Re: [talk-au] Vicmap data copying
On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 22:12 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote: Hi David, The policy shift you're advocating is enormous.. No, no Steve, I worded my last letter really badly and totally apologise if I unintentionally offended anyone. My comment related specifically to your line - Yeah. I'm still deciding what to do about places where Vicmap shows a track in the bush that can't be seen on any imagery - probably because the vegetation is too dense. I meant leave the 'grey' areas to the survey people. There are many roads (and particularly tracks) that cannot been seen clearly on the imagery, and many more where some parts cannot be seen. I'd rather the people working with imagery or other non (recent) survey data such as Vic Maps did not make educated guesses but go and have a look, or ask some else to go and have a look. I have had a road (into a new estate) removed, apparently because it did not show up on Bing. Very annoying to a new owner there who was directing tradies via OSM ! But that in no way means I don't value the armchair mappers contribution. I'd just like them to double check their data, one way or another before committing. Maybe what we need is some sort of register ? The people studying imagery are good at picking up anomalies, differences between image and map. They could log it and have some local go and check ? Better than just jumping in. You may be amused to know that some years ago, I was shocked to discover I had apparently built my house in the middle of the Bendigo Region National Park. I was waiting to get a letter telling me to move it when I realised someone had just followed the tree line, assuming all was national park. They had swept up the Park it self, the Welsford State Forest, Sugarloaf Conservation Park and a large number of private properties. A very quick check would have prevented that error. I am pretty sure all we want is for the database to have accurate, relevant data. David On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 22:12 +1000, Steve Bennett wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:31 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Guys, can I respectfully suggest that source=survey ? Vicmaps (and others) sometimes show roads that have been closed, land sold off etc. Those roads will show up in imagery because the car tracks last a long time on the ground. Further, visiting the site can clarify the state and status of a road. Road names on published maps are sometimes wrong, lets not propagate those errors ! Lets restrict mapping via imagery to those situations where survey is not possible. Hi David, The policy shift you're advocating is enormous. You're proposing that virtually all armchair mapping cease, that the rate of OSM mapping be reduced by 100x, and that many contributors essentially stop mapping. Naturally, I oppose this suggestion :) You seem to be falling into the trap of assuming there is some kind of aerial imagery vs survey choice. Obviously the best thing for OSM is both. Advantages of aerial mapping: - many times faster - more accurate than GPS traces in some/many/most cases - contribution from people for whom site surveys are not practical/possible/desirable - quickly do the groundwork so a site survey is more efficient and focuses on relevant details Advantages of site surveys: - get details that can't be obtained from the air - GPS traces more accurate than aerial mapping in some/many/most cases - fun (for some people) Me, I do a lot of aerial mapping. When I'm out and about I try to use what I've seen to update OSM. But I don't travel hundreds of kilometres out of my way just to do a bit of site surveying. In summary: let the aerial mappers keep doing their thing, let the ground surveyors do their thing, and let's work together for the good of the project. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Vicmap data copying
On 19/05/2014 4:22 PM, David Bannon wrote:
No, no Steve, I worded my last letter really badly and totally apologise
if I unintentionally offended anyone. My comment related specifically to
your line -
Alan Greenspan --- ' /I know you think you/ understand what /you/
thought I /said/ but I'm not sure /you/ realize that what /you/ heard is
not what I meant'
Anyone who has been on the internet for a while will realise that
anything can and will be misconstrued. No one should take it personally!
I meant leave the 'grey' areas to the survey people. There are many
roads (and particularly tracks) that cannot been seen clearly on the
imagery, and many more where some parts cannot be seen. I'd rather the
people working with imagery or other non (recent) survey data such as
Vic Maps did not make educated guesses but go and have a look, or
ask some else to go and have a look.
Humm .. there are places I've been before GPS... One example:
I know the road is there as I've been on it. However it is now closed
for vehicles - inside a National Park. I've mapped bits of it into OSM
as it may be of use to walkers. The bit I cannot 'see' with imagery I've
connected with very apparent straight lines. I do have copyright maps of
the area but I'm not looking at those now (they were current when I was
there ... many years ago!). I'm not going back there, I've many other
(new to me) places to go. Nor would I request someone to go there.
Someone probably will go there .. but I'll leave their interest and trip
up to them. So I'm adding stuff that I think is of use, an indication
rather than accurate in some places .. but those bits are straight lines
and anyone who knows the area will know that those are not 'truth'.
