https://github.com/CloCkWeRX/osm-scripts/tree/add_maproulette is what I started last night.
Biggest missing part is a persistent identifier, because I manipulated the samples via JOSM first (thus nuking a repeatable task id); and it's not 100% clear around if I should be creating One Big Task GeoJSON or a lot of little ones. I doubt my ruby script is going to scale well to the whole dataset either; so if you wanted to produce .geojson in the format of https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CloCkWeRX/osm-scripts/add_maproulette/maproulette/task.json then the rest is pretty easy! See http://dev.maproulette.org/api/challenges?return_inactive=1 for the project stub. On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Henry Haselgrove <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree… with a dataset this large prioritisation is important. All your > specific suggestions for culling parts from missing.osm sound good. It > would be easy to add an option to the scripts to exclude highway={primary, > secondary, track}. And the suggestions you made via github look good too. > > > > However, I think that some more significant changes to the script should > be done before this data is unleased onto maproulette. The roads that are > currently in missing.osm fall (more or less) under three categories: > > -- roads that are completely absent in OSM > > -- roads that appear in OSM, but have an empty name > > -- roads that appear in OSM and have a non-empty name > which is different to the datasa name, either because OSM is wrong or > datasa is wrong (or because both are right, such as “Mount Magnificent > Road” versus “Mt. Magnificent Road”) > > > > I propose to modify the script to automatically exclude as much as > possible from the third category. Because, it will be hard for an armchair > mapper to decide whether OSM or datasa is wrong in those cases. I could try > to do this over the coming week. > > > > I’m not sure I agree that the Adelaide metro area should be given > particular priority over other areas. But I’m probably biased, since I grew > up in rural SA! > > > > Probably we should make a posting to the osm “imports” list before too > much longer, to let them know what we’re thinking. > > > > *From:* Daniel O'Connor [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, 9 March 2015 5:32 AM > *To:* Henry Haselgrove > *Cc:* Alex Sims; OSM Australian Talk List > *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Using roads dataset from data.sa.gov.au > > > > So, after doing this manually for a bit; it's generally working well. > > > > There are some where spot checking against other sources suggests the > dataset is wrong, how do you suggest we indicate these? > > > > I've put in NOTE or FIXME on the relevant way. > > > > > > The thing that is troubling me is the size of the dataset - a few hours > work barely makes a dent. > > > > I've taken to deleting all Primary/Trunk, Secondary and Track ways from > the data set; and then cropping stuff down to the metro adelaide area; and > it's still very sizable. > > > > > > I'd be *really* keen on maproulette at this point - you seem to be able > to produce updated files fairly regularly, adding a few bash scripts to > turn that into curl friendly statements seems achievable. > > > > Going to start sending a few pull requests your way to get us started on > this. > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
