It would be better if ITO put long-roads-without-names in a separate
layer, because at the moment they dominate the completeness map.
On the whole I prefer to leave it a bit still. Ideally, everything
would be checked by a local, but in reality it won't be. Quite a lot
will be filled in by
All of the tiles should render with the updated data. They were unavailable for
a while yesterday during the update, is there a problem?
cheers Chris
Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote:
Cool Chris. Are you updating tile rendering for those areas you have
previously made available?
Cheers
On 9 June 2011 09:33, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be better if ITO put long-roads-without-names in a separate
layer, because at the moment they dominate the completeness map.
My strategy has been to deal with the long roads first and then go
back and deal with
On 09/06/2011 10:09, Peter Miller wrote:
Indeed, here is a map showing verified/surveyed+souce:name in dark
red, source:name without verified/surveyed in orange and any instances
of verified/surveyed without source:name as blue (there aren't any at
present!)
Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes:
1) A list of not:names that orginated from OS Locator but where OS
Locator does not currently contain that error. The challenge is that
not all not:name entries in OSM will have originated from error in OS
Locator; they could contain details of errors from
On 9 June 2011 10:41, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes:
1) A list of not:names that orginated from OS Locator but where OS
Locator does not currently contain that error. The challenge is that
not all not:name entries in OSM will have originated from error in
Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes:
I have not used commercial mapping while creating the map, but some
errors in Navteq, TeleAtlas and AA naming locally have subsequently
come to my attention subsequently and I see no reason why these should
not be in also included in not:name. It certainly
On 9 June 2011 10:44, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/06/2011 10:09, Peter Miller wrote:
Indeed, here is a map showing verified/surveyed+souce:name in dark
red, source:name without verified/surveyed in orange and any instances
of verified/surveyed without source:name as blue
On 9 June 2011 12:14, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes:
I have not used commercial mapping while creating the map, but some
errors in Navteq, TeleAtlas and AA naming locally have subsequently
come to my attention subsequently and I see no reason why these
Fyi, here is the full list of content in the source:name field for
Suffolk and bits of Cambs,Norfolk and Essex (ordered by frequency of
occurrence)!
Well that nicely demonstrates what a complete mess the source tags are!
I particularly like source:name=Mrs Sylvia Secker :)
If I can put in my
Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes:
I have not used commercial mapping while creating the map, but some
errors in Navteq, TeleAtlas and AA naming locally have subsequently
come to my attention subsequently and I see no reason why these should
not be in also included in not:name.
That makes it
I'd also like to give my support to using a bot to add names to existing
roads.
My views on this have moved one way then the other over the last few months.
My main issues were based around
1 - It would reduce foot surveys which would mean missing out on POI's
(etc). Now feel this argument
On 9 June 2011 13:30, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote:
Fyi, here is the full list of content in the source:name field for
Suffolk and bits of Cambs,Norfolk and Essex (ordered by frequency of
occurrence)!
Well that nicely demonstrates what a complete mess the source tags are!
I have
Jason Cunningham jamicuosm@... writes:
I'd also like to give my support to using a bot to add names to existing roads.
1 - It would reduce foot surveys which would mean missing out on POI's
(etc). Now feel this argument is short sighted and we would still have to
deal with how we map POI when
Graham Stewart wrote:
So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used
on a restricted area
There is a section of the relevant wiki page where people can request areas:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OS_bot#List_of_requested_places
Note the column for Links to consultation
Since it looks likely that a bot is going to be run to add OS Locator
names to unnamed British roads - something I strongly disagree with, but
I can't stop - I demand that it is tagged with a common-sense, clear tag
to show where this has happened. This should not be the bonkers cock-up
that
Sorry to be posting again, however...
I think the map view is now getting more useful and more stable. I
have reworked the key to allow for more values and to make it more
logical and it is now worth another look.
Royal blue: source:name=survey or similar
Red: source:name= OS or similar
Purple:
On 9 June 2011 13:31, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Peter Miller peter.miller@... writes:
I have not used commercial mapping while creating the map, but some
errors in Navteq, TeleAtlas and AA naming locally have subsequently
come to my attention subsequently and I see no reason why these
Chris Hill osm@... writes:
Since it looks likely that a bot is going to be run to add OS Locator
names to unnamed British roads - something I strongly disagree with, but
I can't stop - I demand that it is tagged with a common-sense, clear tag
to show where this has happened. This should not be
Generally, I am still opposed to a bot. There is a substantial body of
evidence that automated imports damage the ability to recruit and nuture
new mappers. Recent posts about Latvia, Austria and The Netherlands on
talk all substantiate this: in many cases the people recognising the
issue were
On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:42, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
Generally, I am still opposed to a bot. There is a substantial body of
evidence that automated imports damage the ability to recruit and nuture new
mappers.
