<div>So I get the impression that everybody on this list seems pretty cool with the approach of using this script to aid in ensuring that the points entered in JOSM have good coordinates and have correct addresses to the best knowledge of the armchair mapper. It clearly isn't a waterfall import. If there are no more objections, on Friday I'll send an email to the imports mailing list describing the approach. Given that the script can be run by anyone and is not part of a bulk import that is done by a single user, I agree that we need some way to connote the source. However instead of a tag, why don't we just add a `source:import=NSW LPI Web Services` to the changeset? That way anybody seeing the history will know.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Given that there are 3.8 million addresses in total in NSW, assuming it took 1 second for somebody to add an address, it would take 440 days of non-stop work to add every single address. This is not exactly an exciting task! We can probably cover the city and immediate suburbs relatively quickly, but maybe it is worthwhile investigating the bulk import a bit more. Perhaps once Andrew Harvey finishes his work on openaddresses, we can use that data dump and follow the New Zealand approach of importing bit by bit - we can divide the dataset into an alphabetical list of suburbs, and then treat each suburb's import separately.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Ideas?<br></div><div><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user">Dion Moult<br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div> On June 18, 2018 9:23 PM, Dion Moult <dion@thinkmoult.com> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div>On June 18, 2018 8:56 PM, Warin <61sundowner@gmail.com> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="protonmail_quote"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/06/18 20:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On 18 June 2018 at 19:21, Dion Moult <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dion@thinkmoult.com" target="_blank">dion@thinkmoult.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Thanks Andrew for your reply!<br></div><div><br></div><div>1. Thanks for the link to the import guidelines. My
responses to the import guidelines below:<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>First up I think any changesets that import addresses
in this way should have an extra changeset tag so if we
need to we can identify which changesets did the import
(so more than just source=LPI NSW Base Map). Something
like import=NSW Address Points or something.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>source:import=LPI API via ?? something like that?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sure thing, I would be happy to if that is the appropriate thing to do :) <br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="protonmail_quote"><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure about separating the address with a ";"
like <span class="highlight" style="background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255)"><span class="size" style="font-size:small"><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593297556/history#map=19/-33.78072/151.06688&layers=N">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593297556/history#map=19/-33.78072/151.06688&layers=N</a></span></span>,
could they not be two separate points? If it's a duplex,
then I'd do it as a single building with
addr:housenumber=11, then if you want two nodes inside the
building for 11A and 11B.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>I have had separate buildings for A and B - share a common wall. In
some instances I have 11 then 11A .. but no B.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks for the advice! I've fixed it to use two nodes. However, please note that that particular building was not mapped as part of my import script proposal. That was mapped previously by me completely manually. If I had used the import script it would have created two nodes, one for 11A and one for 11B.<br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="protonmail_quote"><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>While I don't think there's anything wrong with 2/18 as
a first pass, eg <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5667899003">https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5667899003</a>,
I think it's better to use addr:unit=2
addr:housenumber=18. <br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks :) I was wondering what was a better way of doing that. Fixed :) Again as above this was mapped manually by me and not using the script.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="protonmail_quote"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div> 1. I am aware that big automatic updates can cause
problems. I will only import addr:housenumber and
addr:street and a single node.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What are you planning on doing where the address in
already in OSM? I think in this case we should just not
import that point and leave the existing OSM addresses.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Depends .. I have come across addresses that were out of sequence.
Contacted the still active mapper (moved to Germany) and had not
response .. after some months I have simple deleted them.<br></div><div>So it is worth checking that the new data is is not 'better' than
the present OSM data.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>With my proposal of a semi-automated approach, every single new address will have to be explicitly decided upon by a human mapper. A human mapper can decide when to import the point if the existing data look bad (based off the LPI Base Map raster background) and when to leave the existing OSM addresses.<br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="protonmail_quote"><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>2. Yes, you are absolutely right that this is not a
huge automatic import - it relies on a human choosing
what addresses to add and a human submitting it as a
change. All it does it automate the address lookup and
make sure that the node is neatly positioned at the
correct location. <br></div></blockquote><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>3. It looks like you're grabbing their entire
dataset. That would be the alternative approach, doing a
data dump, then importing that dump. This can import a
lot more addresses, but is also much more complex. Is it
worth pursuing? What do you reckon?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oh I'm not suggesting that. It makes sense for the
OpenAddresses project to use a complete extract, but as
you might have seen in the openaddresses ticket there's a
lot of problems trying to dump the data, so your approach
of doing it bit by bit should work much better for an OSM
import.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sounds good! Sorry for the misunderstanding :)<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="protonmail_quote"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>4. It seems odd that they would provide an API but
would prevent anything from using it.<br></div><div>5. Looks like they are doing the big data import. See
3.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not quite, they did it using the approach you've
described, broken it down into pices and manually imported
everything. <br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It might be good to do one section and let people have a look at it?<br></div><div>I do think you'll find it repetitive. Maybe take a break and map
something else for a while. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Good Luck.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, an incremental approach followed by regular review sounds good. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>