[Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with new OS Locator data and a review of progress to date

[Ed Avis]

Peter Miller <peter.miller at ...> writes:

>1) A list of not:names that orginated from OS Locator but where OS
>Locator does not currently contain that error. The challenge is that
>not all not:name entries in OSM will have originated from error in OS
>Locator; they could contain details of errors from other sources, such
>as Navteq or TeleAtlas or elsewhere.

Uhh... what?  Is anybody updating the OSM map based on comparison with
proprietary maps such as Navteq?  I thought we didn't do that.

Sometimes I find cases where the OSM name was wrong.  When correcting it I
add the old value as an incorrect_name tag.  I suppose that some people might
be using not:name for that purpose.

>2) A list of street names which are in OSM but which are not in OS
>Locator could be a good publicity tool for OSM and a good new source
>of errors for elements of a way (for example where a short section of
>a street associated with a bridge but the other way had a typo in
>OSM). I guess that needs would ideally have its own rendering layer?

Yes, it would be a separate report and layer from the usual comparison.

>Finally. Might it be useful for us to accommodate have multiple
>not:name entries associated with a single road? For example where a
>single street has multiple different duff names from one or more
>different sources, ie OS Locator and Navteq both have different wrong
>names.

Again could you explain where you're coming from with Navteq, etc?

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>