[Talk-GB] The last 2%

[Shane Reynolds]

Hi,

I am the developer who works on a number of products including OSM Analysis
for ITO.

I am slightly confused about making the OS Locator box a dashed box if the
not:name tag is present. When we do the processing if any street is found
with the not:name tag matching an OS Locator street then these should not be
flagged in the stats nor should they be drawn on the map. Are you saying
that this is not the case and they are still appearing? If this is true then
possibly there is a bug that I may want to address (we are usually a day
behind the updated planet file so possibly its something to do with that?)

With regard to getting the figures down (in slight fear of being flamed as I
am a very novice mapper) - with apostrophes, if the road sign has an
apostrophe then I would say the apostrophe should be in OSM and if it is not
then it is correct to flag it as a difference. However if the road sign does
not have an apostrophe and OS Locator does then probably the road should
have a not:name tag added with the apostrophe version of the name. This
would remove any apostrophe issues. With regard to rural roads - if they
have no road signs is it not better to use the OS Locator name rather than
have no name at all as I think in general OS Locator has been proved to be
pretty accurate? (apologies if in my ignorance I do not know that there is a
good reason not to do this).

Shane



On 17 August 2010 12:34, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:

>  Congratulations, only 87 roads (<2%) is an impressive achievement.
>
> I'm struggling to reduce figures much on the Isle of Wight due to many road
> signs not have apostrophes (whilst OS Locator includes apostrophes), and
> many rural roads having no road signs at all
>
> David
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Bob Kerr <openstreetmapcraigmillar at yahoo.co.uk>
> *To:* talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 17, 2010 11:53 AM
> *Subject:* [Talk-GB] The last 2%
>
>   Hi,
>
> I have been using the OS_locator and musical chairs tools to focus on the
> areas of Edinburgh that needed checking. I have also been using the ITO
> analysis tool to check my progress.
>
> http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/
>
> All of these have been very useful and much appreciated
>
> I use the boundaries shown in
>
> http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/viewer/
>
> to focus my attention in one area
>
> In Edinburgh we have about 87 roads to go. I know that there are many of
> these roads that conflict with the OS_Opendata names. This is due mainly to
> spelling, roads with two names, new builds that need survey etc.
>
> I believe that there are more roads marked as not in OSM than are marked in
> OS_Locator about 20 in the case of Edinburgh. I thought this may have been
> service roads or unnamed roads further outside the city, I found many of
> these but these do not seem to affect the scores of the OSM_analysis. I am
> not sure if this is me just missing roads or OS  database data quirks
>
> Are there any hints or insights that people can give me to help me find the
> last few roads.
>
> Once I have brought the number down I can then check with the council and
> have "Street sign, Official Council name, and OS_OpendData name" and then be
> able to report to OS.
>
> On a slightly different note is there any plans to have the OS_locator
> squares marked as a dashed line if there is a tag present that says
> not:name. This would be useful for me to show that a street has already been
> checked
>
> Many thanks
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20100817/d60b7d1f/attachment.html>