Re: [Talk-us] identifying TIGER deserts
On 1/6/2013 7:30 AM, Alex Barth wrote: This could be achieved e. g. by overlaying a light, opaque OSM highway layer with a contrasting TIGER layer, only exposing TIGER 12 geometry where it differs from OSM. Here is a TIGER 12 vs OSM comparison. They cyan inner arc exists in TIGER 12 but not OSM. However, it originally started out in TIGER 07 but was removed from OSM because it doesn't exist. One way around this is to do a TIGER 12 VS 07 compare to start with, then compare that to OSM to detect improved geometry or new roads. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] identifying TIGER deserts
On 1/6/2013 7:30 AM, Alex Barth wrote: This could be achieved e. g. by overlaying a light, opaque OSM highway layer with a contrasting TIGER layer, only exposing TIGER 12 geometry where it differs from OSM. Oops, forgot the link: http://greenvilleopenmap.info/TIGER12vsOSM.jpg Here is a TIGER 12 vs OSM comparison. They cyan inner arc exists in TIGER 12 but not OSM. However, it originally started out in TIGER 07 but was removed from OSM because it doesn't exist. One way around this is to do a TIGER 12 VS 07 compare to start with, then compare that to OSM to detect improved geometry or new roads. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2013-01-06
These are based off of Lambertus's work here: http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel free to ask. However, please do not send me private mail. The odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by asking on the talk-us@ list, others can benefit. Downloads: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2013-01-06 Map to visualize what each file contains: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2013-01-06/kml/kml.html FAQ Why did you do this? I wrote scripts to joined them myself to lessen the impact of doing a large join on Lambertus's server. I've also cut them in large longitude swaths that should fit conveniently on removable media. http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2013-01-06 Can or should I seed the torrents? Yes!! If you use the .torrent files, please seed. That web server is in the UK, and it helps to have some peers on this side of the Atlantic. Why is my map missing small rectangular areas? There have been some missing tiles from Lambertus's map (the red rectangles), I don't see any at the moment, so you may want to update if you had issues with the last set. Why can I not copy the large files to my new SD card? If you buy a new card (especially SDHC), some are FAT16 from the factory. I had to reformat it to let me create a 2GB file. Does your map cover Mexico/Canada? Yes!! I have, for the purposes of this map, annexed Ontario in to the USA. Some areas of North America that are close to the US also just happen to get pulled in to these maps. This might not happen forever, and if you would like your non-US area to get included, let me know. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] identifying TIGER deserts
On Jan 6, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: I've done this before and it works great for ~z10+. Some more processing needs to be done for the lower zoom levels so that we can display an overview to make it easier to find problematic areas. Any particular thoughts on what kind of processing? Alex Barth http://twitter.com/lxbarth tel (+1) 202 250 3633 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] identifying TIGER deserts
On Jan 6, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 1/6/2013 11:37 AM, Mike N wrote: I like the idea of a TIGER 07 vs 12 comparison only being used as a trigger. If you compare TIGER 12 vs OSM, it will highlight all the TIGER 07 artifact roads that were removed because they were in error or no longer exist, but are still often in TIGER 12 even after a geometry refresh. On second thought, you'd need a 3-way compare to further exclude new TIGER 12 features that have already been added to OSM. More data to process but an overlay/intersect approach could still work for ZL 10+. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Alex Barth http://twitter.com/lxbarth tel (+1) 202 250 3633 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM especially if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that is probably not something that people would want to add because of the conflicts with other data. I wonder if we could include it on a limited basis or only include certain features. As a hiker, I also think the data have value because it is important to know where you will get shot at if you cross over. On my Garmin Oregon, one of the layers I have draws in landuse boundaries so I know what is what. It is too bad we can't include something like this. Maybe it could be somehow included as a separate layer or transparent somehow so it does not affect other data. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter nmix...@gmail.com wrote: It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM especially if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that is probably not something that people would want to add because of the conflicts with other data. I wonder if we could include it on a limited basis or only include certain features. We just had this conversation a couple threads ago. This sort of land ownership border doesn't really belong in OSM because we can't improve it. It's already in OSM because some people imported the BLM data so they could see national park boundaries. As a hiker, I also think the data have value because it is important to know where you will get shot at if you cross over. On my Garmin Oregon, one of the layers I have draws in landuse boundaries so I know what is what. It is too bad we can't include something like this. Maybe it could be somehow included as a separate layer or transparent somehow so it does not affect other data. The correct way to do this is to mix it into the dataset you use when creating data for your Garmin Oregon. That way you get the most up-to-date and correct information direct from the people that make the rules. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] identifying TIGER deserts
