[talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?

Daniel O'Connor daniel.oconnor at gmail.com
Fri Jul 2 15:09:14 UTC 2021


>
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear here. It is hard to have a public, free access road
> 'stuck between' two private roads. That means it is not possible to come to
> the public road in any possible way. Cleary's claimed that basically, every
> unnamed road is private, which I'm providing an example of that is hard to
> be the case if you look in government data. This is an example of the
> situation: https://prnt.sc/17ucsdg. It's hard to have private roads
> marked as red and public (free access) roads marked as white.
>
>
>
> I do not know how many changesets the team made on top of my head, but I
> have provided an exact number of segments that need some change. I have
> also claimed there are 1,244 individual roads (mapped as 2,523 segments)
> with* classification errors*. Still, it won't prevent any routing thru it
> if we just adjust their classification in the form of unclassified|residential
> > service + service=driveway (if/where applicable). This is why this
> topic turned its course to access=private|destination way.
>
>
>
> I hope this clarifies some things.
>
>
>

It does, but perhaps in a way you dont quite intend.

I intepret this as you've put 2500+ classification errors into the map.
I'm extremely unclear how you dont consider this detrimental to map quality
in the region, because one scenario - routing - affects 350/2500?
I mean, you'd be uncomfortable if you drove into an area and had a 5-14%
chance of getting bogged; because it was a dubiously maintained road; and
then you ring for help only to find you are trespassing too, right?

If your team have added highway unclassified or residential and it doesnt
overlap with the data.sa.gov dataset; *thats the scenario you are invoking*

>From what I've looked at, this appears to be the case.

Happy to be corrected here, but when you say things like "Cleary's claimed
that basically, every unnamed road is private" then tell someone with local
context they are "wrong" because of assumptions you've made; possibly from
flawed sources, rather than local context, law, or another provable set of
assumptions... thats not a great outcome.

