Re: [talk-au] Import vs filtering query

[John Luan]

Hi Ian,

How would you match the different map set, the government one to OSM? And
how will you validate the matching is correct?

Regards,
John

On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 14:41, stevea  wrote:

> To be clear, Ian, I'm not saying this use of data is an import, as you
> have said and as it appears to me and others, it is / would be using the
> data as a "filtering process" in a workflow.  As such, I'm good with that.
>
> The points I was making are that 1) data drift over time and 2) there are
> some in OSM who say that "verified on the ground" data are superior to
> other forms of "published" data (via satellite or by governments).  A
> corollary could be that one of the more strong rebukes you might receive
> (and I haven't heard any here yet) is that you are using government data,
> rather than "ground-truthed" data.  Fine.  Again, I'm OK with what and how
> you are doing this, I think you are getting a lot of "green lights" as
> feedback.
>
> Steve
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Import vs filtering query

[stevea]

To be clear, Ian, I'm not saying this use of data is an import, as you have 
said and as it appears to me and others, it is / would be using the data as a 
"filtering process" in a workflow.  As such, I'm good with that.

The points I was making are that 1) data drift over time and 2) there are some 
in OSM who say that "verified on the ground" data are superior to other forms 
of "published" data (via satellite or by governments).  A corollary could be 
that one of the more strong rebukes you might receive (and I haven't heard any 
here yet) is that you are using government data, rather than "ground-truthed" 
data.  Fine.  Again, I'm OK with what and how you are doing this, I think you 
are getting a lot of "green lights" as feedback.

Steve

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 12:35, Adam Horan  wrote:

> What I did notice though is that some footpath shapes matched those in
> openstreetmap, paths through parks and nature reserves especially.
>

Including one that I mapped only a matter of weeks ago!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?

[Adam Horan]

What I did notice though is that some footpath shapes matched those in
openstreetmap, paths through parks and nature reserves especially.
I also see they've got a ©OpenStreetMap in the bottom right corner - not
sure if that's always been there.

On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 09:22, Sam Wilson  wrote:

> I'm not sure what the best way is, but the imagery on bing.com/maps
>  appears to be the same as what's available in
> the WMS service, so it's probably quicker to check there than to fire up an
> editor. I found an edge of the high-res stuff in Dandenong South (would
> link to it but Bing maps appears not to allow permalinks). Maybe they
> publish the bounds somewhere? Maybe they're going to do more? Dunno.
> On 6/9/21 6:34 am, Stéphane Guillou wrote:
>
> Still hasn't reached us, in my part of Meanjin/Brisbane at least.
>
>
> Nowadays, what is the best way to track:
>
> - How old the imagery is?
>
> - Where the latest update is available?
>
> - Zoom level availability?
>
>
> Cheers
> On 2/9/21 9:08 am, Adam Horan wrote:
>
> I can't see it in the suburbs of Melbourne yet. :(
>
> However they are now marking National Parks clearly in the normal map mode
> (not that it helps us), and they seem to have a new detailed terrain model.
> The hill shading on some sand quarries near me is much more detailed and
> accurate than I recall seeing before: eg
> https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=88fab0f8-d07a-4f80-b6ca-d951776333be=-38.130694~145.185322=16=2=2=S00027
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 03:01,  wrote:
>
>> Yes there is. Has also shown up in NSW and Qld.
>>
>> We were discussing that today in #oceania on the OSM Discord.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sam Wilson 
>> Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 2021 22:25
>> To: OSM-Au 
>> Subject: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?
>>
>> For Perth at any rate, it seems that there is new Bing imagery available,
>> taken this year. I might be a bit slow off the mark, but this makes
>> tracing
>> buildings far far better! I'm sure it was crappier last week.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> --
> Stéphane Guillouhttp://stragu.gitlab.io/
>
> You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 
> is available on the keys.gnupg.net server.
>
> Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact page: 
> http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing 
> listTalk-au@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Import vs filtering query

[Andrew Harvey]

I also wouldn't consider this an import, because you're just using the data
to filter down potential issues which you then cross reference with other
sources.

