[OSM-talk-be] Address stats in Belgium
Glenn Plas
glenn at byte-consult.be
Mon Apr 15 20:55:12 UTC 2013
It doesn't matter where they are , you still have to put those tags on a
relation, so they better be in the correct city to start with ... Wrong
postal codes, wrong city.... I would rather _NOT_ have wrong ones than
the 'close enough for me' type of data. My point was introducing wrong
data.... I admit I'm not a fan of the associatedStreet relation. I just
recently learned it makes it even easier for some to f#ck up my work by
'correcting' a streetRelation that wasn't broken. Now it's even more
easy to destroy 'en mass' in a single mouse click.
There are some amazing josm plugins (Address plugin, adress mapcss etc)
to help you do this without pain. We are all repeating 'building=yes'
on a building, it's not because we put millions of this on the map that
this tag get's to be valued less now than before? It's because it's
needed and gives useful info. Why would your thoughts be any different
for the addr:street tag that carry much more useful info than a mere
'building=yes'. So no, I don't think we are 'repeating' data, we are
detailing it as such ...
I sometimes believe I'm the only one in Belgium using OSM data in a
non-mapping fashion like geocoding.
There are working JOSM plugins that make sure you'll never ever have to
type the streetname, you just select the named road + addr node +
building and press = shift-T
See the Terracer plugin.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Terracer
But also, the FixAddresses plugin.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/FixAddresses
I just wished it supported AssociatedStreet relations, same goes for
some of the finer mapCSS I see. I combined them all, and this gives me
powerful view on the address situation in the target area.
http://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/AddressValidator&style
https://github.com/simon04/coloured-addresses.mapcss/raw/master/dist/coloured-addresses.mapcss
http://josm.openstreetmap.de/josmfile?page=Styles/Noname&style
try them, you'll love the colors per street, very nice to spot problems
on corners.
Glenn
On 04/15/2013 07:33 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Your complain about street being placed in wrong cities, is exactly
> why we should use associatedStreet relations instead of repeating
> addr:street & addr:city over and over on individual buildings. In that
> case you only have to correct it once, on the relation, and the data
> is corrected.
>
> But I'll admit that I've been to lazy to add associatedStreets
> recently, as nobody seems to care. And the tools support outside JOSM
> is not that great. Repeating the street name twice is completely
> useless IMHO.
>
> I think it is possible to combine lot's of house numbers and accuracy,
> at least I hope that's what I leave behind :-)
>
> m
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Glenn Plas <glenn at byte-consult.be
> <mailto:glenn at byte-consult.be>> wrote:
>
> On 04/15/2013 02:38 PM, JorenDC wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In December there was a thread (start:
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/2012-December/003367.html)
>> containing some numbers/stats.
>>
>> @Sander, *: is it possible to share your used method to pull
>> these stats (or just pull them again) and publish them on a
>> 'frequent' base (I'm not saying weekly, but what about +/- every
>> 4 moths or so)? In that way we can see a bit of our progress
>> regarding this 'project'.
> The method (overpass query) is mentioned in that link thread (Jo
> points it out). On the subject..... I've been mapping a lot of
> housenumbers lately, verifying my data against AGIV data before
> committing to OSM... I can only conclude there is much work to be
> done, AGIV is far from recent concerning new built houses, and
> OSM itself has lots of issues regarding accuracy.
>
> I'm not too sure on the scientific significance of such a
> statistic either. I would more than love to see stats that
> compair quality of the entered addresses. (completeness ,
> including postal code and other addr:* tags, number of corrections
> etc. ) I've been correcting a lot of mistakes and I start seeing
> a negative tendancy in it:
>
> The ones that have done a LOT of input but didn't care to quality
> check (validating even!) what they entered. I'll state this:
> I'm cleaning up far too much crap others leave behind, I'm far
> from perfect in my housenumbering too in this small village it's
> still a huge undertaking, especially on complex corners where some
> numbers of the same building belong to a different street. I have
> houses I've changed 3 times in a row after visiting.
>
> Moreover, I see some people tagging the next city name on a
> street, probably because they think it's in the next city, but OSM
> shouldn't be a guessing game or a race to enter the most addresses
> if that info is wrong.
>
> If someone has such an overpass query, I'm more than interested to
> see those results, the rest looks like bragging rights.
>
> The AGIV site is valuable , even though it's slow. It's great
> tool to verify what city a certain street belongs to. for example
> :
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.998941&lon=4.426396&zoom=18&layers=M
>
> De "Kleine Parijsstraat" belongs to Zemst, not Mechelen. If you
> look this up in nominatim, it will tell you it's in Mechelen,
> which is totally wrong. You will not find this street using AGIV
> in Mechelen. But someone decided this was Hombeek(Mechelen)
> instead. So the borders of Zemst where wrong as well as this was
> used to determine these. The street above that "Boterstraat"
> can be found in Mechelen, not in Zemst. Thanks to AGIV, I'm more
> certain when those cases present. ( You can still see the old
> cached tile in some zoom levels)
>
> But then again, I saw AGIV containing WRONG housenumbers too.
> Verification in the field (twice) confirmed that what I had in
> mind was matching reality. So it's like a triple check: a) know
> the place b) visit it c) check with AGIV d) map a decent hous e)
> be complete, using the plugins to add Country/postal
> code/streetname to an address node so the data is easily
> searchable later.
>
> I really, really have to plea to everyone to enter _better_ data
> than more ...., just instead of looking at the sheer number of
> address info/nodes entered. It's quickly getting tired when I
> have to keep cleaning up behind the top providers.
>
> I'll get off the soapbox now.
>
> Glenn
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20130415/8946dc3c/attachment.htm>
More information about the Talk-be
mailing list