Quantcast

Nearmap CEO in ABC radio interview

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
42 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Nearmap CEO in ABC radio interview

JohnSmitty
From Nearmap's forum http://forum.nearmap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=334

"Stuart, our founder and CEO, was recently interviewed by Desley
Blanch for ABC's Innovations radio show.

An MP3 of the show is here:
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/ra/podcast/innovations/innovations_20100426.mp3
...and a transcript of the interview with Stuart is here:
http://www.abc.net.au/ra/innovations/stories/s2876717.htm"

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Maritime borders

Markus_g
I have been looking at a few tagging problems with the maritime boarders.

I am after opinions to change the coastline, territorial waters (12nm zone)
to the following tagging that was approved 15 August 2009.



http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Maritime_borders


Regards,

Markus.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2876 - Release Date: 05/16/10
03:56:00


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2876 - Release Date: 05/16/10 03:56:00

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Victorian Coastline

Markus_g
In reply to this post by JohnSmitty
Hello,

Someone has added coastline to the administration boundaries from the SA
border to Port Philip Bay and removed the old coastline. There edit comment
was "removed malformed Victorian/SE SA coastlines and added 'coastline' tag
to administrative boundaries to form accurate coastlines"

The direction of the coastline is mostly now reversed. I am planning to
reverse the coastline direction and repair the Conservation Park at the
SA/Vic boarder unless someone beats me to it.

Markus_g


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Liz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

Liz
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:46:08 +1030
"Markus_g" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Someone has added coastline to the administration boundaries from the
> SA border to Port Philip Bay and removed the old coastline. There
> edit comment was "removed malformed Victorian/SE SA coastlines and
> added 'coastline' tag to administrative boundaries to form accurate
> coastlines"
>
> The direction of the coastline is mostly now reversed. I am planning
> to reverse the coastline direction and repair the Conservation Park
> at the SA/Vic boarder unless someone beats me to it.
>
> Markus_g
>

It would be best that the coastline was duplicated, and separate from
the admin boundary
I spent some hours on a wet weekend doing this for 2 major rivers, and
just like the mentioned coastline, directions weren't always right, and
one river had a gap in it which I closed.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

Ross Scanlon
On 15/01/11 03:37, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:46:08 +1030
> "Markus_g"<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Someone has added coastline to the administration boundaries from the
>> SA border to Port Philip Bay and removed the old coastline. There
>> edit comment was "removed malformed Victorian/SE SA coastlines and
>> added 'coastline' tag to administrative boundaries to form accurate
>> coastlines"
>>
>> The direction of the coastline is mostly now reversed. I am planning
>> to reverse the coastline direction and repair the Conservation Park
>> at the SA/Vic boarder unless someone beats me to it.
>>
>> Markus_g
>>
Rather than doing it manually how about reverting the changeset?

Cheers
Ross

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

Markus_g
In reply to this post by Liz
I contacted the user and he will duplicate the coastline. I agree that the
best option is to duplicate.

Ill have a check on it after he is finished.

Markus_g

-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Dodd [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, 15 January 2011 6:07 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Victorian Coastline

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:46:08 +1030
"Markus_g" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Someone has added coastline to the administration boundaries from the
> SA border to Port Philip Bay and removed the old coastline. There
> edit comment was "removed malformed Victorian/SE SA coastlines and
> added 'coastline' tag to administrative boundaries to form accurate
> coastlines"
>
> The direction of the coastline is mostly now reversed. I am planning
> to reverse the coastline direction and repair the Conservation Park
> at the SA/Vic boarder unless someone beats me to it.
>
> Markus_g
>

It would be best that the coastline was duplicated, and separate from
the admin boundary
I spent some hours on a wet weekend doing this for 2 major rivers, and
just like the mentioned coastline, directions weren't always right, and
one river had a gap in it which I closed.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

Markus_g
In reply to this post by Ross Scanlon
I had a look to see if a simple revert in JOSM was possible. For some reason
probably because it was a huge change and others had edited since, JOSM
couldn't find some history and would just fail. I then gave up.


