[Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

[Peter Miller]

On 9 June 2011 09:33, Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be better if ITO put long-roads-without-names in a separate
> layer, because at the moment they dominate the completeness map.

My strategy has been to deal with the long roads first and then go
back and deal with the small ones. We are not planning to create a new
map layer at present due to other priorities on our time (some of
which will be of interest to OSM people!)

> On the whole I prefer to leave it a bit still. Ideally, everything
> would be checked by a local, but in reality it won't be. Quite a lot
> will be filled in by armchair mappers. At least there's a hope that
> those armchair mappers will have some conscience about what they do
> (like next year maybe they'll start drawing maps - with Maperitive
> it's easy - and expose the db to new scrutiny).

I don't image that many people are including verified=no manually - it
is just too much trouble!

Indeed, here is a map showing verified/surveyed+souce:name in dark
red, source:name without verified/surveyed in orange and any instances
of verified/surveyed without source:name as blue (there aren't any at
present!)
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=117

You will see that Source:name is more frequently used in some
districts such as Suffolk, Nottingham Kent that i others. Instances of
source:name do not of course mean that it was from OS Locator or that
it was not also surveyed. For that verified/surveyed is needed.

The only instances of 'surveyed' or 'verified' + source:name are in
Corby as far as I can see which was me testing the bot algorithm
manually on a place which was at 23% completeness and which I go to
95% completeness. It took long enough for me to conclude that it was
an inefficient way to do it. With the verified tagging in Corby
someone can now go and check it if they so wish and ping off the
verified=no tags as they do so.

As I said, there are no other instances of verified/surveyed.
surveyed=2010-10-08 would be neat, saying I checked all of the tagging
on that date and made any corrections necessary!

As such I think it is clear that without a bot we are indeed not going
to be able to tell what has been manually surveyed and what has been
grabbed from OS Locator. With a bot we would be able to.

Regards,


Peter

>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>