[talk-ph] RFC: Planned Arivac Bohol Data Import

[maning sambale]

Initial import is complete:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4274673
approx 420 ++ km of new roads added


On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:56 PM, maning sambale
<emmanuel.sambale at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Totor <totor_osm at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I think option 3 is the best indeed, so that we will not lose the existing road classification.
> Done!  I'm finished with conflating OSM and Arivac data.  There are
> some ways that I did not removed because I'm not sure which has better
> road representation.
>
> Eugene has some reservations with using:
> website:http://hisdu2.sph.uq.edu.au/arivac/
>
> Should I revert back to source_url:http://hisdu2.sph.uq.edu.au/arivac/ ?
>
>> Would it be a big job to also create an osm file with the ways that are not imported ?
>
> I can provide the original OSM  file for others to use with offline editing.
>
>> 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...
> I hope they provide them as well.
>
> I will wait for more replies today before uploading the initial
> import.  I hope to finish this today so that others can start editing
> this holy week.  Think of it as your penance. :)
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Totor
>>
>> --- 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
>>> upload.
>>>
>>> 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
>>> highway:road
>>> source:arivac
>>> website:http://hisdu2.sph.uq.edu.au/arivac/
>>>
>>> The donor requested to retain the "arivac_ID_ROA_BAS_: some
>>> number" so
>>> that they can integrate our improvements into their own
>>> database later
>>> on.
>>>
>>> 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
>>> objections.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Totor <totor_osm at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk-ph mailing list
>> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>
>
>
>
> --
> cheers,
> maning
> ------------------------------------------------------
> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
> wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
> blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
> ------------------------------------------------------
>



-- 
cheers,
maning
------------------------------------------------------
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
------------------------------------------------------