On Sat, 4 Sept 2021 at 20:55, Little Maps  wrote:

> Hi all, my understanding is that the process described below is a big
> filtering exercise rather than a data import, but since I’ve never been
> involved in an import before, I’d like to check before progressing. Thanks
> in advance for your feedback.
>
>
> Goal: to update road surface tags across regional Victoria where
> necessary. Many surface tags were added 8-10 years ago and a surprising
> number of roads have been surfaced since then. (I’m only interested in
> sealed/paved vs unsealed/unpaved options, not subsets of these.)
>
>
> Method: compare road surface data in OSM against data in the Vic
> government’s transport dataset which we have permission and waiver to use.
> All rural roads from motorways to unclassified (not residential, service,
> etc) that have different tags in OSM and the gov dataset will be examined
> against satellite imagery and Mapillary, and any decisions on whether to
> update the surface tags will be made based solely on the imagery. No data
> will be directly copied from the gov dataset. Hence, as I understand osm’s
> import guidelines, this is a big filtering exercise rather than an import.
> Is that a correct interpretation? I’ve added a longer explanation below to
> help answer any questions.
>
>
> Basic assumptions: (1) I assume both datasets were made independently, as
> I’ve not seen any evidence that OSM surface tags were copied from the Vic
> data (or that the gov copied from OSM). (2) If the 2 independent datasets
> both indicate the same surface then I assume it is most likely to be
> correct. If they indicate different surfaces then one must be in error. At
> the outset, I have no idea how accurate the Vic gov dataset is, so I’m not
> assuming it is infallible (it’s definitely not; see comment below).
>
>
> Methods: for every road segment that has a different surface tag in the 2
> datasets, I’d inspect the road using available imagery, as is normally done
> when adding or updating a surface tag. Existing OSM tags will either be
> altered or retained, as required. There’s no ambiguity involved in updating
> a tag from unpaved to paved. It’s much less common to need to update a tag
> from paved to unpaved. Again, this will be done based on imagery,
> regardless of what the Vic data says.
>
>
> Some prelim observations: I’ve trialled the method in NW Vic, where the
> method works fine on longer road segments/ways. The approach would have to
> be restricted to ways > 1-2 km long, and short ways will be ignored. From
> an initial subset of about 50 roads > 5 km long in NW Vic, I found about
> 2/3 of the discrepancies between the 2 datasets did not warrant any change
> in OSM and about 1/3 did. The Vic gov data doesn’t seem to be as up-to-date
> as the imagery and isn’t by any means perfect. Regardless, the approach
> looks to be a very effective way to find out-of-date and inaccurate road
> surface data across the state.
>
>
> At this stage I don’t know how many ways will be examined or changed, as
> it will depend on the minimal length of road I inspect. I’m envisaging
> about 1000 at the max, and probably fewer.
>
>
> My guess is that, if the process was completed across Vic, then the
> surface data in OSM would be extremely accurate, and more accurate than in
> the Vic gov database. If I get through enough of it without going bonkers,
> I’m interesting in summarising the findings to show which discrepancies
> were most common, etc.
>
>
> So, back to the original question, is this process ok to pursue, given
> that the sole function of the gov dataset is to provide a filtering
> mechanism to identify roads to investigate, and all decisions will be made
> based on legally available imagery, not the gov data?
>
>
> Thanks very much for your feedback, Ian
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?

[Sam Wilson]

I'm not sure what the best way is, but the imagery on bing.com/maps 
 appears to be the same as what's available 
in the WMS service, so it's probably quicker to check there than to fire 
up an editor. I found an edge of the high-res stuff in Dandenong South 
(would link to it but Bing maps appears not to allow permalinks). Maybe 
they publish the bounds somewhere? Maybe they're going to do more? Dunno.


On 6/9/21 6:34 am, Stéphane Guillou wrote:


Still hasn't reached us, in my part of Meanjin/Brisbane at least.


Nowadays, what is the best way to track:

- How old the imagery is?

- Where the latest update is available?

- Zoom level availability?


Cheers

On 2/9/21 9:08 am, Adam Horan wrote:

I can't see it in the suburbs of Melbourne yet. :(

However they are now marking National Parks clearly in the normal map 
mode (not that it helps us), and they seem to have a new detailed 
terrain model.
The hill shading on some sand quarries near me is much more detailed 
and accurate than I recall seeing before: eg 
https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=88fab0f8-d07a-4f80-b6ca-d951776333be=-38.130694~145.185322=16=2=2=S00027 





On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 03:01, > wrote:


Yes there is. Has also shown up in NSW and Qld.

We were discussing that today in #oceania on the OSM Discord.

-Original Message-
From: Sam Wilson mailto:s...@samwilson.id.au>>
Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 2021 22:25
To: OSM-Au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?