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: On Jan 6, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: I've done this before and it works great for ~z10+. Some more processing needs to be done for the lower zoom levels so that we can display an overview to make it easier to find problematic areas. Any particular thoughts on what kind of processing? What about rasterizing the most prominent color (i.e. missing 2012 or 2007 changes) in a 1km² area and boiling it up like Mike's Green Means Go map? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] identifying TIGER deserts
On Jan 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Alex Barth wrote: On Jan 4, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 1/4/13 1:31 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: Interesting—how would you characterize bad roads? One characteristic of crappy TIGER data is road wiggliness, is that what you mean? the tiger 2010/11/12 data is much better for many of the bad tiger areas. it'd be a bit of work to do a comparison of the data, but it might be able to yield the desired information. This is exactly the direction I'm thinking. What would it take to create a TIGER 07 vs 12 comparison map and use this as a basis for identifying the areas that need most attention? I've been talking to Ian over here and we were thinking of intersecting OSM highway data with TIGER 12. This could be achieved e. g. by overlaying a light, opaque OSM highway layer with a contrasting TIGER layer, only exposing TIGER 12 geometry where it differs from OSM. Thoughts? This approach makes sense. You're thinking to come up with a metric for mismatched area between the two datasets? Would it be enough to total it up into 1x1 km buckets or would you want it to be substantially more detailed? -mike. michal migurski- contact info and pgp key: sf/cahttp://mike.teczno.com/contact.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
On Monday, January 7, 2013, Ian Dees wrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter
nmix...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'nmix...@gmail.com');
wrote:
It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM
especially if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that is
probably not something that people would want to add because of the
conflicts with other data. I wonder if we could include it on a limited
basis or only include certain features.
We just had this conversation a couple threads ago. This sort of land
ownership border doesn't really belong in OSM because we can't improve it.
It's already in OSM because some people imported the BLM data so they could
see national park boundaries.
Just because we can't improve it doesn't mean it can't improve the map.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Monday, January 7, 2013, Ian Dees wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter nmix...@gmail.com wrote: It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM especially if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that is probably not something that people would want to add because of the conflicts with other data. I wonder if we could include it on a limited basis or only include certain features. We just had this conversation a couple threads ago. This sort of land ownership border doesn't really belong in OSM because we can't improve it. It's already in OSM because some people imported the BLM data so they could see national park boundaries. Just because we can't improve it doesn't mean it can't improve the map. I disagree. If we can't improve it then the only thing it can do is sit in the database and become wrong. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
Isn't that true of all data in the database? On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Monday, January 7, 2013, Ian Dees wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter nmix...@gmail.com wrote: It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM especially if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that is probably not something that people would want to add because of the conflicts with other data. I wonder if we could include it on a limited basis or only include certain features. We just had this conversation a couple threads ago. This sort of land ownership border doesn't really belong in OSM because we can't improve it. It's already in OSM because some people imported the BLM data so they could see national park boundaries. Just because we can't improve it doesn't mean it can't improve the map. I disagree. If we can't improve it then the only thing it can do is sit in the database and become wrong. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Jeff Meyer Global World History Atlas www.gwhat.org j...@gwhat.org 206-676-2347 www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
Some OSM Editors have spent time improving at least county borders. A core part of the discussion is ownership. If BLM data is added to the OSM DB, who are the individuals within the community that will take active ownership for keeping the data quality high and updated as BLM issues changes, or as OSM editors inject errors ? If the data simply degrades over time, then it's really of no value to anyone. We do have an issue with US state and county borders, as some are missing, incorrect, incomplete or incorrectly tagged. Perhaps we can organize a cleanse the state and county borders project to improve the data quality and currentness. Best, On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote: Some thoughts supporting the inclusion of this data: It seems that it is just about as unlikely that state, county and city boundaries will be improved, but they are in OSM. Some improvement may be possible, as the boundaries to Federal land are often demarcated with signs or survey monuments. In addition, there is value in making these boundaries consistent with other elements in OSM, such as the aforementioned county boundaries. For example, if one knows that the BLM land and the county share the same boundary, they can be snapped together. If I am a data user, for example, if I were to start a website dedicated to hiking maps and I had to choose between proprietary data and OSM, the completeness of the data is something that I would consider. Sure, I could get the BLM data myself, and add it into my web maps, but that is just one more step, and the BLM data is not likely to be consistent with the OSM data (see above), thus making a messy map. Mike On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote: Isn't that true of all data in the database? On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.orgwrote: On Monday, January 7, 2013, Ian Dees wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Nathan Mixter nmix...@gmail.comwrote: It would be awesome to include the land ownership data from BLM especially if we could do it for the whole US. Unfortunately that is probably not something that people would want to add because of the conflicts with other data. I wonder if we could include it on a limited basis or only include certain features. We just had this conversation a couple threads ago. This sort of land ownership border doesn't really belong in OSM because we can't improve it. It's already in OSM because some people imported the BLM data so they could see national park boundaries. Just because we can't improve it doesn't mean it can't improve the map. I disagree. If we can't improve it then the only thing it can do is sit in the database and become wrong. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Jeff Meyer Global World History Atlas www.gwhat.org j...@gwhat.org 206-676-2347 www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- John Novak 585-OLD-TOPOS (585-653-8676) http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnanovak/ OSM ID:oldtopos OSM Heat Map: http://yosmhm.neis-one.org/?oldtopos OSM Edit Stats:http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?oldtopos ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
On 1/7/13 10:37 PM, the Old Topo Depot wrote: We do have an issue with US state and county borders, as some are missing, incorrect, incomplete or incorrectly tagged. Perhaps we can organize a cleanse the state and county borders project to improve the data quality and currentness. i would like to switch the USGS based state border of NY for what i perceive to be the somewhat more accurate borders from TIGER. i've temporarily stalled on bringing in town borders from TIGER because of discrepancies along the state line between NY and New England. i gather that many of the state borders are USGS and that the TIGER borders may be better. this is a non-trivial exercise as any county/town borders that share ways with the state borders will need to be fixed up. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote: Isn't that true of all data in the database? OSM is built on surveyors doing surveys. That is we have people who go out and walk around with GPSes, or maps, and manually survey what's on the ground. Then when a second person goes to the same area, they are validatidating the original data. Maybe the second person has more accurate data in some part, or maybe there's been a change, etc. We've shown in studies that the number of mappers increases both the data density and the data accuracy over time. But this only works with ground observable data. Land owership isn't ground observable. Sometimes a feature, such as a fence is, but the actual land owership isn't. Therefore, it's not possible for a second observer to come in and provide either validation or updates to the data. Additionally, land ownership changes frequently. Lastly, there is only one authoritative source for this data. To recap: Land ownership data is only available from the government, which is the one authoritative source of this data. It's not something that the crowdsourcing model lends itself well to. And it changes rapidly. So what Ian has suggested, and I agree with him on, is that this data is a poor candidate for inclusion into the crowdsourced OSM data. That doesn't mean it can't be used alongside it. This land ownership data (assuming it's licensed properly) can be rendered on the same map as OSM data (there are many examples of using TileMill to mix data sources in just this way) and if the data is imported into a database, there can be queries made against the two sets, so it would be possible to see the land owner for a given POI, for example. This is the best of both worlds. It keeps the OSM focusing on its strength, and makes it easy to stay current and precise on the land ownership dataset. Someone else brought up boundries, so let's discuss boundries. Boundaries in OSM, especially in the US, have been an ongoing and constant problem. Boundaries are places where people are fiddling all the time, trying to get the exact levels right. In addition, much of the US has duplicate boundaries (places represented by areas, and nodes), arguments about the definition of spaces, disagreements in the data between municipal and census data, etc. And this data changes, and we have not (even after years of working on the problem) found a good way to conflate and update. Finally, on top of that, the information Flickr has collected is telling us that our idea of neighborhoods needs to be rethought,and really does not lend itself well to the OSM model. So there too, is a potential win for OSM. We could rely on current, highly accurate public domain boundry data and use that for rendering, geolocation and other places, while keeping it out of the OSM dataset. The result of this would be: 1. More up to date maps 2. More accurate maps 3. Better geolocation (forward and reverse) 4. Reduction in errors caused by flawed data in OSM 5. Less editing wars due to differences of opinion between mappers and the authoritative data sources 6. Allowing OSM to focus on its core strength This seems like a win for everyone. - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] identifying TIGER deserts
