It would indeed be a shame if we/they just ignored the not:name data - I grep'd the current Great Britain OSM dataset and there's 1054 instances of k="not:name", which is not insignificant. (If anyone wants to see the results download it in zipped txt format http://tiiiim.com/osm/<goog_1770857475> not_name.zip - I got grep to also provide the line immediately before and after the k="not:name" instance for some context.)
Tim On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Peter Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > great news. > > Regarding the not:name tag at the OS, I think we need to be a bit patient. > The OS is a large organisation and do take time to change. They are actually > changing fast at present and have expressed enthusiasm for the not:name > technique and I think it is just a matter of us using it for some time while > it gets into their systems. We are going to do some more analysis on it at > some point and will be working with the OS of the processes. It would be > shame if we gave up using it before they got into listening! In the mean > time it is a useful way of stopping people checking a conflict that someone > else has already determined is a error on their part. > > > > Regards, > > > Peter > > > On 3 October 2010 17:47, Tim Francois <[email protected]> wrote: > >> All, >> >> >> 1. If there are any heroes left using >> oslVosm<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm> [1] >> to compare OSM data with OS Locator data, I've just updated the script a >> little so that it now honours the not:name tags. Any highways which >> include >> a not:name tag are automatically assumed to be 100% correct in OSM, >> whatever >> OSL says, and are ignored in any further comparisons. This assumption may >> have to be reviewed at a later date... >> 2. Anyone else using/noticed that the Locator data has been stealthily >> 'updated'? I remember Robert writing something about it a while back, but >> can't remember the conversation. In Bristol, a load of roads seem to have >> disappeared, whilst some more have been added. All in all, there were >> about >> 10 more roads than in the '2009' release. Anyone else notice differences? >> 3. not:name. Are many people using it? Is it working? And are these >> being sent back to OS? The reason I added it to oslVosm is that it seems >> to >> be being used here in Bristol, so it is useful for 'accurate' numbers. >> >> For those that may not be aware, oslVosm is a script which compares OSM >> data against OS Locator data, and can output a gpx, kml or wiki file of any >> discrepancies. It also tries to do some spell checking if it finds similar >> names. It is primarily aimed at people with a programming tilt, as it only >> works from the command line (and probably only in Linux). For those who want >> an easy to use interface, use Robert's excellent Musical Chairs [2] web >> interface or ITOs slippy map layer in Potlatch or JOSM [3]. >> >> Cheers >> Tim >> >> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm >> [2] http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map and >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#Browseable_OS_Locator_to_OSM_comparison_with_fuzzy_matching >> [3] >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#OSM_and_OSL_Differences_as_Background_Tiles >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
