Thanks, I also got 2 comments about the french name tagging, so i added it to the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:GeoBase_Import page. And tried my best to translate this talk about PostGIS. :) Please edit, if you can :)
The part about the stressing the importance of not undermining OSM contributions, needs to be highlighted more. IMO and "Even if there is a single road through an area there has to be a way to for us to match it within both OSM and GeoBase. " By using the charts we already started, and the name tags... we can create the set of rules that the PostGIS database import script will follow. GeoBase Tag = OSM tag. .. and get as detailed as possable. The realtime aspect (my last point on the talk) is still a little vague. Cheers, Sam On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Richard Degelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 03:06 -0800, Sam Vekemans wrote: > > I forgot to send it direct to you too. talk-ca takes a little longer > > to send. > > > > > Thanks. I am starting to check the talk-ca site regularly anyways so I > am seeing a lot of the discussion as it comes up. I like the digest and > use it to reduce the amount of traffic that I get. But sending me an > e-mail directly is appreciated. > > > > > > So from your idea i got: > > 1. Merging the OSM reference id# database (our big Canada file) with > > the GeoBase dataset onto a separate PostGIS database. > > Correct. We find where there are common elements within both data sets, > such as a street, and have a way of transferring the the reference id# > from the one to the other. A database would probably be an ideal way to > do this. > > > 2. Purging the results of close lines/nodes. (street names maybe?) ... > > creating a GeoBase/OSM database. Where it just looks for that, and > > removes the extra OSM stuff that it doesnt need. > > Not exactly. I would not really touch the OSM map, as far as the > renderers see it, at all at this point. The purpose of the database is, > on the one hand, to eliminate redundant data from entering OSM but is > also useful, at the same time, for adding additional metadata, in this > case the GeoBase id#, into the metadata for OSM. > > > 3. Then importing it back to OSM. .. purging it with the original OSM > > Id's. > > Once we have the database showing the GeoBase data that already exists > within OSM, such as the existence of a particular street, two things > happen. First the metadata, such as the GeoBase id# is given to that > street or that way. This will ensure that from that point on it is > identifiable as having been in the GeoBase data and any subsequent > updates to that GeoBase data that effects the particular street or way > will know that it should also effect it within the OSM data. This also > allows for the addition of more data, such as street address data, when > it becomes available for the area. In essence any subsequent update > from GeoBase will believe that the street that was originally within OSM > really came from the GeoBase import. > > At the same time the database will be used during the import of the > GeoBase data. It would work in that any street or feature within the > GeoBase data that has a matching item within the database, and so > already exists within OSM, will not be imported into OSM as part of the > GeoBase data import. At the same time any feature within the GeoBase > data that does not match anything within OSM would be imported. > > As long as the matching process is efficient then there is no need for > eliminating any area from the GeoBase import. Although there are likely > going to be issues where something that is thought not to match, but > actually does for some reason, gets imported it hopefully will be rare. > > The results of this effort would be to allow for the full GeoBase data > set to be represented within OSM while not overwriting the contributions > of those that have already entered data into OSM and to add the > metadata, particularly the id# from the Geobase data, to allow us to > update OSM as the GeoBase data is updated and extended. > > > Am i following that right? > > > > > > Cheers, > > Sam > > We have to consider that except where there is absolutely no data within > OSM for an area there are going to be some conflicts between the GeoBase > data and that already within OSM. Even if there is a single road > through an area there has to be a way to for us to match it within both > OSM and GeoBase. And I also believe that the content that already > exists within OSM is important and should not be replaced by GeoBase > data only for convenience sake and for expediency in importing the > GeoBase data. > > Doing it for any road in an area is really not going to be any more > complex whither it is an isolated road in the middle of nowhere or a > residential street in the middle of Toronto or Montreal. > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
