subject:"\[Talk\-GB\] OSM Analysis New Data and bot"

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 the small ones. We are not planning to create a new
map layer at present due to other priorities on our time (some of
which will be of interest to OSM people!)

 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 armchair mappers. At least there's a hope that
 those armchair mappers will have some conscience about what they do
 (like next year maybe they'll start drawing maps - with Maperitive
 it's easy - and expose the db to new scrutiny).

I don't image that many people are including verified=no manually - it
is just too much trouble!

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!)
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117

You will see that Source:name is more frequently used in some
districts such as Suffolk, Nottingham Kent that i others. Instances of
source:name do not of course mean that it was from OS Locator or that
it was not also surveyed. For that verified/surveyed is needed.

The only instances of 'surveyed' or 'verified' + source:name are in
Corby as far as I can see which was me testing the bot algorithm
manually on a place which was at 23% completeness and which I go to
95% completeness. It took long enough for me to conclude that it was
an inefficient way to do it. With the verified tagging in Corby
someone can now go and check it if they so wish and ping off the
verified=no tags as they do so.

As I said, there are no other instances of verified/surveyed.
surveyed=2010-10-08 would be neat, saying I checked all of the tagging
on that date and made any corrections necessary!

As such I think it is clear that without a bot we are indeed not going
to be able to tell what has been manually surveyed and what has been
grabbed from OS Locator. With a bot we would be able to.

Regards,


Peter


 ___
 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] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread Steve Doerr


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!)
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117

You will see that Source:name is more frequently used in some
districts such as Suffolk, Nottingham Kent that i others. Instances of
source:name do not of course mean that it was from OS Locator or that
it was not also surveyed. For that verified/surveyed is needed.



I've been putting source:name=survey, so a lot of my edits are in 
orange on this map. I don't know whether that's good or bad.


--
Steve

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

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 (there aren't any at
 present!)
 http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117

 You will see that Source:name is more frequently used in some
 districts such as Suffolk, Nottingham Kent that i others. Instances of
 source:name do not of course mean that it was from OS Locator or that
 it was not also surveyed. For that verified/surveyed is needed.


 I've been putting source:name=survey, so a lot of my edits are in orange
 on this map. I don't know whether that's good or bad.

Sounds good to me!

OK, so I have adjusted the algorithm. The map now shows:

blue: for indication of ground survey (either 'local knowledge',
'survey', 'dictaphone' and 'voice')
red: indication that the name is from OS streetview or locator
(roughly in order of occurrence in East of England): OS Locator,
OS_OpenData_Locator, OS OpenData Locator, OS_OpenData_StreetView,
OS_opendata_streetview, OS_OpenData_OS_Locator, OS OpenData
StreetView,  OS_Openstreetview, OS Opendata StreetView, OS Streetview,
os locator, OS_OpenData_Streetview, os open data, OS
grey: Other value in source:name or other combination
green: way tagged with surveyed=no or verified=no

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)!

