[Talk-GB] Importing Website Data
61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Dec 19 01:16:39 UTC 2017
On 19-Dec-17 05:42 AM, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> 18.12.2017 19:14, Frederik Ramm пишет:
>> On 12/18/2017 03:09 PM, SK53 wrote:
>>> Personally, I'd also be chary of turning OSM into a repository of
>>> scraped data rather than one of surveyed geodata.
>> And more: the more imports you do, the more OpenStreetMap becomes an IT
>> project where computer nerds script, collect, convert, conflate, and
>> interpolate away, instead of a project where all sorts of people from
>> all walks of life contribute their knowledge.
>> I think we're not an IT project, and that's good.
> We are partly an IT project, which you cannot take away. Also, the
> number and size of imports does not affect how OSM is perceived.
> For example, OSMers map very few POIs (relatively), and after they do,
> they update virtually zero of them. Not counting a few active mappers
> in UK and Germany.
> To think that you can import everything is to overstate the quantity
> of open data in the world. Open data is mostly points of interest. In
> some countries it's also roads. And that's all. OSM is so much bigger
> than that.
> As for importing POIs, I think that needs to be done, because no
> mapper group would be able to map all fuel station, all Tesco shops,
> or all museums. And if they do, in ten years, but that time half of
> what they've collected will be obsolete. The choice is not between
> manual mapping and importing, it's between importing and not having
> the data ever.
> And since there isn't open data on everything, even if you import all
> POIs you can possibly have in machine-readable format, that will still
> be at most 10% of all POIs, even in UK or Germany. Plenty to map by
> going outside.
> So even an army of IT folks armed with data scrapers and contracts
> with every data aggregator would be no match to common mappers, armed
> with a pen and a camera. I fail to see what you're afraid of.
Two divergent points of view if you go to the extremes. Here are some
A) Only physically survey data is for OSM.
Not possible to physically survey some things like National Park
boundaries in Australia - where they are marked the marks are well
inside the actual boundary. A physical survey will result in large errors.
B) Only open data is to be used.
Some of this is out of data - an on the ground physical survey will
The best for me is a mix of sources, with a preference for the on the
ground physical survey. However I can map a lot more area from open
source data quickly and accurately that I can from a physical survey. In
some cases of tree cover or GPS reflections, satellite imagery is more
accurate that GPS surveys. So a mix of sources for me.
More information about the Talk-GB