I know that the TIGER 2012 overlay available in JOSM has been very helpful and I think that a combination of a) increasing awareness of this overlay and b) making the overlay available in Potlatch would go a long way toward leveraging TIGER 2012. In general, I think it is not the geometry which is most impactful, but the increase in names and the decrease in spurious or spuriously connected ways that has the most impact. --ceyockey -Original Message- From: Ian Dees Sent: Jan 7, 2013 8:10 PM To: Alex Barth Cc: Ian Villeda , Richard Welty , talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [Talk-us] identifying TIGER deserts On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: On Jan 6, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: I've done this before and it works great for ~z10+. Some more processing needs to be done for the lower zoom levels so that we can display an overview to make it easier to find problematic areas. Any particular thoughts on what kind of processing? What about rasterizing the most prominent color (i.e. missing 2012 or 2007 changes) in a 1km² area and boiling it up like Mike's Green Means Go map? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM
We just had this conversation a couple threads ago. This sort of land ownership border doesn't really belong in OSM because we can't improve it. In OSM as a whole, or just in the US? When I peruse the various hiking/path/trail tagging portions of the Wiki, I found this: Since the tagging is generic, it is up to each country to decide how to map the hiking networks that exist in their country onto the hierarchy of national/regional/local. For countries with no specific local/regional/national walking network (... that would be the US, although there is Federal Trails Register), it may be helpful to consider whether different trails are managed or funded by government bodies at different levels. And the usually, this is define by the ownership, and in this case, not necessarily who has 'title' to the land, but who has management responsibility - so perhaps ownership doesn't precisely capture the semantics, as compared to management. The Wiki has a plethora of tagging attributes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking, most of which are defined by this aspect of management. ( If you are curious how this semantics has already been described as attributes by working groups from trail organizations, NGOs, corporations, city, county, state, and federal agencies see: ... mostly after about a decade of arguing like on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy :-) see http://www.nps.gov/gis/trails/Doc2/FTDSAttributeOverview-DataAttributesGroupedbyFunctionalCategoryB.pdf - the full process of how group of people came to an understanding about what goes in or out of the map is here http://www.nps.gov/gis/trails/. And if you drill down into the categories and attributes that are already in OSM, internationally, they are pretty much driven by what Derrick call 'ownership' (management). Which means you could capture these attributes with a relatively simple rectilinear polygon ( an artifact of the PLSS) encompassing several hundred if not thousands of square kilometers and thousands of miles of trail system with low dataspae and maintenance impact, or you could attach all those individual attributes to each and every segment. As a hiker, I also think the data have value because it is important to know where you will get shot at if you cross over. ... not just to you, but everybody particpating in the annual $730 Billion Active Outdoor Recreation Economyhttp://www.outdoorindustry.org/images/researchfiles/RecEconomypublic.pdf. Gee, I wonder if there are any potential OSM contributors in there some where ... ? The correct way to do this is to mix it into the dataset you use when creating data for your Garmin Oregon. That way you get the most up-to-date and correct information direct from the people that make the rules. And thereby essentially isolate any of the 'improvements to the map' made by that individual and their user community. We just had this conversation a couple threads ago. This sort of land ownership border doesn't really belong in OSM because we can't improve it. That would seem to indicate social, process and technology issues which can be addressed systematically. But for every mention of '... it doesn't belong in OSM', even in my very short exposure (weeks) perusing the Wikis and maps, I find examples already in OSM. It's already in OSM because some people imported the BLM data so they could see national park boundaries. Because the National Parks are important to people. All parks are important. All outdoor access is important to people. NPS, NFS, BLM, state DNRs, all manage recreation land. I disagree. If we can't improve it then the only thing it can do is sit in the database and become wrong. I have been perusing the various tool sets in and around OSM, bots, taginfo, and several examples like Green2Go, validation routines in the editor and everyone of these could be potentially applied to any other type of OSM data, Id the backend of OSM DBs on computer servers or somefolks poking sharp sticks into wet clay and the baking ithttp://formaurbis.stanford.edu/? :-) Michael Patrick Data Ferret ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
My apologies - my real point was that it doesn't seem that rules are being applied equally across different data sets. For example, requiring that any data imported into OSM have a lifetime maintenance plan seems like something that we don't require of *any* OSM data entry. Most data is entered with the *hope* and belief that others will come along and fix it. All of the rules about observability and verifiability apply to country and state borders, as well, as Mike states, but we include them and somehow improve them. Neighborhoods are not a relevant comparison. There can be defined boundary neighborhoods and human perceptions of those boundaries, and the two can have different outlines - they are both correct. The information discussed in the other thread - local parcel information - is on a completely different scale as this BLM data. Does that mean it's different? I don't know. Possibly. Some of the arguments (not all) against including parcel data were related to data