[Talk-GB] [Spam] oslVosm, OpenData Locator 2010 data and not:name

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrlists at gmail.com
Mon Oct 4 10:58:33 BST 2010

I also wonder if there is a step before the OS that can help consider the
discrepancies. The naming authority for the streets we have conflict is the
local authority so checking what the naming authority has in its database
may reveal whether the problem is with miss information or incorrect signing
on the ground.

Once the Birmingham folks have completed checks (getting closer now) then we
plan to check with Birmingham City Council to further evaluate.



>-----Original Message-----
>From: talk-gb-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
>bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Peter Miller
>Sent: 04 October 2010 10:15 AM
>To: Tim Francois
>Cc: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] [Spam] oslVosm,OpenData Locator 2010 data and
>great news.
>Regarding the not:name tag at the OS, I think we need to be a bit patient.
>The OS is a large organisation and do take time to change. They are
>actually changing fast at present and have expressed enthusiasm for the
>not:name technique and I think it is just a matter of us using it for some
>time while it gets into their systems. We are going to do some more
>analysis on it at some point and will be working with the OS of the
>processes. It would be  shame if we gave up using it before they got into
>listening! In the mean time it is a useful way of stopping people checking
>a conflict that someone else has already determined is a error on their
>On 3 October 2010 17:47, Tim Francois <sk1ppy14 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>	All,
>	1.	If there are any heroes left using oslVosm
><http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm>  [1] to compare OSM data with
>OS Locator data, I've just updated the script a little so that it now
>honours the not:name tags. Any highways which include a not:name tag are
>automatically assumed to be 100% correct in OSM, whatever OSL says, and are
>ignored in any further comparisons. This assumption may have to be reviewed
>at a later date...
>	2.	Anyone else using/noticed that the Locator data has been
>stealthily 'updated'? I remember Robert writing something about it a while
>back, but can't remember the conversation. In Bristol, a load of roads seem
>to have disappeared, whilst some more have been added. All in all, there
>were about 10 more roads than in the '2009' release. Anyone else notice
>	3.	not:name. Are many people using it? Is it working? And are
>these being sent back to OS? The reason I added it to oslVosm is that it
>seems to be being used here in Bristol, so it is useful for 'accurate'
>	For those that may not be aware, oslVosm is a script which compares
>OSM data against OS Locator data, and can output a gpx, kml or wiki file of
>any discrepancies. It also tries to do some spell checking if it finds
>similar names. It is primarily aimed at people with a programming tilt, as
>it only works from the command line (and probably only in Linux). For those
>who want an easy to use interface, use Robert's excellent Musical Chairs
>[2] web interface or ITOs slippy map layer in Potlatch or JOSM [3].
>	Cheers
>	Tim
>	[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm
>	[2] http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map and
>	[3]
>	_______________________________________________
>	Talk-GB mailing list
>	Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>	http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3175 - Release Date: 10/03/10

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list