I use most of these plugins. But recently I started using them less, because now I convert my GPX waypoints to OSM data points automatically.
The only thing I do not do is repeating the postal code over and over, but since you insist, I'll do that from now on. :-) Can you look at e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.16279363632202&lon=4.425258636474609&zoom=16an area I mapped this winter. Please let me know if you think it can be improved. Yes, the city and the postal code are only in the relation. Yes, I know I should use building=house more consistently. Yes, I know I could add sidewalk, lit, parking lane tags as I did (already partially) in http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.134501695632935&lon=4.385626316070557&zoom=16 Let me know if you think the data can be improved, as I'm willing to improve my tagging habits. regards m On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Glenn Plas <gl...@byte-consult.be> wrote: > It doesn't matter where they are , you still have to put those tags on a > relation, so they better be in the correct city to start with ... Wrong > postal codes, wrong city.... I would rather _NOT_ have wrong ones than the > 'close enough for me' type of data. My point was introducing wrong > data.... I admit I'm not a fan of the associatedStreet relation. I just > recently learned it makes it even easier for some to f#ck up my work by > 'correcting' a streetRelation that wasn't broken. Now it's even more easy > to destroy 'en mass' in a single mouse click. > > There are some amazing josm plugins (Address plugin, adress mapcss etc) to > help you do this without pain. We are all repeating 'building=yes' on a > building, it's not because we put millions of this on the map that this tag > get's to be valued less now than before? It's because it's needed and > gives useful info. Why would your thoughts be any different for the > addr:street tag that carry much more useful info than a mere > 'building=yes'. So no, I don't think we are 'repeating' data, we are > detailing it as such ... > > I sometimes believe I'm the only one in Belgium using OSM data in a > non-mapping fashion like geocoding. > > There are working JOSM plugins that make sure you'll never ever have to > type the streetname, you just select the named road + addr node + building > and press = shift-T > > See the Terracer plugin. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Terracer > > But also, the FixAddresses plugin. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/FixAddresses > > I just wished it supported AssociatedStreet relations, same goes for some > of the finer mapCSS I see. I combined them all, and this gives me powerful > view on the address situation in the target area. > > http://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/AddressValidator&style > > https://github.com/simon04/coloured-addresses.mapcss/raw/master/dist/coloured-addresses.mapcss > http://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/Noname&style > > try them, you'll love the colors per street, very nice to spot problems on > corners. > > Glenn > > > > On 04/15/2013 07:33 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > Your complain about street being placed in wrong cities, is exactly why we > should use associatedStreet relations instead of repeating addr:street & > addr:city over and over on individual buildings. In that case you only have > to correct it once, on the relation, and the data is corrected. > > But I'll admit that I've been to lazy to add associatedStreets recently, > as nobody seems to care. And the tools support outside JOSM is not that > great. Repeating the street name twice is completely useless IMHO. > > I think it is possible to combine lot's of house numbers and accuracy, > at least I hope that's what I leave behind :-) > > m > > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Glenn Plas <gl...@byte-consult.be> wrote: > >> On 04/15/2013 02:38 PM, JorenDC wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> In December there was a thread (start: >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2012-December/003367.html) >> containing some numbers/stats. >> >> @Sander, *: is it possible to share your used method to pull these stats >> (or just pull them again) and publish them on a 'frequent' base (I'm not >> saying weekly, but what about +/- every 4 moths or so)? In that way we can >> see a bit of our progress regarding this 'project'. >> >> The method (overpass query) is mentioned in that link thread (Jo points >> it out). On the subject..... I've been mapping a lot of housenumbers >> lately, verifying my data against AGIV data before committing to OSM... I >> can only conclude there is much work to be done, AGIV is far from recent >> concerning new built houses, and OSM itself has lots of issues regarding >> accuracy. >> >> I'm not too sure on the scientific significance of such a statistic >> either. I would more than love to see stats that compair quality of the >> entered addresses. (completeness , including postal code and other addr:* >> tags, number of corrections etc. ) I've been correcting a lot of mistakes >> and I start seeing a negative tendancy in it: >> >> The ones that have done a LOT of input but didn't care to quality check >> (validating even!) what they entered. I'll state this: I'm cleaning up >> far too much crap others leave behind, I'm far from perfect in my >> housenumbering too in this small village it's still a huge undertaking, >> especially on complex corners where some numbers of the same building >> belong to a different street. I have houses I've changed 3 times in a row >> after visiting. >> >> Moreover, I see some people tagging the next city name on a street, >> probably because they think it's in the next city, but OSM shouldn't be a >> guessing game or a race to enter the most addresses if that info is wrong. >> >> If someone has such an overpass query, I'm more than interested to see >> those results, the rest looks like bragging rights. >> >> The AGIV site is valuable , even though it's slow. It's great tool to >> verify what city a certain street belongs to. for example : >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.998941&lon=4.426396&zoom=18&layers=M >> >> De "Kleine Parijsstraat" belongs to Zemst, not Mechelen. If you look >> this up in nominatim, it will tell you it's in Mechelen, which is totally >> wrong. You will not find this street using AGIV in Mechelen. But someone >> decided this was Hombeek(Mechelen) instead. So the borders of Zemst where >> wrong as well as this was used to determine these. The street above that >> "Boterstraat" can be found in Mechelen, not in Zemst. Thanks to AGIV, I'm >> more certain when those cases present. ( You can still see the old cached >> tile in some zoom levels) >> >> But then again, I saw AGIV containing WRONG housenumbers too. >> Verification in the field (twice) confirmed that what I had in mind was >> matching reality. So it's like a triple check: a) know the place b) visit >> it c) check with AGIV d) map a decent hous e) be complete, using the >> plugins to add Country/postal code/streetname to an address node so the >> data is easily searchable later. >> >> I really, really have to plea to everyone to enter _better_ data than >> more ...., just instead of looking at the sheer number of address >> info/nodes entered. It's quickly getting tired when I have to keep >> cleaning up behind the top providers. >> >> I'll get off the soapbox now. >> >> Glenn >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing > listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