Could you cite the evidence? Is it just hand waving
Steve Coast wrote:
Could you cite the evidence?
Have you Merkins sorted out how you're classifying roads and tagging their
numbers yet?
(if that's just general incompetence rather than import-related malaise feel
free to correct me ;) )
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, SteveC wrote:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:42, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
Generally, I am still opposed to a bot. There is a substantial body
of evidence that automated imports damage the ability to recruit and
nuture new mappers.
Could you
Derick Rethans osm@... writes:
When there are no names on a street, it gives a good incentive to go
survey them, and it shows which things *need* to be surveyed.
Quite right. How can we improve OSM coverage for end users (who would like to
find their destination address when navigating, for
I despair that the lazy, armchair mappers are taking over, but as I say,
there's little I can do to stop it.
Personally I think this project needs all the help it can get. The more
data sources and contributors the better.
We're trying to build a map from scratch. It's not a simple task. If
Derick Rethans osm@... writes:
There is a substantial body
of evidence that automated imports damage the ability to recruit and
nuture new mappers.
Could you cite the evidence?
I can. I've a friend in the Netherlands that I'd say is the typical
person that we want as mapper. He had mapped a
On 9 June 2011 15:59, Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl wrote:
I can. I've a friend in the Netherlands that I'd say is the typical
person that we want as mapper. He had mapped a lot of town Which then
got wiped out by the AND import, and he didn't bother with OSM for a
looong time.
There is definite room for arguing that it will reduce active
mapping in some situations.
This keeps getting raised and I'm not sure how true it is.
Go and look at some of the areas that are 95-100% complete
according to the ITO analysis:
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main
On 09/06/2011 15:47, SteveC wrote:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:42, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM
sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk mailto:sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Generally, I am still opposed to a bot. There is a substantial body
of evidence that automated imports damage the ability to recruit and
nuture new
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM
sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
In order to get a better level of completeness in the UK what we need are
more mappers.
Absolutely.
Everything we do should be focussed on helping get more mappers, or
helping the mappers we have get their
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Different sources are complementary to each other and should not be viewed
as alternatives. Even with 'classic OSM' we had Yahoo tracing combined with
foot surveys.
Yahoo!? Classic? Get off my lawn!
:-)
Cheers,
Andy
Just a simple message to say that I support this idea of a bot, for all the
reasons stated by previous posters. Whilst I understand the reservations of
those against the bot, I personally don't believe they are relevant to this
particular bot as it is described on the wiki.
Tim
Graham Stewart wrote:
This keeps getting raised and I'm not sure how true it is.
If you import data into an area that already has an active community, you
likely won't damage the community (though you may piss them off). OTOH, you
probably don't _need_ to import data because there's already an
On 09/06/2011 17:36, Ed Avis wrote:
What stops more people using OSM?
While I agree with your other points, even before you get to the data, I
think the first reason is people don't know about it.
And for most people, why would you not just use Google maps even if you did?
David
If you import data into an area that doesn't already have an active
community, the community will spring up more slowly or not at all.
But that logic suggests that we should actively *discourage* people from
doing any mapping, as an overly complete map discourages community.
In reality there
On 9 June 2011 17:53, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote:
If you import data into an area that doesn't already have an active
community, the community will spring up more slowly or not at all.
But that logic suggests that we should actively *discourage* people from
doing any mapping, as
Tim François sk1ppy14@... writes:
Just a simple message to say that I support this idea of a bot, for all the
reasons stated by previous posters. Whilst I understand the reservations of
those against the bot, I personally don't believe they are relevant to this
particular bot as it is
On 9 Jun 2011, at 17:47, David Earl wrote:
On 09/06/2011 17:36, Ed Avis wrote:
What stops more people using OSM?
While I agree with your other points, even before you get to the data, I
think the first reason is people don't know about it.
And for most people, why would you not just
Andrew andrewhainosm@... writes:
One other point: there may be parts of the UK where mapping is lost because
someone doesn’t relicense and there are other contributors whose work has had
the rug pulled under it but are willing to rebuild if there’s a way to make it
as easy as possible.
That
Peter Miller wrote:
According to OSM Mapper Worcester has been developing nicely over a
couple of years.
Fyi, the most active mapper is this srbrook. Mapper since: 14 October
2009 at 20:30 (over 1 year ago). Description: I'm Steve and have been
mapping in the south Worcester, UK area since
40 matches
Mail list logo