Markus_g





-----Original Message-----
From: 4x4falcon [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Saturday, 15 January 2011 12:07 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Victorian Coastline

On 15/01/11 03:37, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:46:08 +1030
> "Markus_g"<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Someone has added coastline to the administration boundaries from the
>> SA border to Port Philip Bay and removed the old coastline. There
>> edit comment was "removed malformed Victorian/SE SA coastlines and
>> added 'coastline' tag to administrative boundaries to form accurate
>> coastlines"
>>
>> The direction of the coastline is mostly now reversed. I am planning
>> to reverse the coastline direction and repair the Conservation Park
>> at the SA/Vic boarder unless someone beats me to it.
>>
>> Markus_g
>>
Rather than doing it manually how about reverting the changeset?

Cheers
Ross

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

Steve Bennett-3
In reply to this post by Markus_g
Would be good to come up with a general policy on administrative
boundaries and coastlines. What end result do we want exactly?

Here are five options:
1) Administrative boundaries are as imported, and will randomly
criss-cross the coastline (current situation)
2) Admin boundaries are on the same way as the coastline
(natural=coastline;boundary=administrative;admin_level=8...)
3) Admin boundaries are colinear with the coastline, but on a
different way (natural=coastline, than a separate, colinear way with
boundary=administrative;admin_level=8...)
4) Admin boundaries are parallel with the coastline, inside it. (How far?)
5) Admin boundaries are parallel with the coastline, outside it. (How far?)

Preferences?

Then we can document it.

Steve

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Markus_g <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I contacted the user and he will duplicate the coastline. I agree that the
> best option is to duplicate.
>
> Ill have a check on it after he is finished.
>
> Markus_g
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizabeth Dodd [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Saturday, 15 January 2011 6:07 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Victorian Coastline
>
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:46:08 +1030
> "Markus_g" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Someone has added coastline to the administration boundaries from the
>> SA border to Port Philip Bay and removed the old coastline. There
>> edit comment was "removed malformed Victorian/SE SA coastlines and
>> added 'coastline' tag to administrative boundaries to form accurate
>> coastlines"
>>
>> The direction of the coastline is mostly now reversed. I am planning
>> to reverse the coastline direction and repair the Conservation Park
>> at the SA/Vic boarder unless someone beats me to it.
>>
>> Markus_g
>>
>
> It would be best that the coastline was duplicated, and separate from
> the admin boundary
> I spent some hours on a wet weekend doing this for 2 major rivers, and
> just like the mentioned coastline, directions weren't always right, and
> one river had a gap in it which I closed.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

Ross Scanlon
On 18/01/11 14:46, Steve Bennett wrote:

> Would be good to come up with a general policy on administrative
> boundaries and coastlines. What end result do we want exactly?
>
> Here are five options:
> 1) Administrative boundaries are as imported, and will randomly
> criss-cross the coastline (current situation)
> 2) Admin boundaries are on the same way as the coastline
> (natural=coastline;boundary=administrative;admin_level=8...)
> 3) Admin boundaries are colinear with the coastline, but on a
> different way (natural=coastline, than a separate, colinear way with
> boundary=administrative;admin_level=8...)
> 4) Admin boundaries are parallel with the coastline, inside it. (How far?)
> 5) Admin boundaries are parallel with the coastline, outside it. (How far?)
>

1 and don't join anything to them.

Cheers
Ross

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

Andrew Harvey-3
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-3
I believe this is the same issue that I raised before.
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-September/004719.html

My interpretation of John Smith's view was that in some cases the
admin boundary is defined by where the river (or in this case
coastline) is. In this case they should be stuck together (on the same
way). I agree in this case they should be stuck together (perhaps as
different ways with shared nodes though, or as different relations
with shared ways).

The problem however is since the ABS data (as least as far as I know)
didn't come with any additional meta-data saying which admin
boundaries are fixed to a geographical object, and which are just
coordinates, we don't know which to share nodes and which not too.

This is a problem now as we have data sources which give is the
coastline and river boundaries more accurate than the ABS data, so yes
we need to decide whats best here. If we don't know or are unsure
which admin boundaries are fixed to a given geographical object, I
think it would be safer to leave the admin boundaries where they are
and shift the coastline to a new, more accurate way, leaving the ABS
admin boundary in tact. i.e. your option 1.

