<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>On 1/12/2021 12:09 AM, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:36c09e6a-0b9a-464f-b759-4454bce07ef5@dead10ck.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<span style="font-family:sans-serif">Hi everyone. If there are no
objections, I'd like to begin importing some data within the
next few days. I've moved the wiki page to a subpage of New
York, and I've added it to the Import Catalogue. I've also made
a dedicated user account for the import named
"nysgissam_dead10ck". I've been given access to create projects
on the US HOT Tasking Manager, so I'll make a project there
before beginning, and paste the link here, so progress can be
tracked.</span> <br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:sans-serif">As I mentioned, my plan is to
start with a single county and apply more scrutiny to the data.
This will allow me opportunities to detect bugs and corner cases
in my conversion program before uploading the data. If I
eventually get to a point where I'm happy with the data, I'll
consider asking everyone if it would be appropriate to automate
the import.</span></blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>[ The new wiki page is
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_York/NYS_GIS_SAM_Address_Points_Import">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_York/NYS_GIS_SAM_Address_Points_Import</a>
]</p>
<p>Hi Skyler, I'm a mapper active in the Catskills (mostly Ulster
County) and in NYC. I'm happy to see this import plan progressing!
Some comments below.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Re: Tagging Plans<br>
</p>
<p>I feel there's little value in importing addr:state=NY with these
addresses, since we have well-mapped state borders and the state
is
also unambiguously encoded in the ZIP code. I wonder if there are
good examples of addresses that would truly benefit from this
field, possibly on properties that are very near state lines. (We
also share a border with Canada of course, so perhaps a similar
case could be made for addr:country in the northern reaches of
Franklin and Clinton counties.)</p>
<p>I like your plan to use the value of nysgissam:review to specify
why the review is deemed necessary. I'd love to see a list of the
possible values, but I assume that's still evolving.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Re: Data Reduction & Conflation<br>
</p>
<p>"... checked against an Overpass API for whether the address
already exists within a short distance of the point. If any
element with the same house number, street, or unit exists, then
the address point is skipped." Perhaps I'm misreading this, but it
seems to say you will not import an address point if you find
another element nearby tagged with the same addr:street? I'd
expect to see many instances where a currently-mapped address
neighbors an unmapped address on the same street, sometimes quite
nearby in dense areas. This sounds like it might exclude a lot of
valid addresses.</p>
<p>What's your reasoning behind not conflating address points that
lie within a building:part? Not a big issue I presume, just
curious.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Re: Modifying Existing Elements</p>
<p>Personally I would love to see city and ZIP added to
currently-mapped addresses that lack them. Maybe also consider
flagging for review when currently-mapped values don't match the
SAM values. I'm less keen on adding nysgissam:nysaddresspointid to
addresses that didn't originate with this import, since I'd like
to be able to tell at a glance if a given address was mapped or
imported. Perhaps there could be some variation in the tagging...
nysgissam:imported_addressid versus nysgissam:matched_addressid?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Re: Addresses of new developments</p>
<p>It makes sense to add addresses to parcels where construction has
actually commenced, but IMO adding recordkeeping addresses to
completely undeveloped land strains the spirit of OSM a bit. If
there's truly no way to distinguish between these two types of
development status, I feel that the upside of importing them
probably still outweighs the downside. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Numbered Routes</p>
<p>Browsing through the online map of the SAM address points (
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgisservices.its.ny.gov%2Farcgis%2Frest%2Fservices%2FSAM_Address_Points%2FMapServer&source=sd">http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgisservices.its.ny.gov%2Farcgis%2Frest%2Fservices%2FSAM_Address_Points%2FMapServer&source=sd</a>
) I see a lot of variation on how the numbered routes, and the
street names of the associated address points, are named. Eg,
Route 23, State Route 23, State Highway 23. And of course the
current data on OSM is just as messy. I can't help but think this
might be a good time to discuss standardizing these statewide.<br>
</p>
<p>Similarly for US routes: Route 6, United States Route 6, United
States Highway 6.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>New York City</p>
<p>There was a full import of building footprints and conflated
address data for all 5 NYC boros in 2013, from the city's own open
data. Wondering if there's any special consideration given to
integrating with these, or is it better to just wall it off and
work strictly from the city's data?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>...These are the questions that occurred so far. They do not
constitute an objection to beginning a small test import! Good
luck and keep us informed. When this begins to roll out for real,
I hope to be able to assist with the import and/or QA labor.<br>
</p>
<p>Thanks, Jason</p>
</body>
</html>