OpenStreetMap
I was a bit surprised, knowing that Gravesham had reached 100% and 13th place in the ITOWorld table, to see it move up another place to 12th yesterday. As places on 100% appear to be ranked by the total number of roads, the only way Gravesham could have moved up further is if some other place dropped out of the 100% rankings. Sure enough, Wrexham seems to have done just that. It actually looks like a way was deleted at the weekend, leading to the appearance of a single mismatch against the OS Locator dataset.
Meanwhile, Medway has moved from 121st to 95th in the last couple of days, as there seem to be several of us working on it. Now 91.67% complete (by this measure).
Steve
讨论
netman55 于 2011年03月29日 19:45 的评论
Unfortunately Medway will never reach 100% with respect to the ITO table because of the numerous errors in the OS data for this area
sdoerr 于 2011年03月29日 20:51 的评论
@netman55: what, not even with the use of not:name?
chillly 于 2011年03月29日 20:58 的评论
ATM Kingston upon Hull has 2 roads that do not now exist but they do in OS Locator. Since nothing exists there to tag, I can't remove them from ITO's list. I don't really care, the real job has been done - OSM is not about comparing with OS data. OS Locator will really help as new roads appear in later releases and that points to new places to survey that we may otherwise have missed for much longer.
paulbiv 于 2011年03月29日 21:45 的评论
There's a couple like that in Chattenden in Medway - and inside the wire of a disused military base.
Not everyone's up to speed with using the not:name tag. There's a few I left before I worked it out. We should probably use alt_name a bit more for the apostrophe issue as well.
Medway Council is a bit bad on signing things at times, plus the military areas (signed by the MOD) are worse. Should probably do something about the MOD rights to close roads.
Vaguely remember hearing that they were going to close the Royal School of Military Engineering and move what's left out of Medway. In which case they'll probably build new housing over the Brompton and Chattenden sites which will erase the names the OS has now.
Meanwhile, is Rochester a city in OSM terms?
sdoerr 于 2011年03月29日 22:09 的评论
I'm mostly using alt_name if the OS has an apostrophe that the street-sign lacks. Though I did baulk at the OS's "PEPY'S WAY" in Strood.
netman55 于 2011年03月30日 11:28 的评论
Agree with Chilly, OSM is not about comparing with OS data and I follow my rule if its there map it, if not don't wherever possible. I suspect some of the "on purpose" errors have come across to the open data.
Not come across not:name before, can't seem to find in wiki.
Signage can be a nightmare, but is getting better after the emergency services had go at Medway Council (main reason for wainscott bypass getting more names).
RSME is going in 2012 and lodge hill/chattenden area is to be redeveloped, one of the reasons I have not bothered with this area too much even though its fairly close to me.
As for Rochester we all know its a City, but the powers above seem to think otherwise......
netman55 于 2011年03月30日 11:59 的评论
.......almost forgot, Brompton part of proposed World Heritage site!
sdoerr 于 2011年03月30日 12:19 的评论
@netman55: not:name was dreamt up by ITO specifically to be used in conjunction with their OSM vs. OS Locator analysis tool. They probably ought to document it in the wiki. They do have an entry for their tool in the wiki, but it links to this blog post (http://itoworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-openstreetmap-analysis-service.html), where the features, including not:name, are outlined.
mannequinZOD 于 2011年04月 6日 12:43 的评论
Gravesham is not the only place that made progress. Have a look at these stats
osm.wiki/File:GB_complete.png
osm.wiki/File:GB_stats.png
sdoerr 于 2011年04月 6日 13:21 的评论
Thanks mannequinZOD. That red line (26/01/11) looks suspiciously smooth compared with the others though!