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Would be good to come up with a general policy on administrative
> boundaries and coastlines. What end result do we want exactly?
>
> Here are five options:
> 1) Administrative boundaries are as imported, and will randomly
> criss-cross the coastline (current situation)
> 2) Admin boundaries are on the same way as the coastline
> (natural=coastline;boundary=administrative;admin_level=8...)
> 3) Admin boundaries are colinear with the coastline, but on a
> different way (natural=coastline, than a separate, colinear way with
> boundary=administrative;admin_level=8...)
> 4) Admin boundaries are parallel with the coastline, inside it. (How far?)
> 5) Admin boundaries are parallel with the coastline, outside it. (How far?)
>
> Preferences?
>
> Then we can document it.
>
> Steve
>

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

Markus_g
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-3
I prefer option 1 for the coastlines to be separate to the Admin boundaries.

If an admin boundary because of accuracy is to be used for coastline I
prefer a duplicate is made. I think this also allows users to improve the
coastline without damaging the Admin boundaries.

Markus_g





-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Bennett [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, 18 January 2011 5:17 PM
To: Markus_g
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Victorian Coastline

Would be good to come up with a general policy on administrative
boundaries and coastlines. What end result do we want exactly?

Here are five options:
1) Administrative boundaries are as imported, and will randomly
criss-cross the coastline (current situation)
2) Admin boundaries are on the same way as the coastline
(natural=coastline;boundary=administrative;admin_level=8...)
3) Admin boundaries are colinear with the coastline, but on a
different way (natural=coastline, than a separate, colinear way with
boundary=administrative;admin_level=8...)
4) Admin boundaries are parallel with the coastline, inside it. (How far?)
5) Admin boundaries are parallel with the coastline, outside it. (How far?)

Preferences?

Then we can document it.

Steve

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Markus_g <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I contacted the user and he will duplicate the coastline. I agree that the
> best option is to duplicate.
>
> Ill have a check on it after he is finished.
>
> Markus_g
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizabeth Dodd [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Saturday, 15 January 2011 6:07 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Victorian Coastline
>
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:46:08 +1030
> "Markus_g" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Someone has added coastline to the administration boundaries from the
>> SA border to Port Philip Bay and removed the old coastline. There
>> edit comment was "removed malformed Victorian/SE SA coastlines and
>> added 'coastline' tag to administrative boundaries to form accurate
>> coastlines"
>>
>> The direction of the coastline is mostly now reversed. I am planning
>> to reverse the coastline direction and repair the Conservation Park
>> at the SA/Vic boarder unless someone beats me to it.
>>
>> Markus_g
>>
>
> It would be best that the coastline was duplicated, and separate from
> the admin boundary
> I spent some hours on a wet weekend doing this for 2 major rivers, and
> just like the mentioned coastline, directions weren't always right, and
> one river had a gap in it which I closed.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

Steve Bennett-3
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Markus_g <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I prefer option 1 for the coastlines to be separate to the Admin boundaries.

They're also separate in options 4 and 5.

I think we're being overly precious about the quality of the ABS
imports. In many cases they're clearly meant to follow a geographical
feature, but don't do it particularly well when overlaid on the OSM
data. That makes it look like there is some deliberate distinction
between the boundary and the underlying geographical form, when in
fact there isn't.

Steve

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

JohnSmitty
On 20 January 2011 08:59, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think we're being overly precious about the quality of the ABS
> imports. In many cases they're clearly meant to follow a geographical
> feature, but don't do it particularly well when overlaid on the OSM
> data. That makes it look like there is some deliberate distinction
> between the boundary and the underlying geographical form, when in
> fact there isn't.

Once upon a time, it was the main source of reasonable data for areas
not covered by Yahoo, I'm sure there is a lot of areas that don't have
aerial imagery available still that it is the best source of data.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

Ian Sergeant-2
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-3
On 20 January 2011 09:59, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
I think we're being overly precious about the quality of the ABS
imports. In many cases they're clearly meant to follow a geographical
feature, but don't do it particularly well when overlaid on the OSM
data. That makes it look like there is some deliberate distinction
between the boundary and the underlying geographical form, when in
fact there isn't.

I agree, and I'll go one step further.

Unless we intend to amend, edit and correct data then don't put it into OSM.  Use it as a layer, or whatever, but don't clutter a wiki with static, un-usermodifiable data.

In this case, the admin boundary is often clearly the coastline, or river, or feature, and we should align it appropriately.  If people want the ABS data unchanged, they know where they can find it.

