[talk-ch] Larger removal of street and place names derived from the GWR

marc marc marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com
Sat Aug 5 03:22:03 CEST 2017

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 ?

Given the large number of errors in osm I already found by survey there, 
I also doubt that someone used GWR for 17 roads.
For at least 1 street, the (removed) name in osm was wrong...
I remember it because it is on my todo list.
so I doubt that someone use GWR to filling a wrong info.
I found an affected road that I survey 11 days ago.
the name is removed before a crossing and still exist after the crossing.
I am not the author of the name of this road.
But I survey it later to add housenumber, building type, sign, lamp, 
sidewalk, lit, ... I of course put a source=survey on the changeset.
What todo to prevent a verified information from being deleted because 
someone made a mistake a few years ago ?
Because if the named was not set, I would have added myself when I 
survey the whole road.
It would be absurd to have to backup everything I see only in case...
Besides my survey has not been censored in the history, the deletion of 
the name is for the current version and the version before mine.

For another road, it is much more annoying because after "cleanup", the 
road have a wrong name... I found it by chance.
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 ?


Le 04. 08. 17 à 20:26, Simon Poole a écrit :
> The OSMF Data Working Group has removed roughly 9'000 street and 1'000
> place names from the Swiss OSM dataset, because there is very good
> reason to believe that they had been derived from address data from the
> GWR (https://www.housing-stat.ch/) which at the time was not legal for
> us to use and currently has the same status, more on that later.
> Most affected is likely French-speaking and central Switzerland and
> naturally mainly such names that are not easily surveyable (which is why
> they were missing in the first place). Nothing was removed in the Canton
> Berne as the GWR data for there is essentially the same as the cantonal
> address data that we have access too.
> The best course of action is simply to get off that couch and go out and
> survey as far as possible what was "lost", it should be possible from
> comparing http://qa.poole.ch/ch-roads/list-2017-08-01.html with
> http://qa.poole.ch/ch-roads/list-2017-08-04.html to determine how much
> your local area has been affected.
> Quickly back to the current situation with the GWR. As you may know on
> July the 1st the revised GWR ordinance entered in to force, unluckily it
> seems that I was right in being skeptical in
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/41672 as, as it seems
> now, the main effect of the revision seems to have been to open up new
> business opportunities for SwissTopo but even that will not happen
> before 2020.
> All in all this means that until further notice use of the GWR address
> data on both the SwissTopo WMS server and map.geo.admin.ch (and most
> other data there) is completely off limits.
> Naturally additional political pressure on the federal counsel to live
> up to their announcement
> https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-66999.html
> with real instead of Fake-OpenData is more than welcome.
> Simon
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
> http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

More information about the talk-ch mailing list