[Talk-ca] More Google Copying

[Adam Dunn]

Did some more comparing in Valemount area. There are a large number of
errors in Valemount for the major webmap companies (more errors than I
normally see). Here's what I've found, and this time I'm just using the
person's username because I don't think it's a mystery anymore.

NRN: Birch Street
Google: Birch (missing street type)
Bing: Birch Rd
Yahoo: Birch Rd
vreimer: Birch Road

NRN: Tamerack Road
Google: Tamerack Rd (match NRN)
Bing: Tamarak Rd (e->a and missing c)
Yahoo: Tamarak Rd (e->a and missing c)
vreimer: Tamarack Rd (e->a)

NRN: Westridge Forest Service Road
Google: Westridge FS Rd
Bing: Cranberry Lake Rd
Yahoo: Cranberry Lake Rd
vreimer: Westridge FS Road

NRN: Canoe East Forest Service Road
Google: Canoe East FS Rd
Bing: Canoe River Forest Rd
Yahoo: Canoe River Forest Rd
vreimer: Canoe River FS Road

NRN: Cedar Street terminates on the north end at 14th Avenue
Google: Cedar Street continues through from 14th to 13th, even though a
house is in the way on aerial photos, but Google does not show a name for
this section of street between 14th and 13th.
Bing: also extends Cedar Street from 14th through to 13th Avenue, plowing
right through a house, but does not show a name for Cedar street, yet shows
the short section between 13th and 14th as being called "14th Ave".
Yahoo: exact same thing as Bing (I'm beginning to think the Microsoft-Yahoo
deal is showing up here.)
vreimer: has Cedar Street 120 meters east of actual position (NRN, Google,
Bing all agree on longitude location), extends it from 14th through to 13th
Avenue and keeps the name Cedar Street for entire thing.

NRN: Williams Drive terminates at northeast end at Juniper Street, while
just northwest is a road called Larch Street coming out of Juniper Street.
Google: Williams Drive extends past Juniper a couple dozen meters (aerial
photos show either a service road or private driveway), while Larch Street
is missing
Bing: Extends Williams past Juniper, although calls it Rd instead of Drive.
Also has Larch Street, though shows no name for it.
Yahoo: same as Bing
vreimer: Extends Williams Drive past Juniper Street, while Larch Street is
missing. Position is 150 meters off.


Based on Birch, it would appear he's copying Bing. Based on Tamerack, it's a
mix of misspellings. We can see from Westridge that he's *not* copying Bing.
Based on Canoe, it appears he's *not* copying Google. Based on Cedar, looks
like Google. Based on Williams/Larch, looks like Google. In some places,
position is off, other places it's fine. It looks like he actually skipped a
major road because of this position confusion (it wouldn't fit in where it
should).

Adam

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Adam Dunn <dunnadam at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Sam. On the face of it, from the evidence we have, this person
> isn't doing anything "damaging". Sure, there's a typo, but that could be a
> mistake. This person isn't just using one copyrighted source, as the new
> Winnipeg subdivision example has shown. I don't think anybody can tell
> whether a copyrighted source is being used at all. Maybe it's old versions
> of NRN mixed with municipal/city data? Maybe he works for a mapping company
> or some entity that has access to the latest road information? That would be
> perfectly legit (given the city/company has agreed). This mapper is quite
> prolific in the system. They have spent many hours mapping roads all over
> the country. In fact, many hours per day, practically *every* day. It's
> quite unfortunate that this person has decided not to participate in our
> discussions. If the sources are not acceptable then it will be quite a large
> amount of deletion that will need to be done by OSM administrators.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Sam Vekemans <
> acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I dont think there is actual 'damage'. Its just that we dont know what
>> the source is for the mapping.
>> Alot of tracing (and it looks like tracing), there is a few versions
>> of the NRCan data that it could be from. So its hard to say whats
>> going on. (quick copying can also resault in spelling erors.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> On 2/26/10, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Sam Vekemans
>> > <acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >> Yup, i just sent off a nice message.  Hopefully it will be recieved.
>> I'll
>> >> let you know if i get a responce back.
>> >
>> > Sam V. did you hear back from vreimer and these unusual edits?
>> > Adam D. are you convinced this editor is damaging the map?  Submit
>> > your evidence to the data working group at data at openstreetmap.org
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Talk-ca mailing list
>> > Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Twitter: @Acrosscanada
>> Blog:  http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
>> Skype: samvekemans
>> OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org
>> @Acrosscanadatrails
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20100226/b171af8d/attachment.html>