[talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 71, Issue 26
Li Xia
lisxia1982 at gmail.com
Tue May 28 05:19:50 UTC 2013
Ian,
Interested to know how and what tools you use to extract data for this type of analysis.
Li.
On 27/05/2013, at 10:00 PM, talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Australia licence change redaction recovery.. (Steve Bennett)
> 2. Re: Australia licence change redaction recovery.. (Ben Johnson)
> 3. Re: Australia licence change redaction recovery.. (Brett Russell)
> 4. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 71, Issue 25 (Li Xia)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 22:26:34 +1000
> From: Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>
> To: Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com>
> Cc: OSM - Talk-au <Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Australia licence change redaction recovery..
> Message-ID:
> <CA+z=q=vXqgP7z9-3BDewSOLcdChDCLEVN6ETHwNGPU--zdz2rQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, my summary would be that we've probably comprehensively remapped he
>> motorways and trunk roads across the country. We've got significantly more
>> tracks, paths and residential/unclassified roads than we had before. There
>> would seem to be artifacts of extensive aerial remapping, with the lower
>> percentage overall of named roads, and what I'm thinking could be a
>> consequent tendency to underrate what passes for a secondary road in
>> Australia. I'd also attribute greater mapping outside of urban areas to the
>> more extensive bing imagery coverage, and possibly the focus of the
>> redaction process on urban areas.
>
>
> Thanks very much for doing this - I've been quite curious about where
> we're up to. I had guessed we were about on par - so this is good
> news. I've been doing a fair bit of aerial mapping lately - not sure
> whether remapping or not. I tend to be pretty conservative with road
> classifications on a first pass. Later, I might look at the area and
> upgrade a couple of the roads.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:05:39 +1000
> From: Ben Johnson <tangararama at gmail.com>
> To: Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com>
> Cc: OSM - Talk-au <Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Australia licence change redaction recovery..
> Message-ID: <16F9FD5A-A1BF-47F2-AB39-C5BE9CD34BE2 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Ian,
>
> Thanks very much for doing this exercise.
>
> I agree with all the sentiments already expressed - it's so encouraging to see we bounced back so fast, and so strong, and that all our efforts have made a difference. Everyone in the project should feel very proud of what we achieved.
>
> BJ
>
>
> On 25/05/2013, at 9:08 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I crunched some numbers comparing AU planet extracts from today and prior to the redaction commencing. Although they were for my personal edification, I thought I'd share them.
>>
>> We have about 70,000 km of additional mapped unclassified and residential road now than we did before the redaction process - that is an increase in distance of about 27%. In terms of distance of named roads in this category, we're about where we were before the redaction in absolute terms.
>>
>> Trunk and motorways there is no significant variation. The number of kilometres of mapped road and named roads in this category is roughly unchanged.
>>
>> In primary, secondary, and tertiary, we've had an increase in mapped distance of 35,000km, or around 20%. Although we've seen a significant decrease in the number of secondary roads, and marked increase in the mapped km of tertiary roads. Our post-redaction remappers have a tendency towards tertiary roads, it would seem. Our length of named roads in this category is up in actual kilometres, but down on a relative basis.
>>
>> In paths, tracks, footways and cycleways and service roads our mapped distance is also up, We've seen huge increases in mapped tracks - closing on double what we had before.
>>
>> So, my summary would be that we've probably comprehensively remapped he motorways and trunk roads across the country. We've got significantly more tracks, paths and residential/unclassified roads than we had before. There would seem to be artifacts of extensive aerial remapping, with the lower percentage overall of named roads, and what I'm thinking could be a consequent tendency to underrate what passes for a secondary road in Australia. I'd also attribute greater mapping outside of urban areas to the more extensive bing imagery coverage, and possibly the focus of the redaction process on urban areas.
>>
>> Of course, this is all quantitative data, not qualitative. Take it for what it is. My summary is just a guess, and I can't say with any certainty that the increase in distance isn't just fence posts on the Kimberley!
>>
>> Ian.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:09:43 +1000
> From: Brett Russell <brussell237 at live.com.au>
> Cc: OSM - Talk-au <Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Australia licence change redaction recovery..
> Message-ID: <BLU403-EAS90AB5DB40302A53C3C949DAF960 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Yes thanks to all. Great to see the connecting roads reinstated and the routing largely back in action. Still a lot of minor roads missing with weird nodes scattered around but no great problem cleaning up.
>
> As more a bushwalker I mainly concentrate on tracks and geographical features but wonderful that the road infrastructure is nearly always there to connect into.
>
> Cheers
> Brett Russell
> PO Box 94
> Launceston Tas. 7250
> Australia
> 0419 374 971
>
> On 27/05/2013, at 11:07 AM, "Ben Johnson" <tangararama at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ian,
>>
>> Thanks very much for doing this exercise.
>>
>> I agree with all the sentiments already expressed - it's so encouraging to see we bounced back so fast, and so strong, and that all our efforts have made a difference. Everyone in the project should feel very proud of what we achieved.
>>
>> BJ
>>
>>
>> On 25/05/2013, at 9:08 PM, Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I crunched some numbers comparing AU planet extracts from today and prior to the redaction commencing. Although they were for my personal edification, I thought I'd share them.