All  »  Tags  »  Tag = source:name
Value   Way NodeTotal
dictaphone  29400   2940
local knowledge 25940   2594
OS Locator  21480   2148
OS_OpenData_Locator 10050   1005
OS OpenData Locator 444 0   444
OS_OpenData_StreetView  427 0   427
local_knowledge 328 0   328
voice   201 0   201
survey  130 0   130
OS_opendata_streetview  76  0   76
OS_OpenData_OS_Locator  52  0   52
OS OpenData StreetView  37  0   37
photograph  34  0   34
OS_Openstreetview   32  0   32
npe 26  0   26
OS Opendata StreetView  25  0   25
landsat 20  0   20
OS Streetview   19  0   19
80n:dsc06129.mpg16  0   16
os locator  16  0   16
NPE 11  0   11
OS_OpenData_Streetview  10  0   10
publication 7   0   7
os open data7   0   7
signage 6   0   6
The Rushmere Commoners Committee5   0   5
OS_Locator  5   0   5
NAPTAN  5   0   5
npe/landsat 5   0   5
Local knowledge 5   0   5
Local Knowledge 5   0   5
(hospital address)  5   0   5
sign4   0   4
OS_Opendata_Streetview  4   0   4
street sign 4   0   4
OS Open data4   0   4
80n:dsc06133.mpg4   0   4
Survey  4   0   4
signage (October 2010)  4   0   4
memory  3   0   3
80n:dsc06107.mpg3   0   3
signage (Oct 2010)  3   0   3
http://www.creditgate.com/companysearch/credit_QU_9.aspx3   0   
3
OS  3   0   3
Rushmere Commoners website  3   0   3
disctaphone 3   0   3
observation 3   0   3
OS Locator + NaPTAN 3   0   3
GPS 3   0   3
http://www.ukhotelnet.com/cambridge/hotels.htm  3   0   3
www.ukpubfinder.com/pub/32185   3   0   3
definitive_statement3   0   3
estate agent web site   3   0   3
OS Locator; GPS trace   2   0   2
Long Wood Path  2   0   2
OS Locator; bing2   0   2
knowledge   2   0   2
OS_Streetview   2   0   2
previous_node   2   0   2
web 2   0   2
Sales Office2   0   2
http://www.claveringonline.org.uk/Clubs%20amp;%20Societies/Bellringers.htm
2   0   2
roadsign2   0   2
communication with Commoners' Committee 1   0   1
Streetsign and OS Locator   1   0   1
Sign at W end of this portion   1   0   1
survey (no apostrophe on sign)  1   0   1
OS Openview Streetview  1   0   1
OS_OpenOS_OpenData_OS_Locator   1   0   1
http://www.cottenhampc.org.uk/pdfs/Cottenham_Moat.pdf   1   0   1
RSPB trail guide1   0   1
dictafone   1   0   1
naptan bus stop 1   0   1
Map displayed along the path1   0   1
os streetview   1   0   1
Streesign   1   0   1
local research  1   0   1
bing1   0   1
OS Opendata S.V.1   0   1
sign (Nov 2010) 1   0   1
newspaper   1   0   1
publications;news;internet  1

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot


 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 2p-worth: I've done a fair bit of armchair-mapping*
(yeah yeah, boo-hiss, I know)

Generally I use the OS StreetView or Locator backgrounds in Potlatch to
spot missing roads, then I trace the roads from the Bing imagery and
name them from the Locator.
I attribute it as source=Bing source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator (as
recommended at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS
and provided by the 'B' shortcut in Potlatch). I've never used a
verified/surveyed tag.

So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used on a
restricted area and sets the appropriate source tags then it would
simply be automating something I'm doing already and I'd be delighted to
use it.

Cheers,
Graham 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/GrahamS

* While it would be nice if every single road was properly surveyed (and
I do survey when I can), but I just don't think that is a practical way
to make progress with the map.
My local areas (Tynedale, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Shields, Alnwick)
were all pretty blank and there didn't seem to be a much editing going
on at all.
So I take a more pragmatic approach of surveying where I can, recording
GPS routes when I'm out in the car, but also armchair mapping to fill in
big blanks. Judging by Peter's breakdown of source tags I'm not alone.
 Apologies if this goes against the spirit of OSM, but I'd rather get
the basic road geometry and names out of the way. All maps have those
and they are nothing special. Once they are done with we can concentrate
on the finer details that seem to be the real unique strength of OSM.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread Jason Cunningham

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 is short sighted and we would still have to
deal with how we map POI when all streets are surveyed, so that should not
stop us using the OS data. We need to consider a future where roads are
considered complete and how we keep on top of mapping ever changing POI's.
I'd suggest 'POI Mapping Parties' using the Walking Papers tool.
2. - I was worried about the quality of data provided by OS due to reading
thoughts of others. But although we often put a lot of focus on an OS error
it appears that OS is far more accurate than the average OSM street
walker. Looks like less than 3% errors, and many of these errors may turn
out not to be errors (eg we've got it wrong, not OS). So this weekend I
could go out and get names for remaining streets in my area, or we could use
the bot. I believe the bot would result in less errors (but see point
1)

So I'd support the bot. Adding a clear source tag is obvious and I don't
think needs much discussion.

