[Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations
bprangle at gmail.com
Fri Nov 3 12:29:09 UTC 2017
I welcome this initiative from Ilya. We are never going to get a totally
correct data source, and even data originating from human mappers can leave
a lot to be desired.So let's get beyond criticising the acuracy of the data
and start working out how we're going to tackle this On the whole this
import I believe improves our data coverage - I suspect that in the end
the accuracy will be prove to be in the region of 80-90% - (everything
within a 5 mile radius of me is perfect). . When we imported Naptan data we
added a review tag set to "no", so that as the community verified the data
it could be set to "yes" or just deleted. That would give us a method of
knowing what's accurate and what's not and what's actually been reviewed on
the ground. An overpass query could easily measure progress. It would make
a great quarterly project!
On 3 November 2017 at 12:06, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/11/2017 10:59, Ilya Zverev wrote:
>> How is the address info there incorrect? Did you see the correct address
>> of the building? Googling shows that amenities there are indeed addressed
>> by Markham Lane, just like the Markham Vale, the business centre that
>> contains these.
> I explained the likely chain of events the last time this was discussed:
> Basically, when the place was built the road it is now on
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/393054254 (which based on the signage to
> the south and http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id
> =1001791 is called Enterprise Way) did not exist, and the site office was
> where Google thinks everything still is, in an office off Markham Lane.
> I have received the list from the Shell UK. Are you suggesting I should
>> buy a ticket and verify each of these on the ground? Are there any better
>> sources for Shell fuel stations, or are you implying the UK is a special
>> restricted no-imports-whatsoever territory?
> No, I'm suggest that you (or whoever's doing this import) sanity-check the
> data that you get from third parties against what's already in OSM. David
> Woolley's already said "company head offices are notorious, in my view, for
> failing to map their branches at the correct location"; here it looked like
> someone at Shell had to fill in address details on a form, but couldn't use
> e.g. the correct road because it did not exist yet, so made up some values
> to fill in the fields to avoid "computer says no" and that's never been
> updated at Shell's end.
>> I assumed a week of heated discussions in imports@ and talk-gb@ mailing
>> lists in May would be enough, and we won't start with the same arguments.
> What would be good would be if you fixed the problems raised there. Street
> names were raised as an issue here:
>> ... I personally believe our map would be better by having more data from
>> the original sources:
> Agreed, if the data is correct (and it's going to be maintained, as I
> presume it is here). The problem here seems to be that it isn't correct in
> the first place.
>> I see many imports every day going unnoticed, and I see this kind of a
>> harsh reaction on proposed imports. It is easy to see why people are
>> reluctant to announce their imports and automated edits beforehand. Until
>> we develop a polite, predictable and mature way of clearing imports, we
>> will continue seeing undiscussed imports and being angry at people who just
>> did not want to be yelled at.
> You're not being yelled at. You're being told that some data that you
> want to import is incorrect, as you were back in May.
> Where data may be iffy / need conflation there are are lots of
> alternatives to "let's dump the data in OSM and let the community figure it
> out after the event" - for example look at the way schools (including in
> relatively unmapped areas) were mapped in the UK as part of a project.
> Shell stations by there very nature tend to be on major roads; I'd be
> surprised if many of the new ones (and things like brand changes) weren't
> visible from e.g. Mapillary to at least verify the location. Similarly,
> any human that looks at the address example I gave ("house number 29a",
> which is obviously the motorway junction ref) is unlikely to be valid.
> Similarly for the address issues that Richard has raised.
> Best Regards,
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB