[OSM-talk-be] Address stats in Belgium

Tue Apr 16 03:41:13 UTC 2013

I use most of these plugins. But recently I started using them less,
because now I  convert my GPX waypoints to OSM data points automatically.

The only thing I do not do is repeating the postal code over and over, but
since you insist, I'll do that from now on. :-)

Can you look at e.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.16279363632202&lon=4.425258636474609&zoom=16an
area I mapped this winter. Please let me know if you think it can be
improved. Yes, the city and the postal code are only in the relation.

Yes, I know I should use building=house more consistently. Yes, I know I
could add sidewalk, lit, parking lane tags as I did (already partially) in
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.134501695632935&lon=4.385626316070557&zoom=16

Let me know if you think the data can be improved, as I'm willing to
improve my tagging habits.

regards

m

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Glenn Plas <glenn at byte-consult.be> wrote:

>  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> 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
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing listTalk-be at openstreetmap.orghttp://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/20130416/e5111426/attachment.htm>