Hi Alan,
I would like to go one step further. For an example of what I mean,
check out my home airport, CYKZ
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.86025lon=-79.37129zoom=16).
You will notice nodes for things like:
- Windsocks
- VASI/PAPI
And other details like runway width, and surface (on
I reviewed the subject airport imports in southern CA.
I'm surprised that there were only 16 imports in bbox=-122,33,-115,38 given
the mentioned 23000 nodes total. Must be other parts of the world that were
not well-covered?
They are all private facilities, and I tagged them access=private.
Hello people,
today I've stumbled upon changeset 6682943 [0] in my area, and, digging
further, I found its companions listed in [1].
While I believe this is valuable information, I'm quite puzzled by the import.
In particular, it added nodes also to already well-mapped airports, with
missing
David wrote:
big snip
What do you think about reverting these changesets?
I stumbled across an imported node in the middle of the existing
area of airport nearest me and have deleted the node, but it being
there made me review the existing mapping and I have improved my
previous estimates of the
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 09:53 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Complete lack of discussion is reason enough for a revert in my
opinion.
I'd suggest contacting the importer and asking him where/how he has
heard the community about his plans and whether he intends to fix the
problems.
and also
In my area it looks like a couple of small rural grass strips was
added. The hospital helipad was initially duplicated but then
re-deleted in a subsequent changeset by the same user. So it looks
like there was at least SOME attempt at de-duplicating things, even if
it was done after the fact.
The source is documented in both the changeset comments and on the nodes
themselves. I saw a conversation on IRC to the effect that the data is
indeed PD so there don't seem to be any worries on that front at least.
Toby
On Dec 17, 2010 3:10 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
On
At 2010-12-17 01:22, Toby Murray wrote:
The source is documented in both the changeset comments and on the nodes
themselves. I saw a conversation on IRC to the effect that the data is
indeed PD so there don't seem to be any worries on that front at least.
Really? I read the about page at
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:43:29AM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
I suspect this kind of different quality is present elsewhere too.
Yes, I have removed a duplicate in my area this morning. The node added
was giving no new information (it had wrong name, was only a node and
missed other data
On 17/12/10 09:47, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2010-12-17 01:22, Toby Murray wrote:
The source is documented in both the changeset comments and on the
nodes themselves. I saw a conversation on IRC to the effect that the
data is indeed PD so there don't seem to be any worries on that front
at
Toby Murray wrote:
The source is documented in both the changeset comments and on the
nodes themselves. I saw a conversation on IRC to the effect that the
data is indeed PD so there don't seem to be any worries on that front
at least.
A simple assertion that this is PD isn't good enough.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
Come on, this is non-sense. If someone accepted the CT and imports the data,
it should be enough.
I disagree, if there is reasonable evidence or suspicion that the data
may have licensing problems then we should ask the
Le 17/12/2010 09:43, David Paleino a écrit :
What do you think about reverting these changesets?
+1
Imports must have been object of previous discussions, on legacy (but it
seems right) and on methods and it apears the import is creating a lot
of dupes.
I have seen a lot of town imported
Le 17/12/2010 09:43, David Paleino a écrit :
What do you think about reverting these changesets?
+1
Imports must have been object of previous discussions, on legacy (but it
seems right) and on methods and it apears the import is creating a lot
of dupes.
I have seen a lot of town imported
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
Come on, this is non-sense. If someone accepted the CT and imports the data,
it should be enough.
I disagree, if there is reasonable evidence or suspicion that the data
may
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de
wrote:
Come on, this is non-sense. If someone accepted the CT and imports the
data,
it should be enough.
Stefan de Konink wrote:
Come on, this is non-sense. If someone accepted the CT and imports the
data, it should be enough.
No. By that logic we'd never revert data which is clearly traced from
infringing sources. We can, and we do.
The OSM map is a single collaborative project, not a
Le 17/12/2010 11:34, Stefan de Konink a écrit :
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de
wrote:
Come on, this is non-sense. If someone accepted the CT and imports
the data,
it should be enough.
I disagree, if there is
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
The legal discussion makes only sense if the import is going to be accepted.
And since it is not the first import about airports in OSM, this one will
create more troubles than anything else. I agree with Frederik that
On Friday 17 December 2010, Stefan de Konink wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de wrote:
Come on, this is non-sense. If someone accepted the CT and imports the
data,
it should be enough.
I disagree, if
From http://www.ourairports.com/about.html , under Credits:
Google Maps for providing a free, high-quality mapping API and geocoder
--
Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
, December 17, 2010 12:27 PM
Aan: Richard Fairhurst
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Massive import of airports
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
The legal discussion makes only sense if the import is going to be
accepted
Gert,
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:08:49 +0100, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen wrote:
OSM is an open system.
Anyone can contribute as he likes.
You're wrong.
Anyone can contribute correct (at most of the user capabilities) non-duplicate
data.
