andrewpmk – acknowledged. those are hard to filter out purely based on trips, because like you said, the majority of folks will be driving in one direction. Is there distinctive tagging that we could use to give those cases lower importance?

gileri - Thanks for adding the link to the wiki and adding the manual to the wiki :)

J-Louis - In Scout, we definitely take into account the historic speed profiles. Actually, they are more important in navigation than the actual maxspeed tags, because they tell us how much time it actually takes on average to traverse a segment of road, rather than theoretically based on speed limits. Because this information changes continually and is not independently verifiable, it is not suitable for adding to OSM.

25or6to4 - thanks for reporting the cluster dot issue, we will look into it for sure, that is annoying. The green quickly copies the lon,lat to the clipboard, we thought it may be useful to paste the coordinates in some other application. We may remove it if it’s not useful or confusing.

TheDutchMan13 - I dig your avatar :D

updated the post to include a reference!

thanks for reminding us of Autopista, a great tool if you ask me.

literan – I only found one case in Moscow: http://improve-osm.org/trafficFlowDirection/#17/55.76057/37.62802 - should this be marked as an invalid case?

Hi everyone - thanks a lot for trying out the tool and sharing your experiences. We will be working on improvements to reduce the false positive cases and your responses will be very helpful in doing that. Here’s what I see so far:

Very short segments

There seem to be more false positives among these. We will look into filtering these out or otherwise dealing with them.

Using OSM GPS tracks

We will be looking into that. I will check in with Grant to see if we can get a fresh dump of GPS traces. (The most recent one is from 2013.)

Changes over time

Local traffic rules / patterns may change over time, we can see if we can detect changes in traffic flow. We currently do not do that yet.

Roundabout and other less common oneway tagging

Roundabouts are implicitly oneway, we will look into filtering these. Also look at oneway=reversible.

Other improvements

• Marking tiles as invalid / solved in web interface - we’re working on that already (also for Missing Roads.)
• Change ‘Edit in ID’ to ‘Edit using OSM.org preferred editor’.

Please try and send a location with any problem you find, so we can reproduce it. That makes it much easier to act on any reported issue. Thanks!

Simon – the positional accuracy of the marker is tricky, I quickly found that out also. My first tests that I describe I actually did on foot, but the positional uncertainty would increase with speed. So my thinking is that in a driving context, you would need to focus on ‘big’ features such as lane configuration and turn restrictions at intersections. That is what I hope to test soon.

Richard – agreed, transcribing voice notes is very 2006. Thanks for the Vespucci reminder. I had not used it for a while because I don’t have an Android phone, but it looks like it has come a long way.

SK53, and Richard – Validating with simple (yes/no?) responses to questions is something I see for a ‘Mobile Maproulette’. I would love it if someone built that :)

I haven’t used Vespucci in a while – no Android device – but it looks like you made some great progress with it! Congratulations.

Cool that it shows Osmose bugs now. Wouldn’t it be interesting if Vespucci could show MapRoulette bugs also?

Perhaps the McCormick brothers want to open source the code? :)

I like the idea of online mapping events. Do you have ideas about how those could work?

Jan - working on that! Wir machen das!

gorn – yes, interesting eh? You would think dump truck drivers would know how to get to the landfill :)

slint – That is an interesting idea and we are looking at incorporating more trace data.

Pink Duck - can’t reproduce - could you please email me specifics? » martijnv@telenav.com

Done.

Because it will take me 5x as long to write this in wiki markup. But why not put a link to here on the page?

naoliv - this was actually suggested in the feedback forum also - I’ll have a look to see how feasible that is.

Hey folks - thanks for all your comments so far! I am taking all your suggestions back to the team. I’ll go into a little more detail on how to use the web tool and JOSM plugin in a follow up diary entry. For now: you can’t change the status of the tiles in the web app. That is for viewing only. In JOSM, the missing roads layer needs to be the active layer and the missing roads panel needs to be visible. Then, if you select a tile, you have the option of marking it as solved (the button with the lock on it) or invalid (the button with the exclamation mark on it) in the missing roads panel.

OpenGeoQuestions should be interesting for this!

You mean junction:ref as described here?

I am not quite convinced we need it. But I do agree that it’s cleaner to have all exit info on the way rather than spread out across way and junction node.

Would require a main map style update that is probably non-trivial.

Good point! That should definitely be explained as well. Thanks.