[Talk-GB] Summer quarterly project
pmberry2007 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 13 16:31:08 UTC 2016
+1 for the town centre blitzing. Even well-mapped city centres change all
the time (shops opening and closing for one) and there are plenty of
examples of places you'd think would have more detail than they actually do
(eg Leeds is still pretty poorly mapped for POI and businesses, despite my
best efforts). This is of course largely a reflection on how strong the
local mapping community is. London, Cambridge and Nottingham spring to mind
as exceptionally detailed urban areas.
I think it'd have a bigger impact on the OSM people actually use. But, even
if we don't go for this for the next Quarterly, it's always there as a
"background" mapping task for all.
On 13 September 2016 at 15:46, Brian Prangle <bprangle at gmail.com> wrote:
> The idea of adding opening hours and lots of fhrs data to existing OSM
> data is not one I personally find attractive. But I do like Jerry's idea
> of blitzing town centres that are poorly mapped. Our own experience in
> mappamercia recently in Kidderminster where we had a summer Saturday
> mapping meetup shows that a handful of mappers with photo surveys can
> completely transform the map. Add that to frhs data and we can have an even
> better map with address data. It will also get us out to new areas for
> mapping and increase the opportunity for community-building amongst
> ourselves eg "I'm going to xyz this Sat - anyone care to join me";
> contacting local mappers to see if they want to join in; contacting the
> local chamber of commerce etc.
> I also like the idea of improving the road network generally - road
> alignment(very poor in some areas) speed limits, lane counts,turn and
> destination lanes information etc. - gets us back to the basics and
> possibly impacts more data users
> On balance I prefer the town centre blitz approach as it offers more scope
> for community building
> On 13 September 2016 at 12:32, SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> My comments on both suggestions:
>> - Speed Limits: a little bit boring, *BUT *there are some relatively
>> achievable targets. For instance getting all primary & trunk roads with
>> speed limits. There are areas of the country where none of these roads have
>> limits, but even in well mapped places there is a considerable amount of
>> simple tidying up (missing speed limits on roundabouts or short sections)
>> which can be done. A further advantage is that major roads are also more
>> likely to have Mapillary/OpenStreetView coverage. Additionally things like
>> number of lanes, availability of pavements etc can be added as well whilst
>> reviewing speed limits. I noticed this a few weeks ago because back in
>> September last year I drove to Bewdley & waypointed changes of speed limits
>> on the A456 from Hagley to Kidderminster.
>> One additional caveat is that speed limits on the narrower roads are
>> changing a lot: national speed limits to 50, 50 mph down to 40 mph, etc.
>> I've noticed this particularly along the A606 as travel this by bus about
>> once a year when I take more mapping notes.
>> I have put a map based on this <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/imj>
>> Overpass-turbo query on Flickr <https://flic.kr/p/LJuZiC> for trunk
>> roads missing speed limits, and one for primary roads in the East Midlands
>> here <https://flic.kr/p/M1tzcj>. The latter query
>> <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/imi> returns too much data for the whole
>> of the country but can be tailored by changing the area part of the query.
>> - Food Hygiene data. This would be in two forms: enrichment of
>> existing OSM data (primarily with addresses); and surveying areas which
>> have lots of FHRS data but little in OSM.
>> The former is a valuable, but not particularly gripping activity.
>> IIRC the FHRS data covers somewhere between 10-15% of total postcodes, and
>> just having one address in a postcode can help resolve many adjacent ones.
>> Two addresses and one can infer properties of how addresses are allocated
>> on a road.
>> Last year Peter Reed wrote a long series of blog posts
>> about retail data and used Super Output Areas to predict volumes of missing
>> data from OSM. Last year I targeted Melton Mowbray, Coalville, Havant and
>> Chichester for mapping of the town centres based on this data. More
>> recently I've done Hoylake & New Brighton. I'd hoped to have a look at
>> Hyde, Tameside at the weekend, but was too tired by the end of the field
>> meeting. Most towns in Greater Manchester are ripe for this kind of
>> mapping: Oldham, Rochdale, Hyde, Denton, Ashton-under-Lyme and many others.
>> In the past I have used a set of postcode centroids denoting places with
>> missing data to help target the mapping. More recently I have munged the
>> FHRS data by distributing all places sharing a postcode on a circle of
>> 10-20 m radius and created GPX files for particular areas: with each FHRS
>> category having a different symbol.
>> A town the size of Melton Mowbray took around 90 minutes to do a
>> photo survey. Adding the data to OSM rather longer. Stockport, another,
>> larger, retail centre, which I have now surveyed in 2015 & 2016, took about
>> 3 hours altogether. Some of this was duplicated, and in part was because
>> the Merseyway Shopping Centre closed before I got round it on my first
>> visit. A second visit is useful because one inevitably notices anomalies
>> which require investigation when entering the data. My strategy is to take
>> photos and a limited number of notes or audio files, and therefore maximise
>> mapping time. This is all based on FHRS having all the other relevant data,
>> which doesn't work everywhere.
>> In summary using FHRS data enables a fairly targeted approach to
>> mapping town centres. It greatly helps in assembling address data in such
>> places and, of course, adds to the detail. For the mapper it's quite
>> rewarding because one can quickly see the impact. Although shops can change
>> a lot, having the much less ephemeral address data ensures this is not a
>> Red Queen ('running to stay still') task.
>> On 13 September 2016 at 09:25, Ed Loach <edloach at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Paul commented on John's suggestion:
>>> > Speed limits would be a good one, although impossible to armchair-map
>>> unless you know
>>> > something I don't. Also, would it stem the tide of useless speed limit
>>> notes from Navmii GPS users?
>>> I can't guarantee it would stem the tide of Navmii speed limit notes,
>>> but I added lots of speed limits locally when Skobbler were creating
>>> MapDust notes and it seemed to stem that tide.
>>> I like Robert's fhrs suggestion - I keep meaning to cross check what is
>>> and isn't mapped against the fhrs list but haven’t got around to it. Making
>>> it a project might spur me to do so.
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB