On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Mojgan Jadidi wrote:
Mojgan,
We did say at MappyHour last month that OSM was filled with well intentioned
imports gone bad. Don't feel bad you seem to be well intentioned and many
others before you have made mistakes in the import process.
I don't think the advice you got at the meeting was to go rush ahead and
start importing. I think the advice you received was more along the lines of
"imports are really hard, getting community consensus is even harder",
"spend some time understanding how the OSM community works first", "use
dedicated import accounts attached to individuals not an organization"
Some specific feedback I have on the import
1) I think it is critical that you do the data validation and checking
*before* uploading to OSM. This is what I thought you had described but I
must have misunderstood. The reason why it is better to do the cleanup
before uploading the data to OSM is because this way no bad data is sitting
in OSM until someone gets around to cleaning it up. The community also
likes this better because we don't have to worry about if you will ever get
around to cleaning it up
The flow I would recommend is along the lines
1) Person takes a small area of generated address points
2) They download the current OSM data and check for problems
3) They fix any issues and upload the small area they just checked
The changesets on Monday appeared to be uploading everything first.
2) You should publish your generated files for review(or at least a sample).
In some areas I spot checked last night I saw nodes with no tags and not
connected to an interpolation way. This might have been an artifact of a
in-progress revert, I'm not sure.
I also saw some places where the existing OSM roads and address
interpolations were a bit offset from the stuff you uploaded and this
resulted in duplicate address ways (the existing geometry in OSM might not
be from a rough survey). Manual cleanup would be required.
3) I am not sure if we need the :source tag on each node or if putting it on
the changeset would be enough. Earlier imports tended to put metadata on
each node but I think we have been trying to move away from this.
Steve
Hi all,Please accept my apology for this misunderstanding, I thought our
presence for last OSM meeting and
flowing emails in Talk-ca and with John were part of communication and
discussion, we launched our wikipage
two weeks ago, and we did not receive any feedback, so we thought to start
import via JOSM.
as we expalined in our wikipage, we created the algorithm to detect the missing
information, and then we
check the quality of this information on JOSM on the top of OpenStreetMap, Bing
Areal imagery, GeoBase Road
network and some local municpal open data. the data is created initially
through StatCan, however, we noticed
the low quality of StatCan road segment geometry, so we deal with this issue by
using complement dataset such
as OpenStreetMap, Bing Areal imagery, GeoBase Road network and some local
municpal open data. all created
nodes and ways are carefully inspected visually using above dataset for more
that 6 weeks.
Our final verification will be on the OSM server (on-line) to avoid or detect
any issues. Our aim is having
high quality address information in OSM for sake of community. we were very
prudent from the first step to
have a high quality source of information.
I hope that the community will accept our contribution and enjoy to use the
data.
Best regards,
Mojgan
Mojgan (Amaneh) Jadidi, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
GeoICT Lab
York University
Toronto
ca.linkedin.com/pub/mojgan-amaneh-jadidi/10/825/969/
On 2 February 2016 at 07:00, <[email protected]> wrote:
Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Triplinx import (Stewart Russell)
2. Re: Triplinx import (john whelan)
3. Re: Triplinx import (Stewart Russell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:36:01 -0500
From: Stewart Russell <[email protected]>
To: talk-ca <[email protected]>
Subject: [Talk-ca] Triplinx import
Message-ID:
<CAAsTreDSk=zpf5znibh144n46pmjgcvx8q-vdyhrmwjj188...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It seems that this import has started with no discussion. Here's the wiki
page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Triplinx_Metrolinx_Import_Plan
Stewart
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20160201/2432eb78/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 19:14:11 -0500
From: john whelan <[email protected]>
To: Stewart Russell <[email protected]>, Mojgan Jadidi
<[email protected]>
Cc: talk-ca <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Triplinx import
Message-ID:
<CAJ-Ex1GJSvCrz4+j4cq=rDZo_WD8dB6q+YvTOMMsgQEyuem=b...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I had a skype call with Mojgan where we discussed some of the issues and
there was an email sent to talk-ca on Jan 12th 2016.
To me a couple of issues first are that the Stats Canada data was designed
for Stats Canada use, probably for the labour force survey and as such
provided the interviewer can see the address from where it is marked on
the
map this is sufficent accuracy. My concern would be about the accuracy of
the data.
Another issue is do we end up with duplicate addresses? My concern would
be do we end up with the same address in two different locations?
I think a better solution would be to take a copy of the OSM database,
strip out the existing address data and drop in the stats data and use the
copy for their purposes.
Cheerio John
On 1 February 2016 at 18:36, Stewart Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> It seems that this import has started with no discussion. Here's the
wiki
> page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Triplinx_Metrolinx_Import_Plan
>
> Stewart
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20160201/380bb9cc/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 19:38:19 -0500
From: Stewart Russell <[email protected]>
To: talk-ca <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Triplinx import
Message-ID:
<CAAsTreC+jpJdAOeEG7z2GX95T4tjm=GdT=ms4t7idxf4tx7...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Import user is:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Triplinx%20Canada
Several 50K node imports today.
Stewart
On Feb 1, 2016 7:14 PM, "john whelan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I had a skype call with Mojgan where we discussed some of the issues and
> there was an email sent to talk-ca on Jan 12th 2016.
>
> To me a couple of issues first are that the Stats Canada data was
designed
> for Stats Canada use, probably for the labour force survey and as such
> provided the interviewer can see the address from where it is marked on
the
> map this is sufficent accuracy. My concern would be about the accuracy
of
> the data.
>
> Another issue is do we end up with duplicate addresses? My concern
would
> be do we end up with the same address in two different locations?
>
> I think a better solution would be to take a copy of the OSM database,
> strip out the existing address data and drop in the stats data and use
the
> copy for their purposes.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 1 February 2016 at 18:36, Stewart Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It seems that this import has started with no discussion. Here's the
wiki
>> page:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Triplinx_Metrolinx_Import_Plan
>>
>> Stewart
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20160201/d27749c7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
------------------------------
End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 96, Issue 1
**************************************
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