>>>
>>> We have about 70,000 km of additional mapped unclassified and residential road now than we did before the redaction process - that is an increase in distance of about 27%. In terms of distance of named roads in this category, we're about where we were before the redaction in absolute terms.
>>>
>>> Trunk and motorways there is no significant variation. The number of kilometres of mapped road and named roads in this category is roughly unchanged.
>>>
>>> In primary, secondary, and tertiary, we've had an increase in mapped distance of 35,000km, or around 20%. Although we've seen a significant decrease in the number of secondary roads, and marked increase in the mapped km of tertiary roads. Our post-redaction remappers have a tendency towards tertiary roads, it would seem. Our length of named roads in this category is up in actual kilometres, but down on a relative basis.
>>>
>>> In paths, tracks, footways and cycleways and service roads our mapped distance is also up, We've seen huge increases in mapped tracks - closing on double what we had before.
>>>
>>> So, my summary would be that we've probably comprehensively remapped he motorways and trunk roads across the country. We've got significantly more tracks, paths and residential/unclassified roads than we had before. There would seem to be artifacts of extensive aerial remapping, with the lower percentage overall of named roads, and what I'm thinking could be a consequent tendency to underrate what passes for a secondary road in Australia. I'd also attribute greater mapping outside of urban areas to the more extensive bing imagery coverage, and possibly the focus of the redaction process on urban areas.
>>>
>>> Of course, this is all quantitative data, not qualitative. Take it for what it is. My summary is just a guess, and I can't say with any certainty that the increase in distance isn't just fence posts on the Kimberley!
>>>
>>> Ian.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 16:31:32 +1000
> From: Li Xia <lisxia1982 at gmail.com>
> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 71, Issue 25
> Message-ID: <D81CAD60-516D-414F-9497-E6CB329C29B8 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Provided that licensing is all good, how can the data be imported into OSM? What can be done to ensure there's minimal duplicates?
>
> Li.
>
> On 26/05/2013, at 10:00 PM, talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
>
>> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
>> talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> talk-au-owner at openstreetmap.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: data.sa.gov.au (Alex Sims)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 21:35:55 +0930
>> From: Alex Sims <alex at softgrow.com>
>> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [talk-au] data.sa.gov.au
>> Message-ID: <51A0A923.8090206 at softgrow.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> I'm just writing an email now to seek a similar agreement for
>> sa.data.gov.au as for data.gov.au
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On 25/05/2013 5:23 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>>>
>>> The only issue with CC BY is that some data owners believe that
>>> attribution "reasonable to the medium" is more than the ODbL
>>> guarantees which allows "notices in a location ... where users would
>>> be likely to look for it" such as a wiki page linked from /copyright
>>> or in the case of produced works, a "notice ... reasonably calculated
>>> to make [anyone] aware that Content was obtained from the Database"
>>> (The "Database" in that quote would be what was provided under CC BY).
>>>
>>> Some cities releasing data as CC BY insisted that only mention on any
>>> page where the map was viewed was reasonable, which is clearly
>>> unreasonable when there can be dozens of sources on one page, or even
>>> hundreds.
>>>
>>> *From:*Ian Sergeant [mailto:inas66+osm at gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:09 AM
>>> *To:* Daniel O'Connor
>>> *Cc:* talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] data.sa.gov.au
>>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> The first step should be to find out if they are willing to have their
>>> data relicenced under our licence?
>>>
>>> CC-BY data is nice, and means that the data owner is likely only
>>> seeking attribution (which we do provide) but my understanding is that
>>> it is still insufficient for us to use without further permission from
>>> the data owner. Pointers to our attribution page have worked in the
>>> past in gaining such permission.
>>>
>>> Ian.
>>>
>>> On 24 May 2013 18:58, Daniel O'Connor <daniel.oconnor at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:daniel.oconnor at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The SA govt has joined many of the other state/local governments in
>>> publishing open data.
>>>
>>> The current implementation is powered by CKAN, and though I haven't
>>> seen it yet, appears to be leveraging openstreetmap / cloudmade in
>>> some fashion.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the majority of the data sets are CC-A licensed, and in either
>>> CSV or Shapefile format:
>>>
>>> Some initial things that might be worth importing/using as a
>>> reference/looking into:
>>>
>>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/major-and-minor-roads
>>>
>>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/library-locations
>>>
>>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/parks-and-reserves
>>>
>>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/sa-playgrounds
>>>
>>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/stormwater-nodes
>>>
>>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/surface-water-catchments
>>>
>>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/suburb-boundaries
>>>
>>> and of course:
>>>
>>> http://www.data.sa.gov.au/dataset/centrelink-office-locations
>>>
>>> Not sure how much overlap with data.gov.au <http://data.gov.au> data
>>> sets (assume some).
>>>
>>> Anyone want to have a look around and
>>>
>>> 1) Call out the things you think are missing
>>>
>>> 2) Call out the things you'd want to have imported or manually
>>> transcribed into open street map
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20130525/139116b6/attachment-0001.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>>
>> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 71, Issue 25
>> ***************************************
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 71, Issue 26
> ***************************************
More information about the Talk-au
mailing list