking system is your own, not the community's.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:23 AM grab osm via talk-ph <
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> Good Morning Everyone,
>>
>> Request a quick clarification on road tagging guidelines.
>> We have created an issue in our github page and here is the link.
>> https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data/issues/30
>> Kindly take time to review and suggest
>>
>> Thanks
>> Lavanya
>> ___
>> talk-ph mailing list
>> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>
> --
>
> /Erwin Olario
>
> e: er...@ngnuity.xyz | v/m: https://t.me/GOwin | s:
> https://mstdn.io/@GOwin
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] Request for clarification on road tagging guidelines

[grab osm via talk-ph]

Good Morning Everyone,

Request a quick clarification on road tagging guidelines.
We have created an issue in our github page and here is the link.
https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data/issues/30
Kindly take time to review and suggest

Thanks
Lavanya
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Review of GlobalLogic edits in the Philippines

[grab osm]

Hello Ian
Happy and Prosperous New Year
Thanks for taking time to quickly check our edits and share feedback.

Here are our observations on the findings -
1  iffy change-set which deleted all roads in Carnasa/Carnaza Island in
northern Cebu https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65332385
Roads in this change-set were created by our editor in an island without
any connectivity(Isolated), hence, were deleted during our internal
validation(Quality check).  We were not sure if roads can be created and
left in isolation.  We have such instances in other cities of Indonesia
which could be connected through ferry route, but we are not creating such
roads as we are not clear on the connectivity basis satellite imagery.

2.  Deleting and re-creating a feature, as what happened to the area around
the Magellan Shrine in Lapu-Lapu City -
Existing road was partitioned as it was initially created as a loop.

It infact was not deleted and re-created, but a partition made

which
might have led Osmcha to represent it as deleted segment

As you rightly mentioned our edits are focused on road geometry - creation
and modification(alignment and attribute corrections of existing data as
appropriate following OSM guidelines)

Kindly suggest if we are missing anything

Thanks
GrabTeam

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019, 19:46 Ian Lopez  Hello and happy New Year to all.
>
> In the wake of issues between OpenStreetMap contributors in Thailand and
> editors from GlobalLogic [1] I've decided to review a selection of edits
> in the Philippines done by the GlobalLogic team over the past 12 months.
>
> As soon as I started my review, I immediately spotted at least one iffy
> changeset [2] which deleted all roads in Carnasa/Carnaza Island in
> northern Cebu. The said changeset was reverted afterwards [3]. In addition,
> I saw a bad practice, which is deleting and re-creating a feature, as what
> happened to the area around the Magellan Shrine in Lapu-Lapu City [4]. 
> However,
> not all edits are destructive as new roads were added in places such as
> Pampanga [5]
>
> From what I've seen so far, there is a common theme among GlobalLogic
> edits, such as addition, reclassification and modification of streets. In
> fact, most of the edits revolve around highway data.
>
> For those interested in reviewing the edits made by the GlobalLogic team,
> I left a link at the bottom of this email [6].
>
> [1] as documented in
> https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/client/snv?noteGuid=9b42fabf-eed1-4e60-a576-894d8cb4d635¬eKey=048c3a2daac0289b=https://www.evernote.com/shard/s4/sh/9b42fabf-eed1-4e60-a576-894d8cb4d635/048c3a2daac0289b=Response%2Bto%2BGrab%2527s%2BResponse%2Bon%2BOSM
> 
> [2] see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65332385, visualization
> at https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=65332385
> [3] see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65913856, visualization
> at https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=65913856. Prior to the
> deletion, an editor from the GlobalLogic team added roads in the island (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64226169, visualization at
> https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=64226169)
> [4] see
> https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=59139193=18=10.31114=124.01558=B00TTTFT
> for visualization
> [5] see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62328028, visualization
> at https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=62328028
> [6] see
> https://osmcha.mapbox.com/filters?aoi=ffa1c52a-9020-4bd1-8d20-6cbb70bcd5be,
> URL only works when logged in to an existing OpenStreetMap account
> -
> Blog: http://ianlopez1115.wordpress.com/
> OpenStreetMap/Twitter: ianlopez1115
> Facebook: ian.lopez
>
>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Grab in conflict with Thailand OSM community

[grab osm]

Yes that's always a check point for us Erwin.