For places I've not been to yet and have an interest in .. I'll map the
bits I can see. So I can use the OSM map better when I get there. I do
have current maps of those areas too .. with written descriptions and
photos .. but I don't use those to put info on OSM either.Nor do I
connect th ebits .. as I don't know that they are connected (yet).
I have had a road (into a new estate) removed, apparently because it
did not show up on Bing.
I'm against removing stuff of any description .. unless you really know
it is not there. And as you say the only way to 'know' is to got there
(or have been before, even then things change). Same for changing it,
don't change unless you 'know'.
I've been deleting the tag name={Unnamed] and adding the tag
unsigned=yes, in one case I 'know' the roads name .. but my source I
remember as a street directory . So I cannot use it untill the memory
fades a bit more. In most cases I've been past some of the roads .. and
there is no street sign (indeed most have no power poles nor street
lighting). In this case I think it can be changed without 'knowing' as
the intent is clear - there is no local sign to get a name from .. at
least not when the tag was added.
So .. my take as always
Rules were made for the guidance of the wise,
and the obedience of fools.
To be wise though you have to know the intent, and ramifications ...
becarefull as to where you place yourself.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Vicmap data copying
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:22 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.netwrote: No, no Steve, I worded my last letter really badly and totally apologise if I unintentionally offended anyone. My comment related specifically to your line - Ok, no worries :) Yeah. I'm still deciding what to do about places where Vicmap shows a track in the bush that can't be seen on any imagery - probably because the vegetation is too dense. I meant leave the 'grey' areas to the survey people. There are many roads (and particularly tracks) that cannot been seen clearly on the imagery, and many more where some parts cannot be seen. I'd rather the people working with imagery or other non (recent) survey data such as Vic Maps did not make educated guesses but go and have a look, or ask some else to go and have a look. Yeah, it's a real issue. Like I said, I'm still trying to work out how best to proceed. My general approach is to be a bit more liberal with roads that don't go through, and more conservative with ones that do. I'm also trying to use fixme=* to express doubt: fixme=unverified from vicmap (ie, I can't see through the vegetation, so I'm taking vicmap's word for it) fixme=verify access (I can see a track, vicmap has a track, but I'm still a little skeptical that it's public access) Sometimes I also use highway=path rather than highway=track if I'm dubious that the public can drive a vehicle down it. My intention in all this is to minimise the chance that someone gets routed down a road that is not publicly accessible, or otherwise impassable. Personally, I think it's ok to show dead-end 4WD tracks that happen to not be driveable, because I think the people that use those kinds of maps expect that. But definitely willing to discuss this point, and open to all opinions... I have had a road (into a new estate) removed, apparently because it did not show up on Bing. Very annoying to a new owner there who was directing tradies via OSM ! But that in no way means I don't value the armchair mappers contribution. I'd suggest adding notes on to the road in question, like note=This road was built in early 2014 and is surveyed. I'd just like them to double check their data, one way or another before committing. To be honest, I go so much faster if I'm not doing any checking - you might be surprised how fast I map :) It doesn't really make sense to spend 10 minutes verifying a road that I created in 10 seconds - I just take the chance that I'm introducing a couple of errors. But mostly I'm doing stuff out in the bush. I'm usually pretty cautious about deleting anything like you describe. I have come across a couple where I just couldn't fathom why someone had drawn a road somewhere, but I'll usually cross-check against a couple of other sources. Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172612474 Maybe what we need is some sort of register ? The people studying imagery are good at picking up anomalies, differences between image and map. They could log it and have some local go and check ? Better than just jumping in. Are there enough of us to make it worthwhile? Anyway, a better mechanism would probably be through fixme=*, so you can go and look for fixme's in your area at your leisure. You may be amused to know that some years ago, I was shocked to discover I had apparently built my house in the middle of the Bendigo Region National Park. I was waiting to get a letter telling me to move it when I realised someone had just followed the tree line, assuming all was national park. They had swept up the Park it self, the Welsford State Forest, Sugarloaf Conservation Park and a large number of private properties. A very quick check would have prevented that error. Yeah, that seems pretty silly. Although IMHO we need a better approach to maintaining administrative boundaries - it doesn't really make sense for anyone to be able to move them at will, since there is a genuine authority for each. I am pretty sure all we want is for the database to have accurate, relevant data. You left out comprehensive and useful. I think I have a higher tolerance for error because I want OSM to be useful and complete-ish *now*. I use it on a regular basis for planning trips, and I can't wait a few years for all the checking. I'd rather a pretty complete map with a few errors which will be corrected over time. But that's all it is - different priorities. Maybe I think 98% accuracy is enough, whereas you want 99.5% - and someone else might want 99.95%... Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Vicmap data copying
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
Humm .. there are places I've been before GPS... One example:
I know the road is there as I've been on it. However it is now closed for
vehicles - inside a National Park. I've mapped bits of it into OSM as it
may be of use to walkers. The bit I cannot 'see' with imagery I've
connected with very apparent straight lines. I do have copyright maps of
the area but I'm not looking at those now (they were current when I was
there ... many years ago!). I'm not going back there, I've many other (new
to me) places to go. Nor would I request someone to go there. Someone
probably will go there .. but I'll leave their interest and trip up to
them. So I'm adding stuff that I think is of use, an indication rather than
accurate in some places .. but those bits are straight lines and anyone who
knows the area will know that those are not 'truth'.
