[talk-ph] RFC: Planned Arivac Bohol Data Import
totor_osm at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 30 06:18:48 BST 2010
I think option 3 is the best indeed, so that we will not lose the existing road classification.
Would it be a big job to also create an osm file with the ways that are not imported ?
This would allow in a second time to manually check the position of the already existing roads. (since some seem based on gps traces jumping all over the place.)
We could also wait for GPS traces...
--- On Tue, 3/30/10, maning sambale <emmanuel.sambale at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: maning sambale <emmanuel.sambale at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [talk-ph] RFC: Planned Arivac Bohol Data Import
> To: talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
> Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 2:19 AM
> Alright, I didn't "hear" any
> objections, so I assume the community is
> OK with the road import. We will be adopting Option 3
> : Pre-process
> data to remove any duplicates from existing OSM data before
> I will start conflating both data offline (osm and
> arivac). When
> there is duplicate with arivac, OSM data will be
> retained. The
> generic tag for roads are as follows:
> FIXME:verify road type
> arivac_ID_ROA_BAS_: some number
> The donor requested to retain the "arivac_ID_ROA_BAS_: some
> number" so
> that they can integrate our improvements into their own
> database later
> After the import, more work is needed particularly in add
> the correct
> highway category.
> I will announce the import later and will proceed if there
> no further
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Totor <totor_osm at yahoo.com>
> > Hello all,
> > Great data as far as it can be checked.
> > (there are not that many gps traces in Tagbilaran with
> a good dop)
> > The maximum offset to my gps tracks is around 5m
> > Some intersections look a bit weird (4 roads join 2 by
> 2, then a link joins the 2 nodes instead of 1 common node
> for the 4 segments) but that can be fixed easily later on.
> > Regards,
> > Totor
More information about the talk-ph