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

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Sat Aug 5 13:00:18 CEST 2017



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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/attachments/20170805/d179615a/attachment.sig>


More information about the talk-ch mailing list