Hi Tim, Thanks for the feedback. Regarding your comments, when you say you compared the nodes to aerial photos and old maps, do you mean these peak/mountain nodes in the proposed import? Or, are you mentioning it anecdotally regarding a comparison of other nodes from past data releases? I ask because these are culled from the newly updated (last month) gazetteer dataset, which I noticed has lots of entries in the comments column describing accuracy improvements. That was why it seemed to me that the mountains and peaks would be an attractive, manageable subset to import.
Regarding your comment about local government being the custodians for the peak/mountain names, I think this is incorrect, although LGA's are responsible for naming some things: http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/mapping-data/place-names/how-places-named/what-can-be-named Since the Place Names Act of 1994 DNRM and this gazetteer dataset, I thought was considered to actually be the 'ground truth' for names, ( see http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/mapping-data/place-names/how-places-named ) On positional accuracy, I agree with you that survey is better; in fact somewhere in the gazetteer they say that names of feature extents are located at an approximate centroid of the feature only. This was the reasoning behind suggesting only the names seen to be in error would be corrected for pre-existing nodes, the position and any other key/values being left alone. As mountain names are an unmarked cultural attribute, the government is in charge of them :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Geographical_Names_in_Australasia . I don't see how survey would collect the name, although it could refine the position of the peak. Have I addressed your concerns? Or are you still against this import? BTW: What do you mean by a "global input"? This would be a state-local import only. Cheers, Chris On 4 May 2014, at 15:17, Tim Ney <[email protected]> wrote: > I worked for the department of natural resources and mines so some 6 years > and I have experimented with the place name data. I don't want to be a > downer but I found the information to be so inaccurate as to border on > useless. I compared the nodes to aerial photos and to 1 mile and 5 mile hand > drawn maps i have dating back to the 1930's. Nodes were spelt wrong, names > wrong altogether and locations were up to several kilometres out. I would be > hesitate to use any data from the place names database. Place names are > normally the custodian of local government. I would not like to see my > manually entered nodes overridden with incorrect spelling from a global > input. The only way this concept would be viable is to import shire by shire > and confirm names with each local government or other reliable source such as > very old survey plans and maps. I am a surveyor by trade with a keen > interest in ensuring ground truthed data rather than global input. Tim > > Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
