Streams

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Streams

Andy Mabbett
Those of you on the talk-gb-westmidanads list will know I've raised
several queries over the last few weeks, about the layout and naming
of streams and brooks in the region.

I've found cases where names change, where sections of otherwise named
 streams are unnamed, where flows reverse, or where streams end
abruptly with no explanation - that's not to criticise my fellow
mappers, as it can be difficult to survey on private land, or to see
what happens after a watercourse disappears underground.

I've also been creating relations for each waterway, where none
existed previously; creating corresponding tems on Wikidata, and
linking the two representations to each other. Here's one such
example:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12207615

Perhaps we could address these kinds of issue, as one of our quarterly projects?

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Streams

Mark Goodge


On 19/01/2021 15:17, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Those of you on the talk-gb-westmidanads list will know I've raised
> several queries over the last few weeks, about the layout and naming
> of streams and brooks in the region.
>
> I've found cases where names change, where sections of otherwise named
>   streams are unnamed, where flows reverse, or where streams end
> abruptly with no explanation - that's not to criticise my fellow
> mappers, as it can be difficult to survey on private land, or to see
> what happens after a watercourse disappears underground.

This is something which ought to be amenable to importing data from OS
OpenRivers.

Mark

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Streams

Andy Mabbett
In reply to this post by Andy Mabbett
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 15:17, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Those of you on the talk-gb-westmidanads list will know I've raised
> several queries over the last few weeks, about the layout and naming
> of streams and brooks in the region.
>
> I've found cases where names change, where sections of otherwise named
>  streams are unnamed, where flows reverse, or where streams end
> abruptly with no explanation

I should also point out that I haven't posted to the WM mailing list
about all of the issues I found; in some cases I've just added "fixme"
tags (or given up in despair!).

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Streams

Andy Mabbett
In reply to this post by Mark Goodge
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 19:02, Mark Goodge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is something which ought to be amenable to importing data from OS
> OpenRivers.

That would be wonderful; but is beyond my skill-set.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Streams

Edward Bainton
I've had similar angst putting the drains in the fens near Peterborough. It's so flat you do have to see the thing up close (after rain) to see which way it runs.

There is also a tricky question of what is canal, river, drain, stream, etc: all the natural waterways have been canalised.

If there's an import available  I think that could be good - well beyond my skills also, unfortunately.

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, 21:42 Andy Mabbett, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 19:02, Mark Goodge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is something which ought to be amenable to importing data from OS
> OpenRivers.

That would be wonderful; but is beyond my skill-set.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Ken Kilfedder
I write for advice on couple of related, very annoying edits that happened in my area yesterday.  One of the two users responded to a changeset message, and reverted the change.

I suspect they were involved in doing mass or part-automated edits for Facebook.   The two offending changes are:

Like I say, the users have at least put everything back, and have engaged in conversation on the subject.   So it's not a matter for DWG.

But my concern is that one of them has around 1000 edits to his name; and that the two user names *imply* dozens (hundreds?) of others a blundering about replacing accurate in-person mapping with nice-looking but incorrect data from who-knows-what sources?

Is anyone keeping a log of similar incidents from FB mappers and/or our other corporate benefactors?

Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?  Happy to wind my neck in, if so.



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Streams

Chris Hodges
In reply to this post by Edward Bainton

I recall reading about the drains on the Somerset Levels, including an implication that the direction isn't fixed.  There's presumably a prevailing direction towards rivers and eventually the sea but the actual flow varies with rainfall patterns

On 19/01/2021 22:33, Edward Bainton wrote:
I've had similar angst putting the drains in the fens near Peterborough. It's so flat you do have to see the thing up close (after rain) to see which way it runs.

There is also a tricky question of what is canal, river, drain, stream, etc: all the natural waterways have been canalised.

If there's an import available  I think that could be good - well beyond my skills also, unfortunately.

On Tue, 19 Jan 2021, 21:42 Andy Mabbett, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 at 19:02, Mark Goodge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is something which ought to be amenable to importing data from OS
> OpenRivers.

That would be wonderful; but is beyond my skill-set.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Jon Pennycook-2
In reply to this post by Ken Kilfedder
Amazon had a habit of drawing old roads in construction sites, including putting old roads through the middle of new parks, based on old aerial imagery - all in areas that I had already mapped (and sometimes where I had supplied imagery to Mapillary). They reversed the changes when I noticed them, but it is annoying when people use old imagery. 