For Perth at any rate, it seems that there is new Bing imagery
available,
taken this year. I might be a bit slow off the mark, but this
makes tracing
buildings far far better! I'm sure it was crappier last week.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

--
Stéphane Guillou
http://stragu.gitlab.io/

You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 is 
available on the keys.gnupg.net server.

Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact 
page:http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 08:38, Stéphane Guillou <
stephane.guil...@member.fsf.org> wrote:

> Still hasn't reached us, in my part of Meanjin/Brisbane at least.
>

Nor on the Gold Coast :-(

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?

[Stéphane Guillou]

Still hasn't reached us, in my part of Meanjin/Brisbane at least.


Nowadays, what is the best way to track:

- How old the imagery is?

- Where the latest update is available?

- Zoom level availability?


Cheers

On 2/9/21 9:08 am, Adam Horan wrote:

I can't see it in the suburbs of Melbourne yet. :(

However they are now marking National Parks clearly in the normal map 
mode (not that it helps us), and they seem to have a new detailed 
terrain model.
The hill shading on some sand quarries near me is much more detailed 
and accurate than I recall seeing before: eg 
https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=88fab0f8-d07a-4f80-b6ca-d951776333be=-38.130694~145.185322=16=2=2=S00027 





On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 03:01, > wrote:


Yes there is. Has also shown up in NSW and Qld.

We were discussing that today in #oceania on the OSM Discord.

-Original Message-
From: Sam Wilson mailto:s...@samwilson.id.au>>
Sent: Wednesday, 1 September 2021 22:25
To: OSM-Au mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: [talk-au] New Bing imagery?

For Perth at any rate, it seems that there is new Bing imagery
available,
taken this year. I might be a bit slow off the mark, but this
makes tracing
buildings far far better! I'm sure it was crappier last week.


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


--
Stéphane Guillou
http://stragu.gitlab.io/

You can encrypt our communications by using OpenPGP. My public key 4E211060 is 
available on the keys.gnupg.net server.

Other ways to interact with me are listed on my contact page: 
http://stragu.gitlab.io/contact/

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?

[Ewen Hill]

Good evening all,
   I have spent a bit of time exploring the changesets in SA by the
MSOMT and reviewed all residential roads and 1/13th of service roads. There
were some significant wins with a lot of the edits that vastly improve SA
however there could be some improvements with

   1. Private driveways being marked as residential or service roads
   without access restrictions. A lot of these are on farms and around
   farmyards past gates.
   2. Residential roads that should have been reduced to an alley or lane
   3. Caravan parks with the parking aisles marked as residential


*Execution: *

   - I modified the overpass query to extract all new ways since June 9th.
   This is available at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1aU2 and produced 5513
   entries
   - Each way then had the latest changeset id and username identified.
   This may not be the original editor.
   - User profiles were then checked for being part of the MSOMT team of
   which 13 editors were located
   - .Of the 4081 MSOMT edited ways in 1704 changesets, the following
   highway types were created
   -
   highway count
   unclassified 1610
   service 1501
   residential 921
   track 27
   construction 18
   cycleway 2
   tertiary 1
   secondary 1
   - All 921 residential roads were reviewed and whilst there are a number
   of grey areas and user perception, the following breakdown was identified
   -
   highway status count
   residential OK 243
   residential Minor issues/ Caravan parks 45
   residential Residential road but could be lane/alley  143
   residential Assumed private property access 481
   residential Other issues 9
   - A selection of 143 service roads were also reviewed.
   -
   highway status cout
   service ok 49
   service Minor issues
   1
   service Assumed private property access
   92
   service Other issue 1
   - No other highway types were reviewed.


Due to the number of changesets (393 already identified) and the mix of
edit quality, I am not certain where we go from here?


