[Talk-GB] ITO - OSM Analysis updated with latest OS Locator data
shaun at shaunmcdonald.me.uk
Fri Aug 31 19:51:25 BST 2012
On 30 Aug 2012, at 00:09, Robert Norris <rw_norris at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> A little update on OSM Analysis, ITO's OSM to OS Locator comparison service. We have just updated to the latest OS Locator data in OSM Analysis. Hopefully the next update to the OS Locator data will be updated a bit quicker. The biggest drop in completeness has been Leeds with 44 new streets missing.
>> OSM Analysis is available at:
>> We have recently been releasing some new ITO Map layers, and improving some of the current map layers. We now have nodes for Great Britain for some of the maps. For example
>> Bicycle parking: http://www.itoworld.com/map/223
>> ATMs: http://www.itoworld.com/map/230
>> Building entrances: http://www.itoworld.com/map/221
> Good stuff as always!
> Some quick thoughts:
> I note the bicycle parking does not include ways/areas, since I mapped one near a Portsmouth University site as an area - due to having a capacity of about a 100!
I have now added the rendering of the bicycle parking as areas:
> On the car parking front, I'm not convinced about colour highlighting whether it has a capacity set or not. I don't realistically see how I can deduce the capacity of many car parks without counting the individual number of bays! And then car parks in the countryside are somewhat ad-hoc...
> The fact that some are mapped as an area should give a clue to the estimated capacity.
What if the car park is multi-storey, then it will be difficult to get the capacity estimate simply from the area, though in that case you probably have an advertised number of spaces. I'm wondering if some approximate_capacity would be useful for the car parks where there are no bays marked out?
> Does this include single car park nodes yet?
I have just added nodes now. Which has added a lot of car parks that weren't there before.
> IMHO a more useful (end user) map would be things like whether it's free or not, or any physical restrictions (normally height).
I have switched it to the fee tag just now. There are some interesting patterns or lines of car parks where someone has tagged the fee. I'm currently thinking about ways in which to represent multiple dimensions of data in a better way without being overwhelming or ugly. For example in this case you have overground, underground, multi-storey, capacity, max height and whether there's a fee, or if it's private. It also needs to work well for both ways and nodes.
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Talk-GB