Thanks Lavanya

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018, 14:45 Erwin Olario 
> And speaking of imagery alignment, please check the imagery offsets
> database, if you're working with any imagery (even Bing), our (Kaart) work
> in PH updates the IODB, whenever possible, and recording offsets with
> Strava heatmaps (or some other source.)
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:32 PM Eugene Alvin Villar 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:25 PM Glen Scott  wrote:
>>
>>> Is it a concern that they keep referring to Bing imagery "We will also
>>> use Bing imagery to ensure there are no missing roads". In the parts
>>> I've looked at, some roads on Bing just don't exist any more! Bing is good
>>> for coastline where there has been no human development, but not good for
>>> anything else. Using Bing imagery to check for roads will create the
>>> classic GPS nav problem - OLD DATA = WRONG WAY!
>>>
>>
>> It is definitely a concern to use any old and outdated imagery, not just
>> Bing. But based on experience, Bing usually has the best alignment out of
>> all the available satellite imagery so it makes sense to refer to Bing (at
>> first). But any good remote mapper worth their salt should check other
>> imagery as well to (hopefully) avoid mapping outdated roads and features.
>> ___
>> talk-ph mailing list
>> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>
> --
>
> /Erwin Olario
>
> e: er...@ngnuity.xyz | v/m: https://t.me/GOwin | s:
> https://mstdn.io/@GOwin
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Grab in conflict with Thailand OSM community

[grab osm]

Hello All,

Just wanted to quickly clarify on our usage of images.
We do not stick with any one default imagery to map a city.
We do a random check to find the best suitable imagery basis ground truth
alignment and strava heat maps and use it as default imagery.
However we do refer to all available images to cross check our edits
accuracy before uploading them live to osm.
We might end up making some edits which might be in line with ground
reality,  and that's where we seek guidance and feedback from local team.

Thanks Lavanya

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018, 13:02 Eugene Alvin Villar  On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:25 PM Glen Scott  wrote:
>
>> Is it a concern that they keep referring to Bing imagery "We will also
>> use Bing imagery to ensure there are no missing roads". In the parts
>> I've looked at, some roads on Bing just don't exist any more! Bing is good
>> for coastline where there has been no human development, but not good for
>> anything else. Using Bing imagery to check for roads will create the
>> classic GPS nav problem - OLD DATA = WRONG WAY!
>>
>
> It is definitely a concern to use any old and outdated imagery, not just
> Bing. But based on experience, Bing usually has the best alignment out of
> all the available satellite imagery so it makes sense to refer to Bing (at
> first). But any good remote mapper worth their salt should check other
> imagery as well to (hopefully) avoid mapping outdated roads and features.
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Grab's OSM data team is planning to work on roads of Cebu city

[grab osm]

Hello Maning Sambale,

We have a temporary hold on Metro Manila due to internal priority changes
Henceforth, we will implement your suggestion of posting a note after a
city completion.

Thanks
Grab Team



On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:31 AM maning sambale 
wrote:

> What happened to the metro manila work [0]?  Before proceeding to
> other cities I personally prefer they should wrap-up previous
> initiatives so we can understand what worked, what doesn't and how
> previous experience/issues (if any) can be mitigated.
>
> A good example is Kaart's and ProjectNOAH's wrapup notes posted in this
> list.
>
> [0] https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data/issues/19
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM Erwin Olario  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Grab's data team is back to working on, and reviewing Cebu city roads
> [0], to identify missing roads, and geometry issues.
> >
> > FYI.
> >
> > [0]: https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data/issues/26
> > --
> >
> > /Erwin Olario
> >
> > e: er...@ngnuity.xyz | v/m: https://t.me/GOwin | s:
> https://mstdn.io/@GOwin
> >
> > ___
> > talk-ph mailing list
> > talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
>
>
> --
> cheers,
> maning
> --
> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
> https://github.com/maning
> http://twitter.com/maningsambale
> --
>
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] OSM Road Network Enhancement Efforts In Cebu

[grab osm]

Hello All,

We would start reviewing the road network in the entire city of Cebu
Scope involved will be only road network - Map missing roads and correct
existing network with reference to tags and classifications as appropriate

Basis the pre-analysis we did to identify the right imagery and offsets, we
found that ESRI is the imagery used with existing strava offset
We will use ESRI as default imagery with appropriate offset distance -
existing or newly created basis strava.
We will also use other images to ensure there are no missing roads.

While we follow the standard OSM mapping guidelines, please suggest for any
country specific policies that needs to referred

We have created a new issue in our project page.  For any questions and/or
feedback, please let us know
https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data/issues/26

Thanks
Grab Team
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] OSM Road Network Enhancement Efforts In Binalonan

[grab osm]

Hello All

We would start reviewing the road network in the entire city of
BinalonanScope involved will be only road network - Map missing roads and
correct existing network with reference to tags and classifications as
appropriate

Basis the pre-analysis we did to identify the right imagery and offsets, we
found that Digi Globe Standard is aligned to ground truth when compared to
Bing

Hence we will use Digi Globe Standard as default imagery with appropriate
offset distance - existing or newly created basis strava.
We will also use Bing imagery to ensure there are no missing roads as
appropriate
While we follow the standard OSM mapping  guidelines, please suggest for
any country specific policies that needs to referred

Thanks
Lavanya
Grab Team
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

[talk-ph] OSM Road Network Enhancement Efforts In San Fernando

[grab osm]

Hello All,

We would start reviewing the road network in the entire city of San Fernando
Scope involved will be only road network - Map missing roads and correct
existing network with reference to tags and classifications as appropriate

Basis the pre-analysis we did to identify the right imagery and offsets, we
found that Bing is the imagery used with an recently created offset.

