[OSM-talk-be] Address stats in Belgium

Tue Apr 16 04:46:37 UTC 2013

I thought the consensus was that we repeat addr:street for each house but
not the other information like addr:city, addr:postcode, addr:country and
whatnot. Imagine what happens to the size of the DB (and all its
derivatives like the planet files), if everybody starts doing that for each
and every house/address in the world!
Potlatch has its limitations, but by choosing to work with it, people
indicate a willingness to live with those limitations. I can only hope the
IDeditor will overcome those limitations one day and that all Potlatch
users will migrate towards it when it does.

Jo

2013/4/16 Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130416/476eb187/attachment.htm>