[Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

Graham Stewart graham at dalmuti.net
Thu Jun 9 13:30:10 BST 2011

> Fyi, here is the full list of content in the source:name field for
> Suffolk and bits of Cambs,Norfolk and Essex (ordered by frequency of
> occurrence)!

Well that nicely demonstrates what a complete mess the source tags are!
I particularly like source:name="Mrs Sylvia Secker" :)

If I can put in my 2p-worth: I've done a fair bit of armchair-mapping*
(yeah yeah, boo-hiss, I know)

Generally I use the OS StreetView or Locator backgrounds in Potlatch to
spot missing roads, then I trace the roads from the Bing imagery and
name them from the Locator.
I attribute it as source=Bing source:name=OS_OpenData_Locator (as
recommended at
and provided by the 'B' shortcut in Potlatch). I've never used a
verified/surveyed tag.

So I've got no objection to the proposed bot. If it can be used on a
restricted area and sets the appropriate source tags then it would
simply be automating something I'm doing already and I'd be delighted to
use it.


* While it would be nice if every single road was properly surveyed (and
I do survey when I can), but I just don't think that is a practical way
to make progress with the map.
My local areas (Tynedale, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Shields, Alnwick)
were all pretty blank and there didn't seem to be a much editing going
on at all.
So I take a more pragmatic approach of surveying where I can, recording
GPS routes when I'm out in the car, but also armchair mapping to fill in
big blanks. Judging by Peter's breakdown of "source" tags I'm not alone.
 Apologies if this goes against the spirit of OSM, but I'd rather get
the basic road geometry and names out of the way. All maps have those
and they are nothing special. Once they are done with we can concentrate
on the finer details that seem to be the real unique strength of OSM.

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list