Hence we will use Bing as default imagery with appropriate offset distance
- existing or newly created basis strava.
We will also use standard imagery to ensure there are no missing roads as
for some areas standard seems to be more clear than bing imagery

While we follow the standard OSM mapping guidelines, please suggest for any
country specific policies that needs to referred

Thanks
Lavanya
Grab Team
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Advanced imagery alignment with Imagery Offsets DB

[grab osm]

Hello All,

In further continuation to our earlier message on map enhancements efforts
in Metro Manila, we wanted to inform local mappers and community that we
started the city this morning.
We also used the offset distance as appropriate for the change sets uploaded

Here are the change sets we worked on since morning today mapped with
respective offset distances used.  Will be of great help if anyone from the
team can have a quick review of a couple of them and confirm we are in the
right track with reference to using the offsets.  Thanks in advance

Changeset Number Offset Distance
61452499 1.2 m
61453192 1.2 m
61453920 1.2 m
61454492 1.2 m
61452621 87cm
61453227 87cm
61453842 87cm
61454488 87cm
61454136 2.3 m
61454560 1.1 m
61455283 1.1 m
Thanks
Lavanya
Grab Team



On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:17 PM, grab osm  wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> As we got to know about the attachment file size limitations off-late ,
> and as suggested by Eugene, we have referenced the doc in our issue
> created in git hub project page.
> Here is the link - https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data/issues/19
>
> Thanks
> Lavanya
> Grab Team
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:51 AM, grab osm  wrote:
>
>> Good Morning All,
>>
>> Firstly, we would like to sincerly thank Erwin and Rally for the detailed
>> explanation on how to use offset database.
>>
>> A quick clarification of the objects we mentioned in our github issue
>> page..
>> Before we started to work on Metro Manila, a note was posted in PH
>> facebook page in the intent to get help from local community on any specifc
>> policies to be followed, offset distance to be maintained etc.
>> Alvin from the community made a point that there was a significant
>> contribution made by Kaart team in the same area, so, we wanted to evaualte
>> the city and understand if we want to continue working on Metro Manila or
>> not.
>> Two categories of objects were mentioned in the page -
>> - missing roads - way id or node id mentioned here are the ids of roads
>> nearby to the missing roads.
>> - classification gaps - example objects with incorrect classifications.
>>
>> Hence these objects posted in our github page are only examples of
>> missing roads and classification gaps we found in the sample areas we
>> investigated and does not comprise the entire work we intend to do in the
>> city.
>>
>> As suggested by Erwin, to further clarify what do we mean by
>> classification gaps we tried to explain a handful of instances so that we
>> can explain our project to the community better.
>>
>> Here is the document with examples.
>>
>> Local mappers have been of great help and support and we will ensure to
>> continue producing high quality maps within our scope.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Lavanya
>> Grab Team
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018, 08:33 Erwin Olario  wrote:
>>
>>> Earlier this week, the OSM data team of Grab posted an email [0]about
>>> their plan to address issues [1] they found in NCR, which has led to a
>>> discussion about the Imagery Offsets Database (IODb) [2] because of a
>>> statement in their ticket that (they) "would be using Bing imagery
>>> **without any offset **while correcting existing network and/or add missing
>>> roads" (emphasis in mine) , but that phrase was nowhere in their email to
>>> the mailing list.
>>>
>>> The Grab team has been quite responsive in the past, to address the
>>> concerns we've had with them and they are still that to this day. Kudos
>>> Grab team!
>>>
>>> Eugene made note of the vague description of their task and asked them
>>> to elaborate, which they did [3] and they also identified the specific
>>> objects they plan to work on.
>>>
>>> The ensuing conversations, however, were in the OpenStreetMap Asia's
>>> Telegram channel [4], and so they were asked to pursue the detailed
>>> discussion in this list to make the rest of the discussions public, and
>>> accessible to the rest of the community.
>>>
>>> To restart the conversation, I'll respond to the query [5] made by
>>> Lavanya regarding the Imagery Offsets plugin for JOSM.  ( If you're new
>>> with that plugin, this short introduction [6] will help you get started. )
>>>
>>> In a later image they posted [7] on Telegram which they described as
>>> "conflicting" with the image label: "offset in josm for same location 3m" ,
>>> they appear to have misinterpreted distance of the location where the
>>> offsets adjustments were set ("296m&q

