On 1 Jun 2010, at 19:03, Chris Hill wrote: > Peter Miller wrote: >> >> On 1 Jun 2010, at 15:39, Chris Hill wrote: >> >>> Peter Miller wrote: >>>> We have created a map layer for Potlatch showing OS Locator names >>>> which are not in the nearby OSM data in a nice visual way. >>>> >>>> Details in our blog post of the subject. >>>> http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/05/os-locator-validation-mapping-for-uk.html >>>> >>>> >>>> To access the tiles paste the following into the custom layer box >>>> in Potlatch (or similar in JOSM). >>>> http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator/!/!/!.png >>>> >>>> Note our proposed 'not:name' tag for suppressing errors in OS >>>> Locator data. This could be extended to 'not:ref' and 'not:access' >>>> etc etc. I hope there is not another convention for blocking tag >>>> values that we have overlooked. If there is we will of course >>>> adjust our code to accommodate it. >>>> >>>> there is a 48 hour delay until new data appears on the tiles. Ie, >>>> monday edits will appear on wednesday etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> On a rainy afternoon I took a look at your overlay and I think it is >>> potentially very useful. The main issue I guess is this new tag. I >>> think "not:*" is imaginative, but it rankles with me somehow. How >>> about just putting source:name=survey on roads that contradict OS >>> Locator to show they have been checked on the ground. >> >> I was envisaging a technical development where the server would >> refuse >> to accept tag values that contradicted a not: tag, or possibly it was >> PotLatch that did so for it. To override the block one could of >> course >> delete the tag, but in time the removal of 'not' tags might be >> patrolled from the minutely diffs. > I think that is probably a step too far.
Possibly! > > [...] >> For our more limited purposes we need a clear message in the data >> that >> means 'don't keep on highlighting this discrepancy between OSM and OS >> Locator' and I think that data belongs in OSM rather than in some >> ITO DB. >> > > It just feels that the not:* tag is adding data to OSM to placate a > lint > tool, rather than adding geographic data to the database. Surely the > way > to do it is to add to your OS Locator data to stop your lint tool > reporting the error, rather than adding the not:* tag to OSM? We did have a similar discussion in-house at the design stage. We could of course implement this and the data would then be locked away into our systems and be hard for others to access and use for other purposes unless we do further work to ensure that it is. We didn't want to give any hint of an impression that we were trying to 'privatise' knowledge about OSM and wanted to get something out fast. It would also ensure that the information was not available to others using other tools unless they went to extra effort to read our files. I guess someone could put a monitor onto the minutely feeds to warn about such changes and request that the change be reverted, but this seems to be a lot more complicated. All in all the proposed approach ensures that this 'intelligence' is generally available, and will be available on suitable and compatible license to all. It is also flexible to deal with all sorts of 'mis- information' which may have a habit of getting into the DB and can easily be filtered out by people who which to have a more restricted set of features. Regards, Peter > > Still an interesting tool. > > > Cheers, Chris > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
