Peter I have been using the excellent analysis tool to try to complete roads data in my Borough (Enfield). I am now left with some that need a further very careful walk/bike survey. This is to deal with parts of North Circular and Hertford Road with weird combinations of road/ref names according to OS. I also have several spellers from OS data that are wrong and thus need reporting and will stop achievement of 100% till they are agreed/changed/reloaded (eg Smtyhe Close). I have looked on wiki and Ito blog for info on reporting these not:names but can't find info anywhere. Can you please point me to some info? Keep up the grand work.
Cheers STEVE ________________________________ From: Peter Miller [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 9:36 AM To: Tom Chance Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding a further 250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot? On 3 February 2011 08:47, Tom Chance <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 2 February 2011 21:10, Peter Miller <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: It could do the following: 1) Add names to existing roads in osm where there is a single un-named ways in osm with a bounding box which matches that of a single entry in os locator. 2) In addition... it might be able to also add roads to osm from os vector district, snapping them into existing roads as required where the existing roads align neatly with os streetview. It would only do this if there were no ways close by on either side. Complex situations will be left to humans. Humans could also sometimes prepare an area for analysis by the bot, splitting ways as appropriate, adjusting alignment of existing roads and dealing in advance with situations we know the bot will have difficulties with. Edits would be made as individual changesets, referenced to the mapper operating of the bot. Each edit would be 'signed off' by the mapper who would be able to see the proposed changes visual prior to accepting them. To be clear, ITO are not proposing to write this bot but we would be happy to encourage and support it to happen if there is a general mood that it would be useful and achievable. I'd be happy to review a few of these edits for Gwynedd, I've no objection if it works. On another ITO-analysis note, Peter you are driving me slightly potty because new road "errors" keep popping up. I presume this is because of new OS data? Just when I thought I had all of Southwark bar the north east ear sorted, another six errors pop up. Grr. Don't worry - this will only happen once every three months when the OS publish an updated OS Locator file. We updated to the latest OS Locator version (dated November 10) last night, hence a few places have fallen off their '100% perch'! We should be due another one reasonably soon I guess and may get it up sooner. In time I hope that we will find that some of our 'not:name' reports will have been fixed by the OS. I hear that the OS is getting much more receptive to this whole Open Data thing. One layer I would like ITO to produce would be the reverse OS Locator view, which would be for the OS's use (and our amusement!). It would show all the named roads that are in OSM but which are not in the OS. They would then need to research why that is the case and update their own products (without compromising our license). Regards, Peter Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