Data failing to meet this criteria MUST
Toby Murray wrote:
In my area it looks like a couple of small rural grass strips was
added. The hospital helipad was initially duplicated but then
re-deleted in a subsequent changeset by the same user. So it looks
like there was at least SOME attempt at de-duplicating things, even if
it was
bericht-
Van: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org]
Namens David Paleino
Verzonden: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:18 PM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Massive import of airports
Gert,
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:08:49 +0100, ce-test, qualified
On 17 December 2010 11:49, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
From http://www.ourairports.com/about.html , under Credits:
Google Maps for providing a free, high-quality mapping API and geocoder
But it also says:
Marc Wick at Geonames for permission to run thousands of batch
Le 17/12/2010 13:08, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen a écrit :
OSM is an open system.
Anyone can contribute as he likes.
Not only...
Anyone can contribute for making data beter.
We don't always agree on what is beter. But we discuss it.
And we generaly agree that dupes are
Am 17.12.2010 13:30, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
Read my mail ! Instead of debiting the obvious!
I'm sorry I've to jump into this discussion. It's not only about data
quality but about how we interact with each other. It's best practice at
OSM to announce data
Hello,
I'm responsible for the massive import of airports yesterday. First of
all, I would like to apologize for its outcome.
My intention was to map some of the missing airports from OSM. My
methodology was as follows:
- Check to see what data is already in OSM. Download the data from the
Am 17.12.2010 15:28, schrieb Blake Crosby:
I'm responsible for the massive import of airports yesterday. First of
all, I would like to apologize for its outcome.
Hi Blake
thank you for talking to us although we ranted so bad about the import.
My intention was to map some of the missing
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:28:26 -0500, Blake Crosby wrote:
Hello,
I'm responsible for the massive import of airports yesterday. First of
all, I would like to apologize for its outcome.
Thanks for talking here :)
[..]
As you can see there was a flaw. Not all airports in OSM have nodes,
On 17/12/2010 9:42 AM, Peter Körner wrote:
The community has to decide it the changes should be reverted. How many
nodes did you import?
There were 23,013 nodes:
Of those:
3,680 were Heliports/Helipads
19,333 were Aerodromes
The general consensus with other users who have e-mailed me
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Blake Crosby m...@blakecrosby.com wrote:
On 17/12/2010 9:42 AM, Peter Körner wrote:
Blake,
Thank you for responding here on the mailing list and explaining things.
The community has to decide it the changes should be reverted. How many
nodes did you
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:31:41 -0500, Blake Crosby wrote:
The general consensus with other users who have e-mailed me directly/on
this list is that I should revert the changes for which a node appears
INSIDE an area defined as as helipad/aerodrome.
I'd say also near, not only inside, if you
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:30 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote:
Instead of discussing about someone, discuss WITH someone
about its data quality, and do not complain in public if not anyone
does not meet YOUR quality standards.
In-avoidable your data
On 17/12/2010 10:57 AM, David Paleino wrote:
I'd say also near, not only inside, if you can :-)
My first round of deletions have completed (changeset 6688755).
It resulted in the deletion of 921 nodes.
Any of the nodes that I added that was within 0.1' of any existing
node/way tagged as
Google.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] Massive import of airports
From :mailto:m...@blakecrosby.com
Date :Fri Dec 17 11:37:10 America/Chicago 2010
On 17/12/2010 10:57 AM, David Paleino wrote:
I'd say also near, not only inside, if you can :-)
My first round of deletions
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:37:10 -0500, Blake Crosby wrote:
On 17/12/2010 10:57 AM, David Paleino wrote:
I'd say also near, not only inside, if you can :-)
My first round of deletions have completed (changeset 6688755).
[..]
I will be performing the same for aeroway='helipad' shortly.
, and mistakes
are human.
Gert
Van: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] Namens Pieren
Verzonden: vrijdag 17 december 2010 18:08
Aan: OSM
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Massive import of airports
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:30 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Op 17-12-10 22:33, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen schreef:
Blake: thank you for your contributions, and mistakes
are human.
And sometimes unavoidable. For example in the case of the Dutch busstop
imports. You cannot 'deduplicate'
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:06:29 -0500
Blake Crosby m...@blakecrosby.com wrote:
The Second round of deletes are complete (changeset 6689583).
This resulted in 281 nodes marked as aeroway=helipad being deleted.
Blake
I'm removing any that I find in my area. I came home yesterday to find
that a
Speaking of horrible imports, when are we going to delete the environmental
hazard import in the US?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/586927988/history
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Massive-import-of-airports-tp5844802p5845926.html
Sent from the
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 22:33 +0100, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen wrote:
On 23000 nodes approximately 5 % were duplicate.
Who of you will thank Blake for 95% new data ?
None !
Ive seen a few thanks for the addition of the data, maybe you missed
them, or only read emails
Speaking of horrible imports, when are we going to delete the
environmental
hazard import in the US?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/586927988/history
It should be deleted - most items here are placed in the middle of roads,
sometimes a KM or 2 off, resulting in mass confusion.
Am 17.12.2010 15:24, schrieb Katie Filbert:
On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de
wrote:
It's not only about data quality but about how we interact with each
other.
+1
+2
Best regards,
Michael.
___
talk mailing
45 matches
Mail list logo
