Am 05.08.2017 um 03:22 schrieb marc marc:
I never use GWR except for a fun QA after survey (I already found 3 diff between ground reality and GWR). Of course I always encode ground reality found by survey, never GWR data
But I still doesn't understand the cleanup coverage
example belmont-broye (FR) On http://qa.poole.ch/ch-roads/list-2017-08-01.html 117 OSM Roads 107 GWR Roads On http://qa.poole.ch/ch-roads/list-2017-08-04.html 100 OSM Roads 98 GWR Roads
I doubt that the municipality has removed 9 roads. What happened ?
No, that is the difference between what had names -before- the redaction and -after- so 9 names have been removed from OSM (not the roads themselves).
The mapper in question was uncooperative and didn't help with determining what needed to be removed and what not, so there are likely to be a couple of false positives (I did sport check a couple of the proposed redactions and they all looked correct so the number of errors is likely to be small).
...
For another road, it is much more annoying because after "cleanup", the road have a wrong name... I found it by chance.
That is to be expected, as typically it will have reverted to what is was before the name was added from the incompatible source, and besides having no name, a stretch of road having the wrong name is naturally possible (typically happens over municipality borders or when a street hasn't been surveyed to the end and it changes names somewhere along the road).
Is it necessary therefore to tag all the streets modified with a fixme="check name" ? Could DWG avoid doing revert so invisible ? no name at all is easy to find and survey. But a restored bad name is hard to find. We can't survey all street in the country just in case that a previous fix was lost. I feel that the cleaning was too radical. They made 27428 changes many of which are invisible in our comparison. How was the selection made? Are you talking with DWG ? How did you learn the revert ?
It is also amazing that openaddresses.io uses the export of addresses made by Fribourg but that these same data are not open for osm. This seems to be the same situation as you describe for Bern, no ?
openaddresses.io is for all practical purposes not legally usable (in any context not just OSM). I've pointed out a couple of such cases which they fixed after long discussions, but they continue to not vet and police their incoming sources (contrary to what OSM does) and I don't see why we or I should run after a competing project that continues to cheat in a big way (for example they also distribute illegally obtained address data for the Canton Aargau).
Simon