> Thanks,
>
> Nemanja
>
>
>
> *From:* Daniel O'Connor <daniel.oconnor at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, July 2, 2021 4:05 PM
> *To:* Nemanja Bracko (E-Search) <v-nebrac at microsoft.com>
> *Cc:* Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>; OSM Australian Talk
> List <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification
> contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
>
>
>
>
>
> Before starting any mapping activity, we have downloaded the same file
> from the SA gov site that you were referring to.
>
> The second example is easy to fix – all you need is to extend the road
> name along the driveway/street – and that's it. However, there's no chance
> to know where the road's name starts and where it ends for the first
> example.
>
>
>
>
>
> Uh. The data.sa.gov.au
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.sa.gov.au%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C553c7461d4244b9b2a0e08d93d6278e9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637608316059210517%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=PUf2vMuAs6vOIpIvWkECBso3rfGCc7Anl8k8nyob7WQ%3D&reserved=0>
> file contains both names and geometry of the road. They *also* reflect this
> same dataset through location.sa.gov.au
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flocation.sa.gov.au%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C553c7461d4244b9b2a0e08d93d6278e9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637608316059210517%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=zuSR2Fc3Jq6kLFKOdABQKD9%2F4UBuGPELGZyUA746Sog%3D&reserved=0>;
> and while we cant use the latter in OSM, it very neatly describes where the
> believe a road intersects a parcel of owned land.
>
> Broadly, the data.sa.gov.au
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.sa.gov.au%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C553c7461d4244b9b2a0e08d93d6278e9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637608316059220518%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=TyO1clv06MaBIGkW%2FDF8lYtwRmsSKIwNDTo8Z34WE14%3D&reserved=0>
> file strongly reflects the on the ground access as they understand it - it
> overlaps very heavily with the gazetted streets.
>
>
>
> Extending a name along a driveway; based on satellite imagery is the wrong
> approach.
>
>
>
>
>
> ... since these roads would technically float. Also, all of these roads
> would be unreachable since these are public (searchable) roads 'stuck
> between' private roads.
>
> You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the title system in
> Australia.
>
> Council/gov maintained roads - free access.
>
> Something else? Very likely private, permissive, or destination. The
> likelyhood of highway residential in the middle of a cattle station with
> everything else private? very small.
>
>
>
> There are ~2000+ changesets your team has done. Perhaps only 350 of them
> added connectivity, but from sampling; many, many more added wrongly
> classified roads on the changesets I looked at (approx 50, 75% or so added
> highway=residential, unclassified, etc).
>
>
>
> Unfortunately at this point the onus is on your team to prove to a high
> degree their mapping is accurate; and beyond your particular use cases
> alone; vs folks like myself who go places based on the data and try not to
> get arrested.
>
>
>
> The through routing is only a singular scenario, there are other current
> ones such as wandrer.org
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwandrer.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C553c7461d4244b9b2a0e08d93d6278e9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637608316059230515%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=N1yVtYZRi%2BysRe%2F4iBc3js6hCOsoS644YPaT1wM%2B%2BFI%3D&reserved=0>
> - a data consumer that encourages you to explore every public road.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   We recognized that some of these roads might be classified even as
> tracks. The government dataset identifies these segments as regular roads,
> but it is clear that some of these are tracks.
>
>
>
> The problem regarding private roads still stays an open question as it was
> for months now. We had the same online and offline discussion before, and
> there were no conclusions or consensus on fighting this problem. My team
> will not add any new roads now, but editors will go back and fix these ~350
> roads. We are very thankful for provided feedback, and we will try not to
> produce such issues in the future since we are trying to follow all
> community rules and be completely open and transparent.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nemanja
>
>
>
> *From:* Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-au <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 29, 2021 11:21 AM
> *Cc:* OSM Australian Talk List <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification
> contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jun 28, 2021, 13:18 by talk-au at openstreetmap.org:
>
> We have to fix these 349 roads that provide connectivity and do not have
> any barrier tag. We can adjust their classification in the form of unclassified|residential
> > service + service=driveway (if/where applicable), but we *cannot* add
> any access=private|destination tags since we do not have ground truth.
>
> If it is highly likely/almost certain that roads are inaccessible then
> maybe
>
>
>
> access=private + fixme="verify is access really private, road mapped from
> aerial imagery"
>
>
>
> or
>
>
>
> access=unknown
>
>
>
> would be a good idea? Especially in cases where misleading marking road as
> accessible
>
> can cause direct risk to life, and as I understand this is a situation in
> remote Australia?
>
>
>
> When I map amenity=parking from aerial images I ususaly add access=unknown
> where
>
> private access is quite likely?
>
>
>
> (disclaimer: I never visited Australia)
>
> (disclaimer: access=unknown for roads is - as far as I know - not a
> standard tagging)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cleary osm at 97k.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 2:12 AM
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification
> contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?
>
>
>
> Nemanjo
>
>
>
> I have a strong contrary view.  I have mapped some isolated parts of South
> Australia, although not recently. Routing vehicles onto private roads
> creates significant issues for farmers, including threats to biosecurity.
> It can also endanger naive motorists to send them onto (sometimes
> impassable) tracks well out of phone range in any emergency. Adding such
> roads discredits OSM as a usable data source for many users.
>
>
>
> Further, the Government of South Australia has been most generous in
> making a lot of data available to OSM, long before other Australian
> jurisdictions. Available data includes Roads (
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.data.sa.gov.au%2Fdataset%2Froads&data=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7Cb90613c106cb433c9b0208d93a9339fd%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637605226327455895%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=QX2FnOP975CDBfwbElUqKwcqpg3ttgA%2F0RFi6BOoKvk%3D&reserved=0
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.data.sa.gov.au%2Fdataset%2Froads&data=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C553c7461d4244b9b2a0e08d93d6278e9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637608316059240507%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=%2B9Qj3KaV%2FoiWT%2BpJetCmrz6hnbkmVeJHhoNgKXdxqdw%3D&reserved=0>)
> which shows a lot of information including the class of roads and names
> (where applicable). The data also shows extensive tracks that could be used
> by private owners or emergency services etc but are not public roads.
> Public roads will have a class such as LOCL (local roads) or HWY (highway)
> and they have names.
>
>
>
> From my experience "on the ground", any road in that database which is
> unnamed is almost certainly not intended for public access.  Your team
> could refer to this data source and ensure that unnamed roads are shown as
> access=private.
>
>
>
> Please keep OSM showing usable and helpful data rather than discredit it
> with data that can alienate farmers, endanger their stock and crops, and
> also endanger road users.
>
>
>
> Michael Cleary
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-au&data=04%7C01%7Cv-nebrac%40microsoft.com%7C553c7461d4244b9b2a0e08d93d6278e9%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637608316059240507%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=gOUnKArI6HAT2%2BRN2TyP3%2BWWxonRTEcxppUbHA89%2FH4%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20210703/e80c6567/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list