[Talk-GB] Update to OSM Analysis
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Mon Feb 7 12:34:31 GMT 2011
On 7 February 2011 09:39, Ed Loach <ed at loach.me.uk> wrote:
> Peter (I think) wrote:
> > To my mind one the main benefits of the bot I have suggested is
> the reliable
> > attribution of content that comes with it. When a name is added
> from os locator
> > then there is always a 'source:name=os locator' added as well so
> anyone coming
> > along later knows. When geometry is added from os vector district
> then there is
> > always a 'source:geometry=os vector district' and also a
> 'surveyed=no'. If left
> > to keen tracers we are very unlikely to have that level of detail.
> When adding road names from OS Locator I use the suggested values
> from here:
> which are OS_OpenData_StreetView, OS_OpenData_Locator and the like.
Thanks Ed. I have cleaned up the proposed tagging on the OS
bot<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OS_bot>page to match the
recommended tagging you refer to.
What I don't see is any way to indicate that the information added could
benefit from a ground-survey. NaPTAN imports include the tag
NaPTAN:verified=no. Should we not have something similar for data taken
straight from OS Open data, regardless of whether it is traced or imported
by code? Should we used verified=no, surveyed=no, ground_survey=no or what.
Without any such tag then people wishing to check everything on the ground
are really stuck when people helpfully (or unhelpfully depending on your
viewpoint) add details from OS Opendata.
> To see all the different values that begin OS or os (and I know
> there are values which are in the format "<something>;OS%" look at
> then sort by value (ascending) with 15 items per page and look at
> roughly pages 481 to 512 (for OS...) and 1818 to 1824 (for os...)
Can't make much sense of that report - too much noise! Possibly it would be
good to do a cleanup on this tagging at some point.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB