On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 21:45 Mike Thompson, wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mark Wagner wrote:
>
>>
>> * Two adjacent sections of track being tagged as "grade 2" and "grade
>> 4" not because of any difference in road surface, but because one has
>> a line of grass between the
Hi,
I like your idea.
Just a week ago, the user Gassol also edited tracks in Hamburg, Germany,
and he used bad, old and blurry imagery (Bing). A lot of his edited
tracks aren't even visible there, because of trees or just bad image
quality. I talked to him and he isn't a local person, just makes
Hi Joseph,
Am 18/07/2020 um 21.51 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg:
> Do you have evidence that most of the surface tags added by this user are
> unreliable?
Review results by westnordost
(https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=795002#p795002,
translated with DeepL):
> Here are some bad
sent from a phone
> On 18. Jul 2020, at 21:11, Michael Reichert wrote:
>
> I am reaching out to the community in
> advance because different people might have a different opinion on how
> reliable tracktype=* needs to be
It will hardly be more reliable than its definition can be universally
A wide scale revert without assessing closely the quality and particulars in
specific countries is not a good idea. Just an opinion that a method is flawed
is not enough to demonstrate that such a wide scale revert is justified. Much
more detailed analysis is needed before it should even be
in the united states the hole thing starts out as gravel ,
>Saturday, July 18, 2020 3:44 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson
>:
>
>
>On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mark Wagner < mark+...@carnildo.com > wrote:
>
>>* Two adjacent sections of track being tagged as "grade 2" and "grade
>> 4"
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mark Wagner wrote:
>
> * Two adjacent sections of track being tagged as "grade 2" and "grade
> 4" not because of any difference in road surface, but because one has
> a line of grass between the ruts and the other doesn't.
>
In rural areas where I have spent
On 18/07/2020 20:51, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable to add surface=unpaved or similar based on
aerial imagery alone, if you have some experience in distinguishing
different surfaces of roads and tracks from aerial imagery.
I'd agree that most of the time telling
Almost all of the tracktype mapping around me has been done by armchair
mappers working from from aerial images.
Tracks in my area are usually produced in one of two ways:
* A bulldozer is used to scrape vegetation and topsoil off.
* A given route is driven repeatedly, eroding any vegetation or
It's perfectly reasonable to add surface=unpaved or similar based on aerial
imagery alone, if you have some experience in distinguishing different
surfaces of roads and tracks from aerial imagery.
Do you have evidence that most of the surface tags added by this user are
unreliable?
– Joseph
Hi,
Am 18/07/2020 um 21.19 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk:
> Are you sure that just satellite imagery was used? I suspect that also
> aerial imagery was used in edits.
In Hamburg, Germany, where aerial imagery of the city is available, Bing
was used.
>> I think that the description "all
Jul 18, 2020, 21:09 by osm...@michreichert.de:
> Hi Mateusz,
>
> Am 18/07/2020 um 19.29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
>
>> Can you link affected data in Poland?
>>
>> In Poland you actually can reliably estimate real tracktype based solely
>> on high quality aerial images (not satellite imagery
Hi Mateusz,
Am 18/07/2020 um 19.29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
> Can you link affected data in Poland?
>
> In Poland you actually can reliably estimate real tracktype based solely
> on high quality aerial images (not satellite imagery that is unlikely to be
> sufficient), typically Geoportal 2
Jul 18, 2020, 20:07 by osm...@michreichert.de:
> Am 18/07/2020 um 19.29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
>
>> Can you link affected data in Poland?
>>
>> In Poland you actually can reliably estimate real tracktype based solely
>> on high quality aerial images (not satellite imagery that is unlikely
On 18/07/2020 17:51, Florimond Berthoux wrote:
If the estimation was really bad almost all the time why not, but here
the example given is ok.
How do you know - have you visited that area and done a ground survey?
Best Regards,
Andy
___
talk
Hi Mateusz,
Am 18/07/2020 um 19.29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
> Can you link affected data in Poland?
>
> In Poland you actually can reliably estimate real tracktype based solely
> on high quality aerial images (not satellite imagery that is unlikely to be
> sufficient), typically Geoportal 2
I modestly (on occasion) set tracktype=* based on imagery, but only using
higher-quality imagery where I have high confidence I can quite accurately do
so. On those few occasions where I later visit the site / track and am able to
glean how accurate my tagging was, I've either never had to
Can you link affected data in Poland?
In Poland you actually can reliably estimate real tracktype based solely
on high quality aerial images (not satellite imagery that is unlikely to be
sufficient), typically Geoportal 2 aerial and LIDAR data available in ISOK Cień
dataset.
Note that your
I see no big issue of using only aerial images to set track_type or surface.
You can get a fairly good result with such sources.
So no, you should not blindly revert its modifications.
If the estimation was really bad almost all the time why not, but here the
example given is ok.
Le sam. 18 juil.
On Jul 18, 2020, at 7:09 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
> In addition (I can't find the link now but) I recall reading about the death
> of a hiker or climber who used some app which used OSM data, and the app
> didn't distinguish between track_types (or there was no track_type data for
> that route),
In addition (I can't find the link now but) I recall reading about the
death of a hiker or climber who used some app which used OSM data, and
the app didn't distinguish between track_types (or there was no
track_type data for that route), so the hiker presumed it was OK to go
on, and
On 18/07/2020 11:53, Michael Reichert wrote:
I do not believe that one can add reliable tracktype=* information from
satellite imagery without having some ground truth knowledge in order to
know how to interpret the imagery in that region.
I think that "without having some ground truth
Hi,
while reviewing changes in my local area, I discovered that user Modest7
has been adding tracktype=* tags to lots of highway=track at various
locations. I asked him what sources he used apart from the satellite
imagery mentioned in the imagery_used=* tag of his changesets. See
23 matches
Mail list logo