density. I doubt those apply in the case of huge. The inclusion of this information - as a few others have mentioned, is extremely helpful when going across doubletrack and unimproved roads in the American west. Last year, I road a mountain bike from Durango, CO to Moab, UT with a group of friends. Whether we were in private, BLM, FS, or state land made quite a difference in what we could and could not do off the roads, which in turn could have helped us with route planning. And, we could have improved the data by tracking POIs at the boundaries of these lands - they're usually pretty well marked. I'd love to see the BLM data included. But, whether we want it or not, shouldn't we be fair in discussing reasons for or against this data or explicit in our exceptions? - Jeff On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote: Isn't that true of all data in the database? OSM is built on surveyors doing surveys. That is we have people who go out and walk around with GPSes, or maps, and manually survey what's on the ground. Then when a second person goes to the same area, they are validatidating the original data. Maybe the second person has more accurate data in some part, or maybe there's been a change, etc. We've shown in studies that the number of mappers increases both the data density and the data accuracy over time. But this only works with ground observable data. Land owership isn't ground observable. Sometimes a feature, such as a fence is, but the actual land owership isn't. Therefore, it's not possible for a second observer to come in and provide either validation or updates to the data. Additionally, land ownership changes frequently. Lastly, there is only one authoritative source for this data. To recap: Land ownership data is only available from the government, which is the one authoritative source of this data. It's not something that the crowdsourcing model lends itself well to. And it changes rapidly. So what Ian has suggested, and I agree with him on, is that this data is a poor candidate for inclusion into the crowdsourced OSM data. That doesn't mean it can't be used alongside it. This land ownership data (assuming it's licensed properly) can be rendered on the same map as OSM data (there are many examples of using TileMill to mix data sources in just this way) and if the data is imported into a database, there can be queries made against the two sets, so it would be possible to see the land owner for a given POI, for example. This is the best of both worlds. It keeps the OSM focusing on its strength, and makes it easy to stay current and precise on the land ownership dataset. Someone else brought up boundries, so let's discuss boundries. Boundaries in OSM, especially in the US, have been an ongoing and constant problem. Boundaries are places where people are fiddling all the time, trying to get the exact levels right. In addition, much of the US has duplicate boundaries (places represented by areas, and nodes), arguments about the definition of spaces, disagreements in the data between municipal and census data, etc. And this data changes, and we have not (even after years of working on the problem) found a good way to conflate and update. Finally, on top of that, the information Flickr has collected is telling us that our idea of neighborhoods needs to be rethought,and really does not lend itself well to the OSM model. So there too, is a potential win for OSM. We could rely on current, highly accurate public domain boundry data and use that for rendering, geolocation and other places, while keeping it out of the OSM dataset. The result of this would be: 1. More up to date maps 2. More accurate maps 3. Better geolocation (forward and reverse) 4. Reduction in errors caused by flawed data in OSM 5. Less editing wars due to differences of opinion between mappers
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
Full ack to to what Serge and Ian mentioned already. In addition I checked the metadata and this data is of questionable accuracy and shouldn't be added alone for this reason. Data set now is a mix of scale, tolerances, and vintage, ranging from 1994 to 2006, line work ranging from GCDB to 24K to 100K map scale/land grid source. If anyone likes to include it in Garmin maps or online maps it's really much easier to do it as a static layer. If anyone is interested to get this as a layer for Garmin maps then this can be done faster than the time it takes to upload it to osm. And whenever newer data is available it is refreshed in minutes. On Jan 7, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote: Isn't that true of all data in the database? OSM is built on surveyors doing surveys. That is we have people who go out and walk around with GPSes, or maps, and manually survey what's on the ground. Then when a second person goes to the same area, they are validatidating the original data. Maybe the second person has more accurate data in some part, or maybe there's been a change, etc. We've shown in studies that the number of mappers increases both the data density and the data accuracy over time. But this only works with ground observable data. Land owership isn't ground observable. Sometimes a feature, such as a fence is, but the actual land owership isn't. Therefore, it's not possible for a second observer to come in and provide either validation or updates to the data. Additionally, land ownership changes frequently. Lastly, there is only one authoritative source for this data. To recap: Land ownership data is only available from the government, which is the one authoritative source of this data. It's not something that the crowdsourcing model lends itself well to. And it changes rapidly. So what Ian has suggested, and I agree with him on, is that this data is a poor candidate for inclusion into the crowdsourced OSM data. That doesn't mean it can't be used alongside it. This land ownership data (assuming it's licensed properly) can be rendered on the same map as OSM data (there are many examples of using TileMill to mix data sources in just this way) and if the data is imported into a database, there can be queries made against