[Imports] NYC building + address import - to merge or not to merge?

Johan C osmned at gmail.com
Thu Oct 17 16:45:11 UTC 2013

> Well, as noted above, we won't be consistent, with manual mapping being
> done both ways.

That's correct from the stats. And from the wiki, which shows it's okay to
add addresses to the elements nodes and areas

This means the decision process 'to merge or not to merge' can be exercised
by the local community.

Cheers, Johan

ps I am however quite interested in the considerations the NYC community
uses for this decision, please share them

2013/10/17 Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com>

> I've been sitting on this message, running some stats, but here it is
> > From: Alex Barth [mailto:alex at mapbox.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 9:35 AM
> > To: Imports OpenStreetMap.org
> > Subject: [Imports] NYC building + address import - to merge or not to
> merge?
> >
> > Now there's reason to revisit this decision: the data steward (Colin
> > Reilly from NYC GIS) told me that NYC GIS took great care to place
> > addresses at about where the entrance of the building sits.
> A review of the data shows that this may be true for some buildings and
> addresses but is not true for others. As an example, see
> http://pnorman.dev.openstreetmap.org/imports/review/ny_buildings/positions.png
> .
> Some points are near addresses, some are near centroids, and some of
> them are strangely at the back.
> > Here is a comparison of the two options. I'd like to discuss and
> > decide at tonight's imports hangout.
> Note: Alex, Serge and myself discussed the import at length tonight.
> > ## Option 1: Merge addresses into buildings where possible
> >
> > ## Option 2: Always keep address points separate
> There is some repetition in the two sections, so I'm just going to extract
> and rearrange points. See
> http://lists.osm.org/pipermail/imports/2013-October/002275.html for the
> original text
> > a) [points] is the NYC GIS way, making it nicer for GIS folks to use OSM
> GIS folks will have to deal with both so this doesn't really give either
> method an advantage. There *will* be addresses on ways that they will
> have to deal with. Additionally NYC is only part of OSM, so they have to
> deal with practices elsewhere anyways.
> > a) we lose data [when merging points to buildings]
> I'd say the information lost is not significant, given that in many
> buildings the point is just the centroid or a random point within the
> building. It's not consistent enough to rely on for anything, as you've
> stated:
> > Note: it has been suggested to use the address location information to
> > tag an entrance. Unfortunately the data is not consistent enough to do
> > this.
> > b) Not regarding standing practice, merging addresses into buildings
> > is an exception from the generally applicable method of doing separate
> > address points.
> > b) [merging] makes it harder for NYC GIS to leverage OSM
> How so? Keep in mind that NYC GIS will have to deal with
> - Addresses collected manually without any import tags
> - Addresses on building ways
> - Addresses on building ways where neither the address or building way
>   comes from an import
> - Addresses on building ways where OSM has split up a structure
>   differently than they have
> For consumers other than NYC GIS, they'll be in the same position of
> multiple styles of mapping.
> > a) [Addresses on nodes inside buildings] diverges (but does not
>   violate) common OSM practice
> > a) [Addresses on ways] is how a lot of buildings are done in OSM
> Unfortunately statistics are distorted by imports, but I had a look at
> similar practices with merging and POIs with name=McDonald's.
> Of the 5523 locations which could be merged to building polygons, 3315, or
> 60% were. There were another 5205 locations which were unable to be merged
> onto a building, either because there were multiple POIs within the
> building, or there was no building mapped. The actual percentage may be
> higher as this I can imagine scenarios where the mapper knew there was
> another POI in the building but it wasn't mapped.
> Results for 80% for name=Walmart and 60% for name=Safeway.
> > Note right now we've imported data in both formats :p I'm not worried
> > about this and I'll commit to make sure in the end we're consistent.
> Well, as noted above, we won't be consistent, with manual mapping being
> done both ways.
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing list
> Imports at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20131017/903295a0/attachment.html>

More information about the Imports mailing list