[talk-au] Using roads dataset from data.sa.gov.au

Daniel O'Connor daniel.oconnor at gmail.com
Tue Mar 10 01:30:46 UTC 2015


https://github.com/CloCkWeRX/osm-scripts/tree/add_maproulette is what I
started last night.

Biggest missing part is a persistent identifier, because I manipulated the
samples via JOSM first (thus nuking a repeatable task id); and it's not
100% clear around if I should be creating One Big Task GeoJSON or a lot of
little ones.

I doubt my ruby script is going to scale well to the whole dataset either;
so if you wanted to produce .geojson in the format of
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CloCkWeRX/osm-scripts/add_maproulette/maproulette/task.json

then the rest is pretty easy!

See http://dev.maproulette.org/api/challenges?return_inactive=1 for the
project stub.

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Henry Haselgrove <haselgrove at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I agree… with a dataset this large prioritisation is important. All your
> specific suggestions for culling parts from missing.osm sound good. It
> would be easy to add an option to the scripts to exclude highway={primary,
> secondary, track}. And the suggestions you made via github look good too.
>
>
>
> However, I think that some more significant changes to the script should
> be done before this data is unleased onto maproulette. The roads that are
> currently in missing.osm fall (more or less) under three categories:
>
>                 -- roads that are completely absent in OSM
>
>                 -- roads that appear in OSM, but have an empty name
>
>                 -- roads that appear in OSM and have a non-empty name
> which is different to the datasa name, either because OSM is wrong or
> datasa is wrong (or because both are right, such as “Mount Magnificent
> Road” versus “Mt. Magnificent Road”)
>
>
>
> I propose to modify the script to automatically exclude as much as
> possible from the third category. Because, it will be hard for an armchair
> mapper to decide whether OSM or datasa is wrong in those cases. I could try
> to do this over the coming week.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure I agree that the Adelaide metro area should be given
> particular priority over other areas. But I’m probably biased, since I grew
> up in rural SA!
>
>
>
> Probably we should make a posting to the osm “imports” list before too
> much longer, to let them know what we’re thinking.
>
>
>
> *From:* Daniel O'Connor [mailto:daniel.oconnor at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, 9 March 2015 5:32 AM
> *To:* Henry Haselgrove
> *Cc:* Alex Sims; OSM Australian Talk List
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Using roads dataset from data.sa.gov.au
>
>
>
> So, after doing this manually for a bit; it's generally working well.
>
>
>
> There are some where spot checking against other sources suggests the
> dataset is wrong, how do you suggest we indicate these?
>
>
>
> I've put in NOTE or FIXME on the relevant way.
>
>
>
>
>
> The thing that is troubling me is the size of the dataset - a few hours
> work barely makes a dent.
>
>
>
> I've taken to deleting all Primary/Trunk, Secondary and Track ways from
> the data set; and then cropping stuff down to the metro adelaide area; and
> it's still very sizable.
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd be *really* keen on maproulette at this point - you seem to be able
> to produce updated files fairly regularly, adding a few bash scripts to
> turn that into curl friendly statements seems achievable.
>
>
>
> Going to start sending a few pull requests your way to get us started on
> this.
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20150310/61ba84b4/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list