Cheers,

Jason (user:jamicu)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

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 updated the highway source map view to also colour code ways
with source=[OS streetvew/locator...] in purplel. Any that also have
source:name are shown in the previously described colours.

 I particularly like source:name=Mrs Sylvia Secker :)

I thought that was great. Is that not what crowd-sources is all about?

 If I can put in my 2p-worth: I've done a fair bit of armchair-mapping*
 (yeah yeah, boo-hiss, I know)

 Generally I use the OS StreetView or Locator backgrounds in Potlatch to
 spot missing roads, then I trace the roads from the Bing imagery and
 name them from the Locator.
 I attribute it as source=Bing source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator (as
 recommended at
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS
 and provided by the 'B' shortcut in Potlatch). I've never used a
 verified/surveyed tag.

 So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used on a
 restricted area and sets the appropriate source tags then it would
 simply be automating something I'm doing already and I'd be delighted to
 use it.

 Cheers,
 Graham
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/GrahamS

 * While it would be nice if every single road was properly surveyed (and
 I do survey when I can), but I just don't think that is a practical way
 to make progress with the map.
 My local areas (Tynedale, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Shields, Alnwick)
 were all pretty blank and there didn't seem to be a much editing going
 on at all.
 So I take a more pragmatic approach of surveying where I can, recording
 GPS routes when I'm out in the car, but also armchair mapping to fill in
 big blanks. Judging by Peter's breakdown of source tags I'm not alone.
  Apologies if this goes against the spirit of OSM, but I'd rather get
 the basic road geometry and names out of the way. All maps have those
 and they are nothing special. Once they are done with we can concentrate
 on the finer details that seem to be the real unique strength of OSM.


Agreed.


Peter



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

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 all streets are surveyed, so that should not
stop us using the OS data.

I would like to note that for me, using the OS data has been a great way to
increase foot surveys.  There are many areas which looked complete on the map,
until OS showed that lots of roads (or public buildings) were missing.  Adding
those roads has spurred me to visit the areas on foot to mop up unnamed streets
and to hunt down places of worship among other things.

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.

So this weekend I could go out and get names for remaining streets in my area,
or we could use the bot...

Please remember that you can do both - you can still visit to map by hand
before or after adding information from OS or any other source.  You might
instead decide to concentrate your mapping time on those things that we can't
get from OS as a first priority.  But at least you are able to make an informed
choice.

However, to make sure that people have all the information when deciding what
to go out and map, and to accommodate those who have quite reasonable concerns
about ending up duplicating mistakes in the OS data, we need tools which show
which parts of the map come from OS.  ITO's map layer
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117 is an example.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

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 and agreement with local
mappers.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Analysis-New-Data-and-bot-tp6455312p6457955.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread Chris Hill

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 was described in the speed limit nonsense, and not a source tag, 
since many existing roads will have a source tag, e.g. source=survey. 
Verified=no does not say what is to be verified.


I despair that the lazy, armchair mappers are taking over, but as I say, 
there's little I can do to stop it.


If people want an carbon copy of OS datasets, why not just use OS 
datasets and let OSM mature into the best map of the world rather than a 
pastiche of imports.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

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: source:name=some other value

Light blue: source=survey or similar
Orange: source= OS or similar
Light purple: source=something other value
grey: no source:name or source provided



Regards,


Peter



On 9 June 2011 14:39, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
 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 updated the highway source map view to also colour code ways
 with source=[OS streetvew/locator...] in purplel. Any that also have
 source:name are shown in the previously described colours.

 I particularly like source:name=Mrs Sylvia Secker :)

 I thought that was great. Is that not what crowd-sources is all about?

 If I can put in my 2p-worth: I've done a fair bit of armchair-mapping*
 (yeah yeah, boo-hiss, I know)

 Generally I use the OS StreetView or Locator backgrounds in Potlatch to
 spot missing roads, then I trace the roads from the Bing imagery and
 name them from the Locator.
 I attribute it as source=Bing source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator (as
 recommended at
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Attributing_OS
 and provided by the 'B' shortcut in Potlatch). I've never used a
 verified/surveyed tag.

