[Imports] [Talk-us-newyork] Draft proposal for import of New York State GIS SAM Address Points

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Sat Jan 9 17:48:48 UTC 2021


Aside to Richard Welty:  Did we ever hear back from NYSGIS with some sort
of statement that use of their data is OK?  NYS Orthos Online got dropped
from iD, if memory serves, because the team demanded more assurance than
what we had.

On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 12:56 AM Skyler Hawthorne <osm at dead10ck.com> wrote:

> A while back, I posted a thread expressing interest in importing the New
> York State GIS SAM Address Points:
>
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-newyork/2020-July/000058.html
>
> I've made some good progress, and I think it's at the point now where it's
> ready for others to look at. I've made a draft proposal on my user wiki
> page here:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Dead10ck/NYS_GIS_SAM_Address_Points_Import
>
> I thought I'd share this before moving it to a subpage of New York, and
> adding it to the catalogue wiki page, as I'm not sure it has all the
> information that is expected of these pages.
>
> In particular, one thing I could use some more clarity on is: what do
> people usually use to split up and track work for imports? I saw the HOT
> Tasking Manager, but it seems like not just anyone can make projects on
> this tool. Am I supposed to just ask someone to make a project for me, or
> give me permission to make one myself, or is there another tool people use?
>
> A sample of the data from this converter program can be downloaded here:
>
>
> https://skyler-public.s3.amazonaws.com/osm/nys_gis_address_points_import_sample_east_north_greenbush.zip
>

I still have some questions about conflation, because there are some odd
cases that are pretty common in that data set.

There's some delay in actually propagating updates into the distributed
E911 address points.  For instance, the addresses along
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813453708 were surely not in the database
when I mapped them. The subdivision isn't finished yet, and I have no
aerials showing it.  I put on my "urban camouflage" (orange vest, hard hat,
work boots, clipboard) and walked through. It was sort-of open to the
public. The roads were done and there were a couple of model houses built.
You could stop in and get shown around. I was followed for a while by a
late-model Lincoln driven by a lady who had 'realtor' written all over her.
Eventually she got bored.  Every building lot was marked with a stake with
the house number, and I snagged coordinates from those.  How likely am I to
have caused trouble down the road with failed conflations?

Apartment and condominium complexes are mapped inconsistently.  For
instance, the building numbers for
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/491144551 are just strung out at
more-or-less equally-spaced intervals on the entrance road. The
housenumbers were visible on the buildings, and I mapped them on the
buildings. Likely to cause trouble? (Also, there's a spurious "1515
Hillside Avenue" on the junction of the entrance road.

The next subdivision over, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/491144554, has
the county showing neat clusters of address points - that are not even
close to being aligned with the buildings. The building numbers stop with
608. Christian Court is not shown, and there's a spurious "1503 Hillside
Avenue" on the entrance road.

The next one over, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/553341585 has a
spurious '1453 Hillside Avenue' in the middle of the complex. I know that
the buildings have addresses on Alice Wagner Way, that are not shown. I
didn't trouble to record them when I walked the neighbourhood, because
ordinarily I can recover housenumbers from the county. Not this time! One
of these months I'll make it back in there and grab them.

There are also some fantasies in the data.  In the vicinity of
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/553341585 there is a chain of points
strung out along an entirely fictitious 'Greylock Avenue' (which I presume
belongs to a subdivision for which planning permission was refused. Some of
the nodes are in land that now belongs to the township.) The
varous government GIS departments have goofed here as well. There are two
buildings with Becker Drive addresses and one with an Alandale Avenue
address that are misidentified as being on this fictitious street. (Caveat
- I actually need to get in there and recheck. I'm quite certain that the
street does not exist, but less certain that there are no buildings with
addresses on it.)

None of these things are showstoppers; it's mostly better than what we
have.  But it's good to look at the edge cases and make sure that we at
least do something reasonable - and in particular, to make sure that we
don't spoil work that mappers have already done.


-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20210109/e1202e18/attachment.htm>


More information about the Imports mailing list