Jon 

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, 08:40 Ken Kilfedder, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I write for advice on couple of related, very annoying edits that happened in my area yesterday.  One of the two users responded to a changeset message, and reverted the change.

I suspect they were involved in doing mass or part-automated edits for Facebook.   The two offending changes are:

Like I say, the users have at least put everything back, and have engaged in conversation on the subject.   So it's not a matter for DWG.

But my concern is that one of them has around 1000 edits to his name; and that the two user names *imply* dozens (hundreds?) of others a blundering about replacing accurate in-person mapping with nice-looking but incorrect data from who-knows-what sources?

Is anyone keeping a log of similar incidents from FB mappers and/or our other corporate benefactors?

Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?  Happy to wind my neck in, if so.


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Great Britain mailing list
One thing you can do is to leave the old ways in place, retagged with a lifecycle prefix (probably razed:), and with dates if known. It won't necessarily stop people replacing them, but it should give them pause.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:15 AM Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]> wrote:
Amazon had a habit of drawing old roads in construction sites, including putting old roads through the middle of new parks, based on old aerial imagery - all in areas that I had already mapped (and sometimes where I had supplied imagery to Mapillary). They reversed the changes when I noticed them, but it is annoying when people use old imagery. 

Jon 

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, 08:40 Ken Kilfedder, <[hidden email]> wrote:
I write for advice on couple of related, very annoying edits that happened in my area yesterday.  One of the two users responded to a changeset message, and reverted the change.

I suspect they were involved in doing mass or part-automated edits for Facebook.   The two offending changes are:

Like I say, the users have at least put everything back, and have engaged in conversation on the subject.   So it's not a matter for DWG.

But my concern is that one of them has around 1000 edits to his name; and that the two user names *imply* dozens (hundreds?) of others a blundering about replacing accurate in-person mapping with nice-looking but incorrect data from who-knows-what sources?

Is anyone keeping a log of similar incidents from FB mappers and/or our other corporate benefactors?

Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?  Happy to wind my neck in, if so.


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Robert Skedgell
I've done something similar at a farm in Essex redeveloped as very
expensive housing. The new housing is clearly visible on Bing and Maxar
Premium, but the older farm buildings which had been mapped previously
are still in Esri Clarity. I've used the demolished: and removed:
prefixes for buildings and service roads respectively, although razed:
for both might have been better.
https://osmcha.org/changesets/97558382/

On 20/01/2021 09:41, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:

> One thing you can do is to leave the old ways in place, retagged with a
> lifecycle prefix (probably razed:), and with dates if known. It won't
> necessarily stop people replacing them, but it should give them pause.
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:15 AM Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Amazon had a habit of drawing old roads in construction sites,
>     including putting old roads through the middle of new parks, based
>     on old aerial imagery - all in areas that I had already mapped (and
>     sometimes where I had supplied imagery to Mapillary). They reversed
>     the changes when I noticed them, but it is annoying when people use
>     old imagery. 
>
>     Jon 
>
>     On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, 08:40 Ken Kilfedder,
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     wrote:
>
>         __
>         I write for advice on couple of related, very annoying edits
>         that happened in my area yesterday.  One of the two users
>         responded to a changeset message, and reverted the change.
>
>         I suspect they were involved in doing mass or part-automated
>         edits for Facebook.   The two offending changes are:
>
>           * https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/97788019
>             <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/97788019>  /
>             https://osmcha.org/changesets/97788019/
>             <https://osmcha.org/changesets/97788019/>
>               o (Remodelled a T-junction back to the roundabout it was 2
>                 years ago - complete with entry lanes etc. a very nice job)
>           * https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/97789682
>             <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/97789682> /
>             https://osmcha.org/changesets/97789682/
>             <https://osmcha.org/changesets/97789682/>
>               o (Patched up the resulting gaps in route relations, etc)
>
>
>         Like I say, the users have at least put everything back, and
>         have engaged in conversation on the subject.   So it's not a
>         matter for DWG.
>
>         But my concern is that one of them has around 1000 edits to his
>         name; and that the two user names *imply* dozens (hundreds?) of
>         others a blundering about replacing accurate in-person mapping
>         with nice-looking but incorrect data from who-knows-what sources?
>
>         Is anyone keeping a log of similar incidents from FB mappers
>         and/or our other corporate benefactors?
>
>         Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?  Happy to wind my neck
>         in, if so.
>
>         ---
>         https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
>         <https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain>
>         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Ken Kilfedder
Thanks for the suggestions, Edward and Robert.