 So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used on a
 restricted area and sets the appropriate source tags then it would
 simply be automating something I'm doing already and I'd be delighted to
 use it.

 Cheers,
 Graham
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/GrahamS

 * While it would be nice if every single road was properly surveyed (and
 I do survey when I can), but I just don't think that is a practical way
 to make progress with the map.
 My local areas (Tynedale, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Shields, Alnwick)
 were all pretty blank and there didn't seem to be a much editing going
 on at all.
 So I take a more pragmatic approach of surveying where I can, recording
 GPS routes when I'm out in the car, but also armchair mapping to fill in
 big blanks. Judging by Peter's breakdown of source tags I'm not alone.
  Apologies if this goes against the spirit of OSM, but I'd rather get
 the basic road geometry and names out of the way. All maps have those
 and they are nothing special. Once they are done with we can concentrate
 on the finer details that seem to be the real unique strength of OSM.


 Agreed.


 Peter




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

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 the bonkers cock-up 
that was described in the speed limit nonsense, and not a source tag, 
since many existing roads will have a source tag, e.g. source=survey. 

Would a tag source:name=OS be specific enough?

Perhaps - and I'm just suggesting this as a possibility - the name could be
added as unverified_name=X or name:OS=X or some other scheme.  Then users of the
OSM data could decide for themselves whether they strictly insist on ground
survey (at the expense of coverage completeness) or whether they'd like to have
the most complete set of names, even if some of them have only been surveyed by
Ordnance Survey employees rather than OSM volunteers.

I don't think that's a great idea, because the name is the name, and if we have
good evidence that the name is X then we should just tag name=X.  But it could 
be
a way to keep everyone reasonably happy.

When going on mapping trips I would then concentrate mostly on roads with no 
name
at all, but also take a moment to verify the OS-sourced names as I passed those
roads.  I think this would be more efficient and produce a better map faster 
than
if we ignore the OS names entirely.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM

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 those who either carried out the import or agreed to it.


I think a completion bot is a distraction from a much more important issue.

In order to get  a better level of completeness in the UK what we need 
are more mappers. There are several ways to recruit mappers: they 
require a decent amount of hard work, and probably a broader range of 
skills than writing a bot. We need a more organised way of generating 
publicity on a regular basis both for national and local media. We need 
a better press kit. We need to move the emphasis of mapping from getting 
GPS tracks: dont get me wrong this is still valuable, but a local mapper 
without a GPS can do a fine job with Bing, OS OpenData, Walking Papers, 
a camera, and ground surveys. We need more outreach techniques: not just 
mapping parties, or pub meets or mini-mapping, but workshops for people 
interested in consuming data, workshops to review the data from 
particular usage perspectives (cyclists, walkers, sustainable living, 
wheelchair users, etc.). We could do with more supporting materials for 
such things: slideshows, posters,  how to organise  I'm finding this 
ain't that easy, but at least I'm trying.


We also need to recognise that the more detailed each area becomes the 
harder it becomes for a new mapper to feel that they can contribute, not 
forgetting the I might break something. If we are to devote effort to 
code its better directed at tools which can make the life of new mappers 
easier: this obviously includes contributing to existing editors, but it 
may mean creating new ones. It almost certainly means working to get a 
much more sophisticated OpenStreetBugs integrated into the rails port: 
many new mappers will initially be happy to point out bugs (see recent 
examples on OSM Help where the first thing someone wants to fix is a 
turn restriction).


I strongly dislike the meme OS data is always more accurate than OSM, 
because it implies there's no point in doing surveys anyway. Yes, errors 
occur, although mainly in transcription rather than in surveying as can 
be seen by errors in using OSSV  OSL, but tools like ITO OSM Analysis 
and OSL Musical Chairs really help to pick up these errors: I've been 
able to go back to pictures and audio recordings and indeed verify that 
I'd not changed Street to Road when I copied the tag over from another 
way. There is also the spurious accuracy problem: people filling in a 
road name from OS Locator when there is *NO *evidence on the ground that 
the road has that name (pace RichardF in W Oxon): see my blog post on 
Kenyon Road 
http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/02/mysterious-case-of-kenyon-road.html. 
Many of the unnamed roads in the immediate vicinity of where I'm writing 
this are of that type: sometimes dogged persistence can nail down that 
the road is still called that, for instance from address information.


