Re: [Talk-GB] [Spam] oslVosm, OpenData Locator 2010 data and not:name
I also wonder if there is a step before the OS that can help consider the discrepancies. The naming authority for the streets we have conflict is the local authority so checking what the naming authority has in its database may reveal whether the problem is with miss information or incorrect signing on the ground. Once the Birmingham folks have completed checks (getting closer now) then we plan to check with Birmingham City Council to further evaluate. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Peter Miller Sent: 04 October 2010 10:15 AM To: Tim Francois Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] [Spam] oslVosm,OpenData Locator 2010 data and not:name great news. Regarding the not:name tag at the OS, I think we need to be a bit patient. The OS is a large organisation and do take time to change. They are actually changing fast at present and have expressed enthusiasm for the not:name technique and I think it is just a matter of us using it for some time while it gets into their systems. We are going to do some more analysis on it at some point and will be working with the OS of the processes. It would be shame if we gave up using it before they got into listening! In the mean time it is a useful way of stopping people checking a conflict that someone else has already determined is a error on their part. Regards, Peter On 3 October 2010 17:47, Tim Francois sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: All, 1. If there are any heroes left using oslVosm http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm [1] to compare OSM data with OS Locator data, I've just updated the script a little so that it now honours the not:name tags. Any highways which include a not:name tag are automatically assumed to be 100% correct in OSM, whatever OSL says, and are ignored in any further comparisons. This assumption may have to be reviewed at a later date... 2. Anyone else using/noticed that the Locator data has been stealthily 'updated'? I remember Robert writing something about it a while back, but can't remember the conversation. In Bristol, a load of roads seem to have disappeared, whilst some more have been added. All in all, there were about 10 more roads than in the '2009' release. Anyone else notice differences? 3. not:name. Are many people using it? Is it working? And are these being sent back to OS? The reason I added it to oslVosm is that it seems to be being used here in Bristol, so it is useful for 'accurate' numbers. For those that may not be aware, oslVosm is a script which compares OSM data against OS Locator data, and can output a gpx, kml or wiki file of any discrepancies. It also tries to do some spell checking if it finds similar names. It is primarily aimed at people with a programming tilt, as it only works from the command line (and probably only in Linux). For those who want an easy to use interface, use Robert's excellent Musical Chairs [2] web interface or ITOs slippy map layer in Potlatch or JOSM [3]. Cheers Tim [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm [2] http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#Browseable_OS_Loc ator_to_OSM_comparison_with_fuzzy_matching [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#OSM_and_OSL_Diffe rences_as_Background_Tiles ___ 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: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3175 - Release Date: 10/03/10 19:33:00 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [Spam] oslVosm, OpenData Locator 2010 data and not:name
great news. Regarding the not:name tag at the OS, I think we need to be a bit patient. The OS is a large organisation and do take time to change. They are actually changing fast at present and have expressed enthusiasm for the not:name technique and I think it is just a matter of us using it for some time while it gets into their systems. We are going to do some more analysis on it at some point and will be working with the OS of the processes. It would be shame if we gave up using it before they got into listening! In the mean time it is a useful way of stopping people checking a conflict that someone else has already determined is a error on their part. Regards, Peter On 3 October 2010 17:47, Tim Francois sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: All, 1. If there are any heroes left using oslVosmhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm [1] to compare OSM data with OS Locator data, I've just updated the script a little so that it now honours the not:name tags. Any highways which include a not:name tag are automatically assumed to be 100% correct in OSM, whatever OSL says, and are ignored in any further comparisons. This assumption may have to be reviewed at a later date... 2. Anyone else using/noticed that the Locator data has been stealthily 'updated'? I remember Robert writing something about it a while back, but can't remember the conversation. In Bristol, a load of roads seem to have disappeared, whilst some more have been added. All in all, there were about 10 more roads than in the '2009' release. Anyone else notice differences? 3. not:name. Are many people using it? Is it working? And are these being sent back to OS? The reason I added it to oslVosm is that it seems to be being used here in Bristol, so it is useful for 'accurate' numbers. For those that may not be aware, oslVosm is a script which compares OSM data against OS Locator data, and can output a gpx, kml or wiki file of any discrepancies. It also tries to do some spell checking if it finds similar names. It is primarily aimed at people with a programming tilt, as it only works from the command line (and probably only in Linux). For those who want an easy to use interface, use Robert's excellent Musical Chairs [2] web interface or ITOs slippy map layer in Potlatch or JOSM [3]. Cheers Tim [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm [2] http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#Browseable_OS_Locator_to_OSM_comparison_with_fuzzy_matching [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#OSM_and_OSL_Differences_as_Background_Tiles ___ 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] [Spam] oslVosm, OpenData Locator 2010 data and not:name
It would indeed be a shame if we/they just ignored the not:name data - I grep'd the current Great Britain OSM dataset and there's 1054 instances of k=not:name, which is not insignificant. (If anyone wants to see the results download it in zipped txt format http://tm.com/osm/goog_1770857475 not_name.zip - I got grep to also provide the line immediately before and after the k=not:name instance for some context.) Tim On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.comwrote: great news. Regarding the not:name tag at the OS, I think we need to be a bit patient. The OS is a large organisation and do take time to change. They are actually changing fast at present and have expressed enthusiasm for the not:name technique and I think it is just a matter of us using it for some time while it gets into their systems. We are going to do some more analysis on it at some point and will be working with the OS of the processes. It would be shame if we gave up using it before they got into listening! In the mean time it is a useful way of stopping people checking a conflict that someone else has already determined is a error on their part. Regards, Peter On 3 October 2010 17:47, Tim Francois sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: All, 1. If there are any heroes left using oslVosmhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm [1] to compare OSM data with OS Locator data, I've just updated the script a little so that it now honours the not:name tags. Any highways which include a not:name tag are automatically assumed to be 100% correct in OSM, whatever OSL says, and are ignored in any further comparisons. This assumption may have to be reviewed at a later date... 2. Anyone else using/noticed that the Locator data has been stealthily 'updated'? I remember Robert writing something about it a while back, but can't remember the conversation. In Bristol, a load of roads seem to have disappeared, whilst some more have been added. All in all, there were about 10 more roads than in the '2009' release. Anyone else notice differences? 3. not:name. Are many people using it? Is it working? And are these being sent back to OS? The reason I added it to oslVosm is that it seems to be being used here in Bristol, so it is useful for 'accurate' numbers. For those that may not be aware, oslVosm is a script which compares OSM data against OS Locator data, and can output a gpx, kml or wiki file of any discrepancies. It also tries to do some spell checking if it finds similar names. It is primarily aimed at people with a programming tilt, as it only works from the command line (and probably only in Linux). For those who want an easy to use interface, use Robert's excellent Musical Chairs [2] web interface or ITOs slippy map layer in Potlatch or JOSM [3]. Cheers Tim [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm [2] http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#Browseable_OS_Locator_to_OSM_comparison_with_fuzzy_matching [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#OSM_and_OSL_Differences_as_Background_Tiles ___ 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