I've added the old roundabout with a razed: prefix (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/97833986 ) which will hopefully protect this particular junction from a recurrence.



---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
[hidden email]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, at 10:30 AM, Robert Skedgell wrote:

> I've done something similar at a farm in Essex redeveloped as very
> expensive housing. The new housing is clearly visible on Bing and Maxar
> Premium, but the older farm buildings which had been mapped previously
> are still in Esri Clarity. I've used the demolished: and removed:
> prefixes for buildings and service roads respectively, although razed:
> for both might have been better.
> https://osmcha.org/changesets/97558382/
>
> On 20/01/2021 09:41, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> > One thing you can do is to leave the old ways in place, retagged with a
> > lifecycle prefix (probably razed:), and with dates if known. It won't
> > necessarily stop people replacing them, but it should give them pause.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:15 AM Jon Pennycook <[hidden email]
> > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Amazon had a habit of drawing old roads in construction sites,
> >     including putting old roads through the middle of new parks, based
> >     on old aerial imagery - all in areas that I had already mapped (and
> >     sometimes where I had supplied imagery to Mapillary). They reversed
> >     the changes when I noticed them, but it is annoying when people use
> >     old imagery. 
> >
> >     Jon 
> >
> >     On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, 08:40 Ken Kilfedder,
> >     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> >     wrote:
> >
> >         __
> >         I write for advice on couple of related, very annoying edits
> >         that happened in my area yesterday.  One of the two users
> >         responded to a changeset message, and reverted the change.
> >
> >         I suspect they were involved in doing mass or part-automated
> >         edits for Facebook.   The two offending changes are:
> >
> >           * https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/97788019
> >             <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/97788019>  /
> >             https://osmcha.org/changesets/97788019/
> >             <https://osmcha.org/changesets/97788019/>
> >               o (Remodelled a T-junction back to the roundabout it was 2
> >                 years ago - complete with entry lanes etc. a very nice job)
> >           * https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/97789682
> >             <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/97789682> /
> >             https://osmcha.org/changesets/97789682/
> >             <https://osmcha.org/changesets/97789682/>
> >               o (Patched up the resulting gaps in route relations, etc)
> >
> >
> >         Like I say, the users have at least put everything back, and
> >         have engaged in conversation on the subject.   So it's not a
> >         matter for DWG.
> >
> >         But my concern is that one of them has around 1000 edits to his
> >         name; and that the two user names *imply* dozens (hundreds?) of
> >         others a blundering about replacing accurate in-person mapping
> >         with nice-looking but incorrect data from who-knows-what sources?
> >
> >         Is anyone keeping a log of similar incidents from FB mappers
> >         and/or our other corporate benefactors?
> >
> >         Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?  Happy to wind my neck
> >         in, if so.
> >
> >         ---
> >         https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
> >         <https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain>
> >         [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Ken Kilfedder
On 20/01/2021 08:29, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
Like I say, the users have at least put everything back, and have engaged in conversation on the subject.   So it's not a matter for DWG.

Well...



But my concern is that one of them has around 1000 edits to his name; and that the two user names *imply* dozens (hundreds?) of others a blundering about replacing accurate in-person mapping with nice-looking but incorrect data from who-knows-what sources?

Is anyone keeping a log of similar incidents from FB mappers and/or our other corporate benefactors?

Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?  Happy to wind my neck in, if so.


Editors such as this should be following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines .  The users here are clearly not doing so:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/VLD174 has no link from their profile page to entries in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities for projects that they are working on (and in fact there currently seem to be NO entries on that page with Facebook as an organiser).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/VLD071 doesn't mention Facebook directly either, but does mention's Facebook's "black hole" address [hidden email].

It's not the first time that Facebook's mappers have been found wanting - see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4171 and other previous occurrences.  My impression (based on looking at the results) is that Facebook's mappers receive less training about what OSM is and how the various communities work than some other "organised mappers".  A write-up from the Facebook side of an early attempt at adding stuff by them is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17856687 (that was completely reverted by the DWG because it was complete garbage - any vaguely straight line was added as a "road").