Take a look at Corby http://osm.org/go/eu7EEN9: its OSL road complete: 
a small part on the N edge was surveyed, the rest is largely from OSSV. 
There is a huge amount of information missing: footways, paths in parks, 
information about Places of Worship, other POIs. Corby is the classic 
sort of place which is less likely to receive attention from OSMers 
according to Muki's studies: its out of the way, it lacks a strong 
middle-class demographic. There are plenty of people living in places 
like this who are using Skobbler's apps, but we're never going to reach 
out to them if we do the easy bits from our armchairs and leave the 
harder less rewarding mapping activities for others.


Why not build a separate database  render which merges the missing 
names ( roads) from OSSV/OSL and OSM data, but is external to the OSM 
planet database. This could use many of the same techniques as a bot.


A bot is putting short-term gain ahead of our long-term interests.

Regards,

Jerry

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread SteveC

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 about AND or something more 
specific?


 Recent posts about Latvia, Austria and The Netherlands on talk all 
 substantiate this: in many cases the people recognising the issue were those 
 who either carried out the import or agreed to it.
 
 I think a completion bot is a distraction from a much more important issue.
 
 In order to get  a better level of completeness in the UK what we need are 
 more mappers. There are several ways to recruit mappers: they require a 
 decent amount of hard work, and probably a broader range of skills than 
 writing a bot. We need a more organised way of generating publicity on a 
 regular basis both for national and local media. We need a better press kit. 
 We need to move the emphasis of mapping from getting GPS tracks: dont get me 
 wrong this is still valuable, but a local mapper without a GPS can do a fine 
 job with Bing, OS OpenData, Walking Papers, a camera, and ground surveys. We 
 need more outreach techniques: not just mapping parties, or pub meets or 
 mini-mapping, but workshops for people interested in consuming data, 
 workshops to review the data from particular usage perspectives (cyclists, 
 walkers, sustainable living, wheelchair users, etc.). We could do with more 
 supporting materials for such things: slideshows, posters,  how to organise 
  I'm finding this ain't that easy, but at least I'm trying.
 
 We also need to recognise that the more detailed each area becomes the harder 
 it becomes for a new mapper to feel that they can contribute, not forgetting 
 the I might break something. If we are to devote effort to code its better 
 directed at tools which can make the life of new mappers easier: this 
 obviously includes contributing to existing editors, but it may mean creating 
 new ones. It almost certainly means working to get a much more sophisticated 
 OpenStreetBugs integrated into the rails port: many new mappers will 
 initially be happy to point out bugs (see recent examples on OSM Help where 
 the first thing someone wants to fix is a turn restriction). 
 
 I strongly dislike the meme OS data is always more accurate than OSM, 
 because it implies there's no point in doing surveys anyway. Yes, errors 
 occur, although mainly in transcription rather than in surveying as can be 
 seen by errors in using OSSV  OSL, but tools like ITO OSM Analysis and OSL 
 Musical Chairs really help to pick up these errors: I've been able to go back 
 to pictures and audio recordings and indeed verify that I'd not changed 
 Street to Road when I copied the tag over from another way. There is also the 
 spurious accuracy problem: people filling in a road name from OS Locator when 
 there is NO evidence on the ground that the road has that name (pace RichardF 
 in W Oxon): see my blog post on Kenyon Road. Many of the unnamed roads in the 
 immediate vicinity of where I'm writing this are of that type: sometimes 
 dogged persistence can nail down that the road is still called that, for 
 instance from address information.
 