Yeah, someone (you?) added lots of tracks through the Victorian Alps in
very low detail. It was actually incredibly helpful, and really motivated
me to go through and improve them all - rather than starting from a blank
slate. And in certain areas, I get a real kick out of doing very high
quality aerial mapping like this: http://bit.ly/1hXv9KZ
I've been deleting the tag name={Unnamed] and adding the tag
unsigned=yes, in one case I 'know' the roads name .. but my source I
remember as a street directory . So I cannot use it untill the memory fades
a bit more. In most cases I've been past some of the roads .. and there is
no street sign (indeed most have no power poles nor street lighting). In
this case I think it can be changed without 'knowing' as the intent is
clear - there is no local sign to get a name from .. at least not when the
tag was added.
Sounds sensible.
What about this confusing one: http://bit.ly/1hXvwVK
The picnic ground/campsite is literally signed No Name, and that's how
everyone refers to it. I have no idea what the history is. (And there's a
corner on the way up Mount Buller called 'Unnamed corner').
Steve
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Vicmap data copying
On 19/05/2014 11:42 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com
mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
Humm .. there are places I've been before GPS... One example:
I know the road is there as I've been on it. However it is now
closed for vehicles - inside a National Park. I've mapped bits of
it into OSM as it may be of use to walkers. The bit I cannot 'see'
with imagery I've connected with very apparent straight lines. I
do have copyright maps of the area but I'm not looking at those
now (they were current when I was there ... many years ago!). I'm
not going back there, I've many other (new to me) places to go.
Nor would I request someone to go there. Someone probably will go
there .. but I'll leave their interest and trip up to them. So I'm
adding stuff that I think is of use, an indication rather than
accurate in some places .. but those bits are straight lines and
anyone who knows the area will know that those are not 'truth'.
Yeah, someone (you?) added lots of tracks through the Victorian Alps
in very low detail. It was actually incredibly helpful, and really
motivated me to go through and improve them all - rather than starting
from a blank slate. And in certain areas, I get a real kick out of
doing very high quality aerial mapping like this: http://bit.ly/1hXv9KZ
Glad it helps, and should have made a good trip. And ... no I don't
think that was me ... NSW, Tas, some bits along the Nullabor IIRC.
I've been deleting the tag name={Unnamed] and adding the tag
unsigned=yes, in one case I 'know' the roads name .. but my
source I remember as a street directory . So I cannot use it
untill the memory fades a bit more. In most cases I've been past
some of the roads .. and there is no street sign (indeed most have
no power poles nor street lighting). In this case I think it can
be changed without 'knowing' as the intent is clear - there is no
local sign to get a name from .. at least not when the tag was added.
Sounds sensible.
What about this confusing one: http://bit.ly/1hXvwVK
The picnic ground/campsite is literally signed No Name, and that's
how everyone refers to it. I have no idea what the history is. (And
there's a corner on the way up Mount Buller called 'Unnamed corner').
Well if you add the tag source:name then it should be clear that it is a
real name? Rather than a description .. like Service Road, No Public
Access ... in some ways I don't mind that in the name tag as it does
convey information that may not be avaliable otherwise.
The tag unsigned come from the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Noname
I don't like the finality of the tag noname as that implys there is no
name at all... the sign may be missing .. but it may still have a name.
Even just a local name that the locals use to idntify it.
I tend to map stuff that is there .. as even if you cannot use it for
access (closed for whatever reason) you can use it for navigation .. but
there are other views.
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6728/tagging-historicunsignedunmaintained-trails
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