It's good that in this example you've managed to make contact with the Facebook mappers concerned and the damage has been reverted, but I suspect that we (the DWG) do need to have a chat with Facebook about what they need to do to follow https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines .

Best Regards,

Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group)



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Cj Malone-2
In reply to this post by Ken Kilfedder
> Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?  Happy to wind my neck in,
if so.

I do think you are overreacting a little, the first edit was made by a
new mapper, with 20 edits to her name now, this was her 18th. Don't we
kind of expect new mappers to make mistakes? I still make mistakes,
it's best to assume good intentions.

If this wasn't a Facebook mapper I doubt you'd have posted to the list,
I know ideally paid mappers would have a higher quality of edits, but
I'd still expect mistakes, especially early on.

To me, it looks like the second editor is some kind of internal
validator, checking other Facebook mappers aren't breaking things. He
caught some obvious mistakes, but didn't catch that the imagery is out
of date.

Maybe it'd be more productive to try and get them to change there
process, to check osm history before making edits in highly mapped
areas and objects that have a recent timestamp. (cc [hidden email])

It may even be a good idea for iD and JOSM to highlight objects that
have been edited recently, to avoid issues like this.

Cj Malone



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Ken Kilfedder

> I do think you are overreacting a little, the first edit was made by a
> new mapper, with 20 edits to her name now, this was her 18th. Don't we
> kind of expect new mappers to make mistakes? I still make mistakes,
> it's best to assume good intentions.

For an 18th edit, I thought it looked pretty good!  I won't have dared
remodel a junction for min 18th edit.  The reason I assumed something was
'up' was because of the similarly-named user who cam in and tidied up the
route relations.   I assumed the first user was a 'bot' and the second
was a bot herder.
 
> If this wasn't a Facebook mapper I doubt you'd have posted to the list,

Fair.


> To me, it looks like the second editor is some kind of internal
> validator, checking other Facebook mappers aren't breaking things. He
> caught some obvious mistakes, but didn't catch that the imagery is out
> of date.

This seems the most likely explanation.


> Maybe it'd be more productive to try and get them to change there
> process, to check osm history before making edits in highly mapped
> areas and objects that have a recent timestamp. (cc [hidden email])

Agreed; in fact the 'supervisor' guy has been quite chatty, and has
at least acknowledged my suggestion to look at the history for well-mapped
objects that don't match the imagery.  How well that filters through to
the rest of FB's teams we may never know.

 



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Great Britain mailing list
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend
On 20/01/2021 12:22, Andy Townsend wrote:

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/VLD071 doesn't mention Facebook
> directly either, but does mention's Facebook's "black hole" address
> "[hidden email]".

He also says he's working on their AI mapping but the wiki page he
refers to doesn't mention the UK and it's hard to see why they would
want to let it loose on a well mapped country or why it would be a
good idea to do so.

My main question is, what exactly led to them armchair mapping a
junction in a well mapped area of London? I can understand that
once they were looking at it they mistakenly used out of date
imagery, but what led to them looking at it in the first place...

Tom

--
Tom Hughes ([hidden email])
http://compton.nu/

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Jeremy Harris
In reply to this post by Cj Malone-2
On 20/01/2021 12:33, Cj Malone wrote:
> It may even be a good idea for iD and JOSM to highlight objects that
> have been edited recently, to avoid issues like this.

... more recently than the imagery tile.   Even displaying that date
would be a good thing.
--
Cheers,
   Jeremy

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Great Britain mailing list

On 20/01/2021 14:34, Tom Hughes wrote:

> On 20/01/2021 12:22, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/VLD071 doesn't mention Facebook
>> directly either, but does mention's Facebook's "black hole" address
>> "[hidden email]".
>
> He also says he's working on their AI mapping but the wiki page he
> refers to doesn't mention the UK and it's hard to see why they would
> want to let it loose on a well mapped country or why it would be a
> good idea to do so.
>
> My main question is, what exactly led to them armchair mapping a
> junction in a well mapped area of London? I can understand that
> once they were looking at it they mistakenly used out of date
> imagery, but what led to them looking at it in the first place...