 Take a look at Corby: its OSL road complete: a small part on the N edge was 
 surveyed, the rest is largely from OSSV. There is a huge amount of 
 information missing: footways, paths in parks, information about Places of 
 Worship, other POIs. Corby is the classic sort of place which is less likely 
 to receive attention from OSMers according to Muki's studies: its out of the 
 way, it lacks a strong middle-class demographic. There are plenty of people 
 living in places like this who are using Skobbler's apps, but we're never 
 going to reach out to them if we do the easy bits from our armchairs and 
 leave the harder less rewarding mapping activities for others.
 
 Why not build a separate database  render which merges the missing names ( 
 roads) from OSSV/OSL and OSM data, but is external to the OSM planet 
 database. This could use many of the same techniques as a bot.
 
 A bot is putting short-term gain ahead of our long-term interests.
 
 Regards,
 
 Jerry
 
 ___
 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] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

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: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Analysis-New-Data-and-bot-tp6455312p6458188.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread Derick Rethans

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 cite the evidence? Is it just hand waving about AND or 
 something more specific?

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. Luckily, he now finally started contributing again.
Let's hope he keeps it up.

Derick

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

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 example, and would not be
impressed by their sat-nav device loading up Potlatch and telling them to edit)
and yet keep the traditional setup for mappers where 'no name = go and visit'?

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot


 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 an
armchair-tracing takes it from a blank page to a few roads then that is
a step forward towards that goal. If you then go survey it, correct the
road geometry a bit, fix a road name or add in some POI then that is
another step forward. It's all good. Despair less, enjoy more!


 If people want an carbon copy of OS datasets, why not just use OS 
 datasets and let OSM mature into the best map of the world rather than a 
 pastiche of imports.

I described my approach: I trace roads from Bing and name them from OS
Locator.
It's not a carbon-copy. The names I add may be the same as OS (and are
properly attributed as such) but my traces often differ from the OS
version as I can typically see details on the Bing imagery that are not
apparent on StreetView (road shape, alleyways, junctions, driveways,
traffic lights, etc). 

Incidentally my Bing traces also seem better than most of the source=gps
or source=survey traces I see, which often slavishly follow a GPS track
as it zig-zags back-and-forth along a perfectly straight road.

You'll no doubt point out that the Bing imagery may not be perfectly
aligned and could be warped by lens distortion, atmosphere etc. And I
agree. But it is great for getting a pretty accurate representation of
the overall shape of the road where there was nothing before. If it then
needs tweaked slightly following a ground survey with highly-accurate
professional DGPS units then that's fine - but at least in the meantime
it is on the map and end-users relying on OSM for their satnavs etc get
immediate benefit.

Cheers,
GrahamS

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

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 lot of town Which then 
got wiped out by the AND import, and he didn't bother with OSM for a 
looong time.

That's a good piece of evidence but if you look carefully I think what it says
is that you should not wipe out existing mapping when doing an import.  They 
must
be knitted in with manual attention where necessary and not just dumped from a
great height onto the map.

In this context I don't believe anyone is advocating the replacement of any
bits of the existing OSM map with OS data.

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread Jason Cunningham

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. Luckily, he now finally started contributing again.
 Let's hope he keeps it up.


There has been no suggestion that there are plans to wipe out data. The wiki
suggests road names should only be added under the following conditions

   - The bounding box for the road matches the bounding box for the OS
   Locator entry within 10%
   - There is only one OS Locator entry that overlaps the road.
   - Only if the 'name' field is empty or missing
   - The bounding box is completely within the permitted area of operation.
   - Only if no road has ever existed in OpenStreetMap history for the area
   with the same name (to avoid adding back out-of-date names)

There is definite room for arguing that it will reduce active mapping in
some situations.

Jason
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

 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

Did all mapping and surveys in these areas really stop as soon as
all the roads were done?
Or did people move onto to adding houses, shops, footpaths,
traffic lights, post boxes, powerlines and an infinite array of
other minutiae?

I look at somewhere like Edinburgh and see a very detailed map
with individual buildings and house numbers.
Around my way I see entire towns that are completely absent from
the map.