Re: [talk-ph] Advanced imagery alignment with Imagery Offsets DB

[grab osm]

Hello All,

As we got to know about the attachment file size limitations off-late , and
as suggested by Eugene, we have referenced the doc in our issue created in
git hub project page.
Here is the link - https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data/issues/19

Thanks
Lavanya
Grab Team

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:51 AM, grab osm  wrote:

> Good Morning All,
>
> Firstly, we would like to sincerly thank Erwin and Rally for the detailed
> explanation on how to use offset database.
>
> A quick clarification of the objects we mentioned in our github issue
> page..
> Before we started to work on Metro Manila, a note was posted in PH
> facebook page in the intent to get help from local community on any specifc
> policies to be followed, offset distance to be maintained etc.
> Alvin from the community made a point that there was a significant
> contribution made by Kaart team in the same area, so, we wanted to evaualte
> the city and understand if we want to continue working on Metro Manila or
> not.
> Two categories of objects were mentioned in the page -
> - missing roads - way id or node id mentioned here are the ids of roads
> nearby to the missing roads.
> - classification gaps - example objects with incorrect classifications.
>
> Hence these objects posted in our github page are only examples of missing
> roads and classification gaps we found in the sample areas we investigated
> and does not comprise the entire work we intend to do in the city.
>
> As suggested by Erwin, to further clarify what do we mean by
> classification gaps we tried to explain a handful of instances so that we
> can explain our project to the community better.
>
> Here is the document with examples.
>
> Local mappers have been of great help and support and we will ensure to
> continue producing high quality maps within our scope.
>
> Thanks
> Lavanya
> Grab Team
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018, 08:33 Erwin Olario  wrote:
>
>> Earlier this week, the OSM data team of Grab posted an email [0]about
>> their plan to address issues [1] they found in NCR, which has led to a
>> discussion about the Imagery Offsets Database (IODb) [2] because of a
>> statement in their ticket that (they) "would be using Bing imagery
>> **without any offset **while correcting existing network and/or add missing
>> roads" (emphasis in mine) , but that phrase was nowhere in their email to
>> the mailing list.
>>
>> The Grab team has been quite responsive in the past, to address the
>> concerns we've had with them and they are still that to this day. Kudos
>> Grab team!
>>
>> Eugene made note of the vague description of their task and asked them to
>> elaborate, which they did [3] and they also identified the specific objects
>> they plan to work on.
>>
>> The ensuing conversations, however, were in the OpenStreetMap Asia's
>> Telegram channel [4], and so they were asked to pursue the detailed
>> discussion in this list to make the rest of the discussions public, and
>> accessible to the rest of the community.
>>
>> To restart the conversation, I'll respond to the query [5] made by
>> Lavanya regarding the Imagery Offsets plugin for JOSM.  ( If you're new
>> with that plugin, this short introduction [6] will help you get started. )
>>
>> In a later image they posted [7] on Telegram which they described as
>> "conflicting" with the image label: "offset in josm for same location 3m" ,
>> they appear to have misinterpreted distance of the location where the
>> offsets adjustments were set ("296m" east of their current location) and
>> the actual offset distance ("3m") that has led to their conclusion that it
>> was "conflicting".
>>
>> Back on my desk, I replicated their JOSM setup to get a clearer image,
>> and as seen in this screen cap [11], the record actually match with what
>> was found in the offset record in question [9].  Therefore, there's no
>> actual conflict.
>>
>> The offset in question [9] was made by Rally during the course of our
>> work with the NCR road alignment validation with Kaart [10] that was
>> completed in June.
>>
>> I believe the image [12] found in the quick start page for the plugin are
>> very helpful in describing the plugin's GUI elements.
>>
>> The IODb is a great resource for JOSM and Vespucci editors, but is not
>> yet supported by iD. For iD users, the accepted convention is to adjust the
>> aerial imagery to the offsets used in the edits you find in the area. This
>> will make it easier for future edits to "fix" the objects, when a more
>> accurate imagery alignment

[talk-ph] Metro Manila - Road Enhancement Project - Areas served by Grab

[grab osm]

Hello Mappers,


We are a team from Grab, about to start work on OSM enhancing the map for
Metro Manila


We only concentrate on the areas served by Grab and not the entire city and
we focus on enhancing map for road network - Correcting existing road
network with reference to alignment, classifications, attributes and add
missing roads if any.


We intend to use Bing Imagery while working on Metro Manila and also refer
to the offset data base to decide on appropriate imagery offset to be used
before we even start editing.


We have opened an issue in our github project page.  Kindly help us with
any relevant policies and/or feedback

https://github.com/GRABOSM/Grab-Data/issues/19


Thanks in advance

Grab Team
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph