[Talk-GB] Sittingbourne

Gregory Williams gregory at gregorywilliams.me.uk
Fri Nov 30 09:45:29 GMT 2012


Chris,

 

I fully agree with these points. I've done a reasonable amount of mapping in
Sittingbourne, but my mapping tends to be centred around highways rather
than landuse or buildings. I have updated some similar tagging to what you
describe on schools in the past such that the buildings are tagged with
building=school and the extent of their grounds is tagged with
amenity=school, rather than the previous building=yes + amenity=school on
the same buildings.

 

I believe that lots of the buildings have been derived from automated
OS_OpenData_StreetView tracing by OSM user SemanticTourist. That probably
explains why they appear to cover multiple actual buildings in reality and
that they shape doesn't always correspond terribly well to the crisper
buildings you can see in the Bing imagery there. You may have noticed that
the building coverage actually spreads beyond just Sittingbourne to quite a
sizable chunk of Swale borough centred on the town.

 

Thanks for the work you've done here so far. As far as I'm concerned as a
local mapper feel free to update the problematic tagging as you've
described. I'll probably be able to help out eventually, but am currently
concentrating on getting widespread maxspeed coverage in the eastern half of
Kent and would prefer to get this essentially complete before starting
another large mapping challenge.

 

Gregory

 

From: Chris Baines [mailto:cbaines8 at gmail.com] 
Sent: 29 November 2012 20:59
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Sittingbourne

 

I was looking at the OSM Inspector, and happened to notice a large red bit
over Sittingbourne [1], on closer inspection, there seems to loads of good
data for Sittingbourne in OSM. However in my opinion, its not presented
(tagged, ...) in the best way. 

The three issues that I have seen are:
 - landuse=residential building=yes tags on the buildings
   - in most cases this should just be building=house
 - building footprints are too big and often cover many houses
   - just need spiting up, one house, one building way
 - addr data separate from the building outlines
   - merge data per [3]

So, if anyone is having problems finding places to map... Also, if anyone
disagrees with the above assessment, please shout. I have already done a bit
of improvement here [2].

1: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses
<http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses&lon=0.73599&lat=51.34400&zoo
m=14&overlays=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,nodes_with_addr
esses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,no_addr_street,street_not_fo
und,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,neare
st_roads>
&lon=0.73599&lat=51.34400&zoom=14&overlays=buildings,buildings_with_addresse
s,postal_code,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated
,no_addr_street,street_not_found,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connecti
on_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads
2: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.335704
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.335704&lon=0.73662&zoom=18&layers=M>
&lon=0.73662&zoom=18&layers=M
3: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20121130/4674b9f7/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list