On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 06:14:42PM +, Ed Avis wrote:
> ael writes:
>
> >And I would take a dim view of anyone removing names that I have
> >entered from gps and photos unless there was a very good reason.
>
> A different name in the Ordnance Survey maps is such a very good reason.
That a g
OK, I will change my way of working for this task. The name tag will hold the
most likely name based on currently available information, even if it needs
a resurvey to be certain.
--
Ed Avis
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://
Quite. The various OS comparison tools are enough to know which roads need
checking without removing the name.
Tom
Sent from my phone.
On Jul 15, 2010 12:02 AM, "Tom Hughes" wrote:
On 14/07/10 23:44, Ed Avis wrote: > I quite agree, there are plenty of
errors in the OS data and ev...
Nobody is
On 14/07/10 23:44, Ed Avis wrote:
I quite agree, there are plenty of errors in the OS data and even cases where
Locator and Street View disagree. However that doesn't affect the general rule
that, where OS and OSM disagree, it is more likely than not that OS is
correct and OSM is wrong. At lea
I quite agree, there are plenty of errors in the OS data and even cases where
Locator and Street View disagree. However that doesn't affect the general rule
that, where OS and OSM disagree, it is more likely than not that OS is
correct and OSM is wrong. At least based on the London streets I have
Ed Avis writes:
> A different name in the Ordnance Survey maps is such a very good reason.
I have found a significant number of mistakes in OS Streetview/Locator. Examples
I have surveyed personally are Hanway Street in the West End where SV wrongly
calls the Oxford Street end Hanway Place, Quee
ael writes:
>And I would take a dim view of anyone removing names that I have
>entered from gps and photos unless there was a very good reason.
A different name in the Ordnance Survey maps is such a very good reason.
I know we all like to imagine that our own data quality from many rain-soaked
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 09:19:31AM +0100, Tom Evans wrote:
> >
> >Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows up in
> >noname
> >checks to be resurveyed (and because the correct name is unknown).
>
> Isn't that last act a little rash?
>
> Apart from anything else, there ar
Robert Scott writes:
>>With all this talk of changing street names, can i just remind you to make
>>sure
>>that if you are changing street names that there are no addresses liked to
>>that
>>street.
>Perhaps this is the job of some other analysis tool that simply checks a nearby
>same-named hi
On Wednesday 14 July 2010, Sam Larsen wrote:
> With all this talk of changing street names, can i just remind you to make
> sure
> that if you are changing street names that there are no addresses liked to
> that
> street. I have added many addresses linked to streets using Karlsruhe schema
>
Tom Evans writes:
>>I will only tag names for resurveying round my local area where I know that
>>I'll be able to go out and check them before too long.
>
>Fair enough. If you're always fixing it soon afterwards it doesn't
>really matter much.
>
>But in that case why not just go do it - why ch
010 11:08:03
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO -
> handling
>already-tagged fixmes
>
> On Wednesday 14 July 2010, Ed Avis wrote:
> > Thanks for getting the OS Locator tiles updating again. Could I make a
>feature
> > request?
&g
On Wednesday 14 July 2010, Ed Avis wrote:
> Thanks for getting the OS Locator tiles updating again. Could I make a
> feature
> request?
>
> Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this in the OSM database with a note
> such as
>
> FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Mares
> Perhaps what is required is a new hierarchy, like:
>
> query
>
> so you might then have query:tag_name
I was thinking of something like checkname=yes actually.
But no objection - I was just thinking of getting something working
rather than planning a more generalised query tagging system.
T
I'd go for
fixme:name=OSSV has xyz
or (if you really think OSSV is superior)
fixme:name=was xyz but I've assumed OSSV is correct pending survey
Richard
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Ian Spencer wrote:
> Tom Evans wrote on 14/07/2010 09:19:
>>
>>
>> As another suggestion: Is there a spec
> I will only tag names for resurveying round my local area where I know that
> I'll be able to go out and check them before too long.
Fair enough. If you're always fixing it soon afterwards it doesn't
really matter much.
But in that case why not just go do it - why change the database first?
Tom Evans wrote on 14/07/2010 09:19:
As another suggestion: Is there a special tag we can add to force it
to highlight on the noname check without actually destroying the name
tag?
Tom
Perhaps what is required is a new hierarchy, like:
query
so you might then have query:tag_name
Not s
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Tom Evans wrote:
> > Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this in the OSM database
> > with a note such as
> >
> > FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Maresfield Gardens
> >
> > Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows
>
Tom Evans writes:
>>Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this
>> FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Maresfield Gardens
>>
>>Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows up in
>>noname checks to be resurveyed (and because the correct name is unkno
Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this in the OSM database with a note
such as
FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Maresfield Gardens
Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows up in noname
checks to be resurveyed (and because the correct nam
Thanks for getting the OS Locator tiles updating again. Could I make a feature
request?
Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this in the OSM database with a note
such as
FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Maresfield Gardens
Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so
21 matches
Mail list logo