If I lived in Edinburgh I'd be looking for fine-grained details
that I could add or correct.
Living where I do I just want to get a skeleton of road coverage
sorted out.

Both are valid activities and benefit the map as a whole.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM


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 mappers.


Could you cite the evidence? Is it just hand waving about AND or 
something more specific?



Generally Google (or perhaps Bing) is your friend, but::

Latvia, ex.Jaak Lainste 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056786.html
Austria ex Felix Hartmann 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056801.html


I may be thinking of Derick Rethan's example when I mentioned AND.

For completeness I should cite Chile, where they have a good experience:

Chile ex Julio Costa 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056770.html


There are other disasters like the French Cadastre 
http://osm.org/go/0BOhfIg4F- or the Danish 
http://osm.org/go/0SpJwUg74- address import where data was imported 
but no-one ever put the roads in. The Danes seem to be quite happy and 
seem to have rectified quite a bit of the data recently thanks to Bing 
imagery; I certainly wasnt when buildings I'd added in Briancon were 
just zapped for an import, nor did the number of import clean-ups I did 
on the cadastre because there were huge number of duplicates overwhelm 
me with joy.


I used to be sceptical about the anti-import lobby (e.g., The Pottery 
Club 
http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/archives/2009/11/10/the-pottery-club/), 
seeing it as the 'old-hands' resenting things not been done the hard 
way; and like others here I believed if I traced roads in then people 
would come along and stick the names on. They didn't names only appeared 
when either a) I surveyed them, or b) I added them from OSSV data. So I 
now no longer buy into the build and they will come theory: it rarely 
works in other domains which is why firms spend money on advertising and 
marketing.


One last thing: I believe the onus is on import advocates to demonstrate 
how the import will deliver value  strengthen OSM.


Imports will never get the A46 changes 
http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/05/along-fosse-way-mapping-new-road.html 
mapped within a day or so of them happening: and this is the real story 
to sell OSM rather than We're almost as good as the free data set from 
the Ordnance Survey. Also imports, and even mapping parties by 
non-locals will never get the data good enough to be able to just focus 
on what has changed. It's really frustrating going round a place which 
looks well mapped and ending up adding 20 new streets because the 
obvious cues aren't there. I doubt if anyone else has done anything like 
Dair Grant http://www.refnum.com/projects/osm/edinburgh/'s Edinburgh 
survey.


J

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread Andy Allan

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 jobs done more easily.
Everything that is a direct substitute for having more mappers is, at
best, a distraction from (what I see as) the desired goal. If we have
mappers, and lots of them, then - as we've now demonstrated - we can
get a glorious dataset.

Note that not everyone here shares the same goals - some people are
focussed on the data, others on the community. It might be worth
examining why we (collectively) have a tendency to discuss the data
all the time and I see very few discussions on community matters.

I find in most conversations, if the answer is because we don't have
enough mappers yet then the solution is not to bypass them with some
form of automation but to get more of them. Unfortunately to most
OSMers, community building seems hard (which it is), and writing bots
or doing imports seems easy (which it's not).

 A bot is putting short-term gain ahead of our long-term interests.

Indeed. What's more, all the effort that goes into writing bots,
discussing them, justifying them etc is time that hasn't gone into the
primary goal of recruiting and helping more people to OSM.

Cheers,
Andy

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread Andy Allan

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

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread Tim François

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
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

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 active
community.

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. Example:
USA.

Even when a community does eventually coalesce, it will be dysfunctional
because it hasn't gone through the collective learning experience. This is
why, I think, the USA is still having really basic problems like which
roads are trunk and which are primary? and how do we write refs?. We
sorted that out in the UK ages ago, because as we all went out there and
mapped, we learned from each others' experiences. (I remember, for example,
the time we used to tag NCN refs as ncn_ref=NR42 or somesuch.) 

If you want an example closer to home, I'd suggest the South-West Midlands,
where Droitwich has been done almost entirely from OSSV, yet continues to
languish bereft both of mappers and rich detail. Worcester was growing
nicely until the OSSV fairies arrived: there's still a little activity, but
the rich map is no longer growing at the rate it was. Yet as soon as you
reach the nearby Birmingham conurbation, you have a much richer, actively
maintained, more useful map. 