All the examples I've seen of "Facebook_AI-Assisted_Road_Tracing"
(whether done by Facebook or by other mappers) in the UK have been
problematical, for a couple of reasons. One reason is that any actual
roads have already been added pretty much everywhere in the UK, and if
there's something detected as "new", it's likely a false positive, or
something not really worth adding (for example, I've seen gaps between
lorries in agricultural stackyards added as "roads" this way)

Another is that FB's "detected roads" are based on an old Esri layer,
and seem to be offset wherever it is used.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/12Be is the originally added position (in
this case by an Amazon mapper using Facebook's "AI") of a concrete track
in a sewage works up the road from me.  It's not offset by much, but
it's enough to be annoying.  Exactly why an Amazon mapper expected to be
delivering parcels around the back of a sewage works (inside a locked
gate) I have no idea.

Best Regards,

Andy





_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Jon Pennycook-2
I assumed that Amazon were adding all roads because either the people are incentivised to add as much as they can, whether useful or not; or it was for their self-driving vehicles which potentially could be taking employees to sewage farms.
Amazon are getting better at adding access tags, but it's annoying when they add a farm track which links to two roads without an access tag, and CycleStreets sends me down the farm track instead of the road (I think CycleStreets assumes all roads are 30mph unless specified, and 30mph is taken as better for cycling than the 60mph road).

Amazon aren't alone in adding all road-like objects in a particular area - Mapbox do the same from time to time.

Jon

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, 17:42 Andy Townsend, <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 20/01/2021 14:34, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 20/01/2021 12:22, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/VLD071 doesn't mention Facebook
>> directly either, but does mention's Facebook's "black hole" address
>> "[hidden email]".
>
> He also says he's working on their AI mapping but the wiki page he
> refers to doesn't mention the UK and it's hard to see why they would
> want to let it loose on a well mapped country or why it would be a
> good idea to do so.
>
> My main question is, what exactly led to them armchair mapping a
> junction in a well mapped area of London? I can understand that
> once they were looking at it they mistakenly used out of date
> imagery, but what led to them looking at it in the first place...

All the examples I've seen of "Facebook_AI-Assisted_Road_Tracing"
(whether done by Facebook or by other mappers) in the UK have been
problematical, for a couple of reasons. One reason is that any actual
roads have already been added pretty much everywhere in the UK, and if
there's something detected as "new", it's likely a false positive, or
something not really worth adding (for example, I've seen gaps between
lorries in agricultural stackyards added as "roads" this way)

Another is that FB's "detected roads" are based on an old Esri layer,
and seem to be offset wherever it is used.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/12Be is the originally added position (in
this case by an Amazon mapper using Facebook's "AI") of a concrete track
in a sewage works up the road from me.  It's not offset by much, but
it's enough to be annoying.  Exactly why an Amazon mapper expected to be
delivering parcels around the back of a sewage works (inside a locked
gate) I have no idea.

Best Regards,

Andy





_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Andy Townsend
On 20/01/2021 17:53, Jon Pennycook wrote:
>
> Amazon are getting better at adding access tags, but it's annoying
> when they add a farm track which links to two roads without an access
> tag, and CycleStreets sends me down the farm track instead of the road

In England and Wales* that's got to be a bug in CycleStreets, surely? 
Unless a special case such as across CRoW access land, it makes no sense
to default to "cycle access allowed along random farm tracks".

Best Regards,

Andy

* not Scotland: https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/ , and obviously
we're talking about "in normal (non-Covid) times".



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: worrying edit to junction (now reverted)

Jon Pennycook-2
Agreed. I think the plan was to assume that roads tagged as highway=service (which Amazon and Mapbox use for farm tracks through farmyards) shouldn't be used as through routes unless otherwise tagged, but I don't think that had happened yet. 

On Wed, 20 Jan 2021, 18:10 Andy Townsend, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 20/01/2021 17:53, Jon Pennycook wrote:
>
> Amazon are getting better at adding access tags, but it's annoying
> when they add a farm track which links to two roads without an access
> tag, and CycleStreets sends me down the farm track instead of the road

In England and Wales* that's got to be a bug in CycleStreets, surely? 
Unless a special case such as across CRoW access land, it makes no sense
to default to "cycle access allowed along random farm tracks".

Best Regards,

Andy

* not Scotland: https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/ , and obviously
we're talking about "in normal (non-Covid) times".



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
12