[Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

Alan Mintz Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.Net
Tue Apr 17 01:56:10 BST 2012

At 2012-04-16 13:24, stevea wrote:
>>At 2012-04-12 17:36, you wrote:
>>>I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days of 
>>>re-mapping.  If you are an editing maniac...
>>Can you comment on your process? I see very little real, coordinated info 
>>about tools, concrete solutions, or teamwork. As a formerly quite active 
>>SoCal mapper, I'm basically just dead in the water, wondering how much of 
>>my hard work has just been discarded (e.g. speed-limits, lanes, turn 
>>restrictions, source references, carefully aligned geometries, etc.) and 
>>whether to bother trying to get it back. I can't possibly be alone (?).
>Sure, Alan.  I'll try to help by explaining a core of my process, and you 
>and others can take it from there.

Great job - thanks for this. I'm sure it helps.

>7)  For ways (I'm not going to explain points), here is what I do:
>Select a bad way by double-clicking the way in the "data loss" list,
>Press 3 (JOSM's shortcut for the View menu's "Zoom to selection" verb 
>(critical, as it "centers" JOSM),
>Copy (could be "command-C" or another keyboard equivalent, again I'm on a 
>     Paste-Delete
>     Delete-Paste
>Now, the new (pasted) "bad" way is there, and the old bad way is deleted, 
>but the new one is "just floating."  There are two critical sub-steps 
>here:  first, use Bing Sat layer to "visually verify." This makes the new 
>way "legal" in the sense of "I, the new editor of this way, have verified 
>it."  (I do this for motorways and streets I can see in Bing Sat layer, 
>but not for POIs unless I personally know them).

So, we're basically duplicating the existing way and then "blessing" it. Is 
this really sufficient - to verify the "tainted" geometry instead of 
re-drawing it? If so, why is it not sufficient that, in many, many cases, 
the original creator of the way has not accepted CT, but many other 
accepting mappers have afterwards aligned (i.e. moved nodes) and tagged (in 
my case, with sources of sat imagery, local photo survey, county records, 
and/or even GPS survey) it? Haven't I already "blessed" it? Can't the 
redaction bot look at the source tag and see this?

Another point, at least in SoCal, is that many of our "tainted" ways are 
created by "blars", who has not accepted the CT. However, these are 
TIGER-imported ways. They carry the TIGER tags. I'm sure they could be 
verified as having come from the TIGER import. They were no-doubt the 
result of having split an existing TIGER way. In this case, why is it not 
sufficient to see the TIGER tags on the way to consider it "blessed" along 
with all the other TIGER ways? Especially when tagged afterwards by 
accepting mappers with sources as above?

>8)   Repeat step 7 for all bad ways (or points) in the list of "data loss" 
>that License Problems displays.

I'd like to suggest step 8.5: Run the OSM validator. It will find all the 
intersections that were missed, and probably a bunch of other problems that 
may or may not have pre-existed.

>9)  Upload your re-mapping efforts.

So, can someone from the redaction squad comment on the logic being used 
and the questions above?

Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list