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-Analysis-New-Data-and-bot-tp6455312p6458519.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread David Earl


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


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

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 is still plenty to do in areas that have achieved 100%
road coverage. I strongly doubt that the UK community will disintegrate
if we ever get the whole country close to 100% roads. And I don't think
that fear should hinder us from trying to get to that point.

..Worcester was growing
nicely until the OSSV fairies arrived: there's still a little activity,
but the rich map is no longer growing at the rate it was.

I took a look out of interest. Worcester is a mass of grey roads:
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117lat=52.19568481654745lon=-2.2034480483935286zoom=13

So there doesn't seem much evidence of OSSV fairies there. (Or at
least not with proper source tag).
But Worcester does seem to have a nice detailed map. Plenty of foot and
cycle paths, parks etc most of which won't have come from any OS
product.
Have the local mappers actually stopped mapping or have they just moved
onto nearby areas that are more in need of attention?

Ed said:
It can help us to boost our map from 'excellent in parts,
almost blank in others' to 'usable everywhere, excellent in many places'.
Then
as OSM becomes widely adopted, mapping parties and other contribution become a
much easier proposition: rather than 'help out with this geeky new hobby' it
becomes 'hey! you can contribute to the map you are already using!'.

Complete agree.
For every 1000 users getting taken on a 20 mile wild goose chase by
their satnav I'd be willing to bet that 999 are left cursing the name of
OpenStreetMap and maybe one decides to become a contributor and do
something about it. That's not how you win people over!

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

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 an overly complete map discourages community.

..Worcester was growing
nicely until the OSSV fairies arrived: there's still a little activity,
but the rich map is no longer growing at the rate it was.

I took a look out of interest. Worcester is a mass of grey roads:
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117lat=52.19568481654745lon=-2.2034480483935286zoom=13

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 October 2009. For more
details of what I've been up to see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Srbrook

The second most active in Jenuk1985 who joined in 2008 and stopped
editing in the area over a year ago but is now busy to the west of
B'ham.

The third most active mapper who again stopped editing in the area
over a year ago is called Richard and seems to be closely involved in
Potlatch!

Here are the stats for the top 10 contributors in the town:
srbrook 15650 1565
Jenuk1985 661 0 661
Richard 397 0 397
iccaldwell 164 0 164
Ted Pottage 151 0 151
LivingWithDragons 58 0 58
Steve Chilton 56 0 56
Higgy 55 0 55
i4one 41 0 41
Phil M 38 0 38

These Don't look like an 'OSSV fairy' to me. Or possibly there
something is being kept from us :)

Regards,

Peter

Ed said:
It can help us to boost our map from 'excellent in parts,
almost blank in others' to 'usable everywhere, excellent in many places'.
Then
as OSM becomes widely adopted, mapping parties and other contribution become
a
much easier proposition: rather than 'help out with this geeky new hobby' it
becomes 'hey! you can contribute to the map you are already using!'.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread Andrew

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 described on the wiki.Tim

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. 

--
Andrew


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

2011-06-09 Thread Adam Hoyle


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 use Google maps even if you did?


google maps doesn't feature any footpaths!

that's what got me into OSM a few years ago. Sorry to prolly be off-message but 
I'm happy with Google Maps for all things road related (aside from the small 
errors it has), but I do like OSM for it's footpaths as I'm not aware of 
anything else that does that, and I've noticed tons of footpaths missing from 
Ordnance Survey (maybe not official ones, but traversable ones nonetheless) .

What *I* would quite like is something to import woods and water, and ideally a 
tool that would allow me to do it on as small an area as I like (eg 1 mile 
square), with some-kind of preview and option to back out.

If it could be done on local scales, then surely that would empower people 
(provided they could get their heads around what the tool is and how it works).

ttfn,

Adam



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

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 assumes that the OS licence is compatible with the new contributor terms,
which (as discussed at recent LWG meeting) is still not settled!

-- 
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot