2014-11-19 19:14 GMT+00:00 Dave F. <[email protected]>: > On 19/11/2014 09:42, Shaun McDonald wrote: >> >> There have been many places knocked off the 100% completeness, with 17 >> areas now below 95% complete. Overall completeness is currently 98.00%. > > > Thanks for that. It's a really useful resource to check against. However... > > No gazette/database is ever fully accurate. Everything contains errors. So > I'm somewhat surprised when I see an area listed as 100%. It implies users > have blindly transferred across without checking in the real world. For > example in my area there's a street supposedly called 'roman road' I'm born > & bred & never heard it called that. There's no roads or building signs, the > local authority, emergency services, or newspaper ever describe it that way. > A couple of others are where named rows of buildings are assumed to be the > street name, but are signed differently on the ground. > > Dave F.
Where OS data doesn't match OSM properly-surveyed data, we can put OS's version in "not:name" if it's just wrong, or "alt_name" if it's known but not the main name. Shaun's analysis can make use of these other tags to avoid counting differences that have already been checked. If you look at one chosen area you can see a separate column for "not name" in Shaun's analysis - so it looks to me like they are indeed using my not:name annotations, hoorah! Look at all these entries which are NOT causing false positives! http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/area?name=Redbridge Best Dan _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
