[Talk-us] [Talk-ca] Sam's summery essay (was Re: Correcting Geobase_import_2009)

Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com
Thu Oct 29 03:58:45 GMT 2009


Hi all,
James did a good summery explaining the concept of 'social impact of Bulk
Importing', perhaps better than i did.

Just substitute the word 'geobase' for 'the data source', and it really can
apply internationally.   And suffixing it with the assumption that the
geobase-source-file.osm is available to use (and download from somewhere).

Cheers,
Sam

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:10 PM, James Ewen <ve6srv at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Sam Vekemans
> <acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This message is directed to the talk-ca list, as it serves as a summery
> for
> > the latest and greatest.   In a month or so, I'll be able to summarize in
> 1
> > page.   But for now, I've put a lot of thought into the below message,
> so,
> > although long and rambley... it's the best answer i got :)
>
> Wow, Sam... I made it through the whole spiel, and even stayed with
> your thought process through the whole thing... that's a first! 8)
>
>
> > Here's the low-down. (social impact)
> > We respect the integrity of the local area mapper who spent a
> considerable
> > amount of time either tracing from imagery, or tracing from there own GPS
> > tracks....  and place this on a HIGHER priority than that of
> geobase/canvec
> > data.
> > So, again... this is Openstreetmap, where its a collaborative community
> who
> > builds the map. ... we respect the integrity of the local area mapper who
> > spent a considerable amount of time either tracing from imagery, or
> tracing
> > from there own GPS tracks....  and place this on a HIGHER priority than
> that
> > of geobase/canvec data.
>
>
> I think this type of statement is what is causing problems. We should
> not use a blanket statement that OSM data of any quality is sacred...
> OSM data is a living database that everyone can work on. Data that
> you, I, or anyone else enters into the database is not locked into the
> database never to be modified. If another user comes along and wants
> to add tags, modify the way to (hopefully) increase the accuracy of
> the data, or even remove the data should the real world object the
> data is representing should be removed or destroyed.
>
> The issue is that data being imported by a bulk import script should
> not be blindly imported damaging or destroying work that has been done
> by a real live OSM user. The key concept in that statement is BULK
> IMPORT SCRIPT.
>
> If a user has the complete GeoBase file for the area and is putting
> the time and effort into verifying and checking the GeoBase data
> versus the OSM data, and comes up with the conclusion that the GeoBase
> data does a better job of describing the way, then they should feel
> free to modify/remove the lower quality OSM data, and copy the better
> quality GeoBase data into the OSM database.
>
> Another concept to remember is that there does not have to be an
> exclusion clause. One does not have to choose to go with only OSM data
> or GeoBase data. One could use a high resolution OSM GPS trace based
> way, and copy the GeoBase tags onto the OSM way. There's also the
> possibility that some of the tags on a low quality OSM way might be
> useful if copied onto the higher quality GeoBase way.
>
> What we need to do, is to take the best data that we can find from
> whatever source is available (that meets OSM guidelines), and merge
> that into the database. The bulk import scripts are written to do
> that, but only where an easy decision can be made, which is based only
> on the easily determined logical choice... Is there any existing OSM
> data at this location? If the answer is no, then import the GeoBase
> data.
>
> We need to have real people make the harder decisions where the
> GeoBase data and OSM data overlap. That's where we are at in areas
> that have been imported, and people are seeing holes between the
> GeoBase data, and OSM data.
>
> Feel free to get your fingers dirty... get in there and make an
> informed decision about what data to include in the OSM database. Just
> don't blindly wipe out existing OSM data to import a bunch of bulk
> data.
>
> It's not a GeoBase versus OSM issue, but rather a data quality issue,
> and it is up to the OSM community to get in there and determine which
> data has the best quality, and if required merge both sources to come
> up with an even better final product.
>
> I did the same type of thing when I was tracing hundreds of kilometres
> worth of highways with my GPS. I would upload the GPS trace to OSM,
> and then manually work my way along the highway checking my trace
> versus the OSM way. I would copy the tags from the OSM way to the GPS
> based way, I'd chop the GPS trace into pieces where I turned off one
> highway, and onto the next. Using aerial imagery, I would insert
> bridges, or other things that wouldn't be contained in a GPS trace.
>
> I didn't just wholesale delete every road in the area so I could
> upload my data. I used the GPS trace as another source, and using my
> knowledge, made the best decisions to improve the OSM database.
>
> Here are some examples...
>
> There was a very rough trace of the Alaska Highway done from the low
> resolution Yahoo Imagery available. When I travelled that portion of
> the highway on my way to the Maxhamish Lake area, I recorded my GPS
> track. I uploaded and converted that track in changeset 718156 [1]. I
> copied tags from the existing way, and then converted my trace into a
> way. I connected the new highway to the existing side roads, and
> closed the changeset. Another user tcjfr has been poking at the way,
> making modifications, and improving the database since then as can be
> seen in the history of way number 27400400 [2].
>
> This is type of thing that we should be doing with the GeoBase data
> where OSM data exists.
>
> Another highway, #77 the Liard Highway (27346793 [3]) did not even
> exist in OSM when I drove it. I simply used my GPS trace to create the
> way, and added my own tags.
>
> This is similar to what the scripts are doing, where no data exists,
> just get after it and put new data into the database.
>
> We need to ensure that we don't put out the wrong message! The message
> is not "If OSM data exists, GeoBase data has to be thrown away.", but
> rather if OSM data exists, we need to make intelligent decisions on
> how to incorporate the GeoBase data into the OSM data through a
> merging process."
>
> We need to still ensure that blind bulk imports do not damage or
> destroy existing data (from whatever source).
>
> James
> VE6SRV
>
>
> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/718156
> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27400400
> [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/27346793
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20091028/67cf919d/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list