Ewen


On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 at 17:27, Nemanja Bracko (Hi-Tech Talents LLC) via
Talk-au  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Thank you for reviving this topic again. I planned to do the same this
> week.
>
>
>
> I would like to make a clear note that this issue is still on the top of
> our list to get fixed. For this reason, I’m responsive to this thread, so
> editors don’t need to reply to each repetitive issue. I don’t think that I
> have missed any of the messages or left them unanswered.
>
>
>
> We are still on hold since the community is not united about the process
> of work.
>
> The way I see this is only to remove roads that we added entirely. I don’t
> think it would be beneficial for the map and the community, but if that
> bothers the community, we are willing to remove it if it is the only
> solution.
>
>
>
> Once the community has a consensus about the tags that we have to use, we
> can jump in, and I will personally make sure that everything is processed
> entirely in accordance with your guideline.
>
>
>
> I really appreciate any help you can provide.
>
> Nemanja
>
>
>
> *From:* Andy Townsend 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 29, 2021 5:37 PM
> *To:* talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification
> contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
>
>
>
> At the risk of repeating what might have been said earlier, I'd suggest
> commenting on one or more of the problem changesets, explaining why
> "residential" (or whatever) isn't a good fit.
>
> If the users concerned don't reply then we (the DWG) can try and draw
> their attention to the comments before they make future changes.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> (from the DWG)
>
> On 8/29/21 2:15 PM, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> Through overpass, plus random sampling as I'm editing; I'm still seeing a
> substantial amount of misclassifications.
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1aIk
> 
>
> ~2400 ways.
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1aIl
> 
>
> Most of these outside of townships appear to be still very poorly
> classified, and last edited 2 months ago.
>
>
> Has any correction been done whatsoever?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 3:39 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks 

Re: [talk-au] Import vs filtering query

[Simon Poole]

Hi

Your proposed workflow would seem to be totally OK to me and is clearly 
not an import. List the government data in the sources used in the 
changeset and IMHO you are good to go.


Simon

Am 04.09.2021 um 12:51 schrieb Little Maps:


Hi all, my understanding is that the process described below is a big 
filtering exercise rather than a data import, but since I’ve never 
been involved in an import before, I’d like to check before 
progressing. Thanks in advance for your feedback.



Goal: to update road surface tags across regional Victoria where 
necessary. Many surface tags were added 8-10 years ago and a 
surprising number of roads have been surfaced since then. (I’m only 
interested in sealed/paved vs unsealed/unpaved options, not subsets of 
these.)



Method: compare road surface data in OSM against data in the Vic 
government’s transport dataset which we have permission and waiver to 
use. All rural roads from motorways to unclassified (not residential, 
service, etc) that have different tags in OSM and the gov dataset will 
be examined against satellite imagery and Mapillary, and any decisions 
on whether to update the surface tags will be made based solely on the 
imagery. No data will be directly copied from the gov dataset. Hence, 
as I understand osm’s import guidelines, this is a big filtering 
exercise rather than an import. Is that a correct interpretation? I’ve 
added a longer explanation below to help answer any questions.



Basic assumptions: (1) I assume both datasets were made independently, 
as I’ve not seen any evidence that OSM surface tags were copied from 
the Vic data (or that the gov copied from OSM). (2) If the 2 
independent datasets both indicate the same surface then I assume it 
is most likely to be correct. If they indicate different surfaces then 
one must be in error. At the outset, I have no idea how accurate the 
Vic gov dataset is, so I’m not assuming it is infallible (it’s 
definitely not; see comment below).



Methods: for every road segment that has a different surface tag in 
the 2 datasets, I’d inspect the road using available imagery, as is 
normally done when adding or updating a surface tag. Existing OSM tags 
will either be altered or retained, as required. There’s no ambiguity 
involved in updating a tag from unpaved to paved. It’s much less 
common to need to update a tag from paved to unpaved. Again, this will 
be done based on imagery, regardless of what the Vic data says.



Some prelim observations: I’ve trialled the method in NW Vic, where 
the method works fine on longer road segments/ways. The approach would 
have to be restricted to ways > 1-2 km long, and short ways will be 
ignored. From an initial subset of about 50 roads > 5 km long in NW 
Vic, I found about 2/3 of the discrepancies between the 2 datasets did 
not warrant any change in OSM and about 1/3 did. The Vic gov data 
doesn’t seem to be as up-to-date as the imagery and isn’t by any means 
perfect. Regardless, the approach looks to be a very effective way to 
find out-of-date and inaccurate road surface data across the state.



At this stage I don’t know how many ways will be examined or changed, 
as it will depend on the minimal length of road I inspect. I’m 
envisaging about 1000 at the max, and probably fewer.



My guess is that, if the process was completed across Vic, then the 
surface data in OSM would be extremely accurate, and more accurate 
than in the Vic gov database. If I get through enough of it without 
going bonkers, I’m interesting in summarising the findings to show 
which discrepancies were most common, etc.



So, back to the original question, is this process ok to pursue, given 
that the sole function of the gov dataset is to provide a filtering 
mechanism to identify roads to investigate, and all decisions will be 
made based on legally available imagery, not the gov data?



Thanks very much for your feedback, Ian


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au