the two sets, so it would be possible to see the land owner for a given POI, for example. This is the best of both worlds. It keeps the OSM focusing on its strength, and makes it easy to stay current and precise on the land ownership dataset. Someone else brought up boundries, so let's discuss boundries. Boundaries in OSM, especially in the US, have been an ongoing and constant problem. Boundaries are places where people are fiddling all the time, trying to get the exact levels right. In addition, much of the US has duplicate boundaries (places represented by areas, and nodes), arguments about the definition of spaces, disagreements in the data between municipal and census data, etc. And this data changes, and we have not (even after years of working on the problem) found a good way to conflate and update. Finally, on top of that, the information Flickr has collected is telling us that our idea of neighborhoods needs to be rethought,and really does not lend itself well to the OSM model. So there too, is a potential win for OSM. We could rely on current, highly accurate public domain boundry data and use that for rendering, geolocation and other places, while keeping it out of the OSM dataset. The result of this would be: 1. More up to date maps 2. More accurate maps 3. Better geolocation (forward and reverse) 4. Reduction in errors caused by flawed data in OSM 5. Less editing wars due to differences of opinion between mappers and the authoritative data sources 6. Allowing OSM to focus on its core strength This seems like a win for everyone. - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
So there too, is a potential win for OSM. We could rely on current, highly accurate public domain boundry data and use that for rendering, geolocation and other places, while keeping it out of the OSM dataset. Please expand on this. There are already communities around Disaster Relief, etc., and good etiquette would dictate that I wouldn't go in and edit their data. Conceptually, there is already a convention in place for a separate user account for a mass import, would it really be too much of a stretch that there be a separate access for changing that data ( for instance boundaries)? Also, there are warning bells in Potlatch when I deleted a duplicate object - if the object concerned was one of these boundaries, maybe something similar occurs, if not a full stop? Just at the Federal Level http://www.data.gov/whats-store-geospatial-data, they have already dumped 400,000 geospatial datasets, and many states and counties are following suit with Open Data initiatives. Of course tree bettles and stuff aren't candidates for the OSM cartography, but some of those will enhance the end map for OSM (and derivative projects) users. It also fundamentally applies to who you consider to be in that crowd of source contributors? There are already armchair mappers using Bing (not surveying on the ground), Similarly, I would venture to say there are other potential members of a crowd that don't use handheld GPSs, but synthesize useful OSM data. Michael Patrick PS: Land ownership changes frequently - just out of curiosity would you care to back up that assertion with some real data analysis of statistics from the US Census Home Ownership Tenure Tables, the GAO (Government Accounting Office) on federal land acquisitions and transfers, NASShttp://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Agricultural_Economics_and_Land_Ownership/index.asp, or any other source? :-) Even if title changes, jurisdictional constraints dictate that usually the personal name changes, not the property lines. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote: All of the rules about observability and verifiability apply to country and state borders, as well, as Mike states, but we include them and somehow improve them. Have we improved them? Being the last user to touch about 35% of all county boundary relations in the US, I've seen a lot of breaking too. One exception: some of the Oregon counties that were improved by Trimet with local data. There were a lot of untouched ways from the original import which were overlapping/duplicated closed ways. A lot of them had been operated on by a duplicate node removal bot that joined nodes with TIGER roads wherever the two intersected which made them a pain to edit. A number of them that had been converted to relations had either broken geometry or inconsistent tagging - and still do. I've been meaning to bring this up at some point. The entire western border of Colorado was once moved a few hundred meters east by accident without the user even noticing that they had touched a state border. I think it would be great to make more tools support more external data sets as opposed to dumping *everything* into OSM. You want county borders on your garmin? Check a box while creating the file and mkgmap downloads the most recent county borders from some source that isn't OSM and includes them. Now, building this functionality into every tool that uses OSM data may not be practical. But I can definitely see a place for a parallel project that hosts all such boundary data (maybe even parcel data) from official sources in a common format and can be easily mixed with OSM data before being fed to existing tools. I think this was the idea behind CommonMap although I see this particular implementation hasn't fared particularly well as the domain seems to have expired... But the idea may warrant another look. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone ever talked about adding more Land Ownership data to OSM?
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote: All of the rules about observability and verifiability apply to country and state borders, as well, as Mike states, but we include them and somehow improve them. Have we improved them? I probably misstated there - I was taking some of the prior comments on this thread that that's what OSM has done at face value. It sounds like that might not be the case. -- Jeff Meyer Global World History Atlas www.gwhat.org j...@gwhat.org 206-676-2347 www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