The current situation where the admin boundary just misses sections of the coastline, is ugly and wrong.  You wouldn't see if presented that way on any other map.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

JohnSmitty
On 20 January 2011 10:39, Ian Sergeant <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I agree, and I'll go one step further.
> Unless we intend to amend, edit and correct data then don't put it into OSM.

So in other words, according to you, we shouldn't be doing any mapping
in regional areas as people may not intend to do any amending, editing
or correcting data in future, since the person that first added the
information may have been a tourist and never go back there again.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

Ian Sergeant-2
On 20 January 2011 11:39, I wrote:
> I agree, and I'll go one step further.
Unless we intend to amend, edit and correct data then don't put it into OSM.  Use it as a layer, or whatever, but don't clutter a wiki with static, un-usermodifiable data.

On 20 January 2011 11:43, John Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: 
So in other words, according to you, we shouldn't be doing any mapping
in regional areas as people may not intend to do any amending, editing
or correcting data in future, since the person that first added the
information may have been a tourist and never go back there again.

Was I really that unclear?

I presume the visitor who goes to a regional area and maps it, would be happy for their data to be amended, corrected, as better and more accurate information came to hand, should it come to hand.  Regardless of what source that information should come from.  The information is in OSM to be edited by users over time.  If I visited the regional town, then I would consider myself free to make corrections from my survey.

If you want to just keep the ABS data in OSM as a pure copy of the ABS data, and not modify it even where it is obviously supposed to follow the coastline, but just misses it, then what is the point of having it the ABS data contained within the OSM to begin with?  It may as well just be a layer outside of it.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Liz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

Liz


>
> If you want to just keep the ABS data in OSM as a pure copy of the ABS
> data,
> and not modify it even where it is obviously supposed to follow the
> coastline, but just misses it, then what is the point of having it the ABS
> data contained within the OSM to begin with?  It may as well just be a
> layer
> outside of it.
>
> Ian.

if the AS data is melded with other stuff in OSM then we have great
difficulty in amending / updating / editing it.
you mention "another layer" but this isn't easily available


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

Ian Sergeant-2
On 20 January 2011 14:58, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> if the AS data is melded with other stuff in OSM then we have great
> difficulty in amending / updating / editing it.
> you mention "another layer" but this isn't easily available

I can't really see where the difficulty arises.

We can simply decide that where the admin boundary corresponds to the
coastline, then we amend the imported administrative boundary data to
follow the best source of information we have for the coastline at
that point.

Having a separate layer may be appropriate for data we are considering
importing to OSM that will never need to be user modified.  Data in
this category is better combined with OSM as a post-processing step.
I don't believe it was ever the intention for the ABS import to fall
into this category.

On 18 January 2011 17:46, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Here are five options:
>1) Administrative boundaries are as imported, and will randomly criss-cross the coastline (current situation)
>2) Admin boundaries are on the same way as the coastline (natural=coastline;boundary= administrative;admin_level=8...)
> 3) Admin boundaries are colinear with the coastline, but on a different way (natural=coastline, than a separate, colinear way with
 boundary=administrative;admin_level=8...)
> 4) Admin boundaries are parallel with the coastline, inside it. (How far?)
> 5) Admin boundaries are parallel with the coastline, outside it. (How far?)

Options 2 and 3 are the only ones that make sense by my reasoning.

Option 1 as I've said in the previous emails, is without precedent in
cartography, is ugly, and is likely a misrepresentation of the actual
admin boundary for no reason I can see other than to preserve a third
party data source.

Options 4 and 5 just entirely misrepresent the boundary.

Ian

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

JohnSmitty
In reply to this post by JohnSmitty
On 20 January 2011 10:54, Ian Sergeant <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Was I really that unclear? ..or are you being obtuse?

What is it with aussie humour that everyone else doesn't seem to get.

You completely missed my point.

I was suggesting there is always going to be data that isn't touched,
either by the original author, or by others, if for no other reason
than being very remote and some where few people ever go, let alone
someone contributing to OSM.

How is that any different than imported data, especially funnily
enough, in regional and remote areas.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Victorian Coastline

JohnSmitty
In reply to this post by Liz
On 20 January 2011 13:58,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> if the AS data is melded with other stuff in OSM then we have great
> difficulty in amending / updating / editing it.
> you mention "another layer" but this isn't easily available

You may find things went the other way also, extra tags were added to
the ABS data, rather than duplicating ways which only seems to be a
problem for some rendering software.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
123
Loading...