Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.
How Beneficial are    Data Imports to OpenStreetMap? –       A United States Case StudyDennis Zielstra1 , Pascal Neis2, Ha...
Motivation   Several studies within recent years about OSM data quality in    comparison to governmental or proprietary d...
Main Goals   Evaluate development of OSM data in comparison to    TIGER/Line Data   Determine active/inactive areas in t...
Information about TIGER/Line Import to OSM   First import attempt (2005/06)    TIGER/Line 2005 data (ASCII format)    D...
Data Pre-Processing                      5
General US Data and Member Development                                         6
General Data and Member Development  Members who created at least one Node: 203000 (June 2012)  Members who created most...
General Data and Member DevelopmentMembers with their first node in the US (October 2012)                                 ...
General US Data and Member Development   Strong decrease in residential class due to retagging and data    corrections   ...
General Data and Member Development   Strong improvement in pedestrian and cyclist related data                          ...
Car Data Development per State   Total length comparison of car navigation related information    between TIGER/Line (200...
Car Data Development per Urban Area                        • All urban areas show negative absolute and                   ...
Pedestrian Data Development per State   Total length comparison of pedestrian navigation related    information between T...
Pedestrian Data Development per Urban Area                       • All urban areas show positive absolute and             ...
Geometry Errors and Positional Inaccuracy    Additional problems with imported data:        TIGER/Line 2005 data is at t...
Summary  TIGER/Line import was successfully accomplished during   second attempt, but…      2005 TIGER/Line data importe...
Future Work   Investigate in more detail which data types (geometries,    attributes, feature classes) have been collecte...
Discussion   Does data import discourage mappers from improving car    related road network?   JOSM and Potlatch support...
Thank you   Related papers for the US (http://mygeomatics.com/people/dennis-zielstra/) Zielstra, D., and Hochmair, H. H. ...
Nächste SlideShare
Wird geladen in …5
×

How Beneficial are Data Imports to OpenStreetMap? – A United States Case Study

3.289 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

How Beneficial are Data Imports to OpenStreetMap? – A United States Case Study

  1. 1. How Beneficial are Data Imports to OpenStreetMap? – A United States Case StudyDennis Zielstra1 , Pascal Neis2, Hartwig H. Hochmair1Geomatics Program – University of Florida1Geoinformatics Research Group - University of Heidelberg2 State of The Map USA , Portland (OR), October 13-14, 2012
  2. 2. Motivation  Several studies within recent years about OSM data quality in comparison to governmental or proprietary data.  Mostly with focus on Europe (i.e. UK, Germany) with no data imports.  Usually good results in countries with active OSM community.  Very little research about OSM US and its data import. 2
  3. 3. Main Goals  Evaluate development of OSM data in comparison to TIGER/Line Data  Determine active/inactive areas in the US by analyzing 50 States (+ D.C.) and 70 urban areas (population > 500000)  Analyze the data source and feature type that was actively contributed 3
  4. 4. Information about TIGER/Line Import to OSM  First import attempt (2005/06)  TIGER/Line 2005 data (ASCII format)  Data was purged in November 2006 due to data integrity problems  Second import attempt (2007/08)  TIGER/Line 2005 data (ASCII format)  “It is unlikely that the TIGER data ever will be imported again.” (Discussions about updated imports in untouched areas)  TIGER 2007 municipal and CDP (census-designated place) boundaries imported  TIGER 2010: ”The quality of this data has improved considerably from the TIGER 2005 data that was originally imported into OSM.” (TIGER 2010 OSM Wiki) 4
  5. 5. Data Pre-Processing 5
  6. 6. General US Data and Member Development 6
  7. 7. General Data and Member Development  Members who created at least one Node: 203000 (June 2012)  Members who created most of their Nodes in the US: 18500 (June 2012) 7
  8. 8. General Data and Member DevelopmentMembers with their first node in the US (October 2012) 8
  9. 9. General US Data and Member Development  Strong decrease in residential class due to retagging and data corrections 9
  10. 10. General Data and Member Development  Strong improvement in pedestrian and cyclist related data 10
  11. 11. Car Data Development per State  Total length comparison of car navigation related information between TIGER/Line (2008-2012) and OSM (2008-Sep. 2012) • Almost all states show negative absolute and relative difference values for OSM (2008 through 2012) => OSM has worse coverage • 7 states with negative difference > 30% in 2012 (e.g. West Virginia and Ohio) • Large negative difference increase in 2010 (average 18%) Example: West Virginia OSM 2012 TIGER 2012 11
  12. 12. Car Data Development per Urban Area • All urban areas show negative absolute and relative values for OSM 2012 vs. TIGER 2011 => OSM has worse coverage • Only 2 urban areas with difference > 30% (i.e. Jacksonville and Salt Lake City) • large difference increase in 2010 (average 16%) Example: Chicago Suburbs OSM 2012 TIGER 2012 12
  13. 13. Pedestrian Data Development per State  Total length comparison of pedestrian navigation related information between TIGER/Line (2008-2012) and OSM (2008- Sep. 2012) • Almost all states show positive absolute and relative difference values for OSM (2012) => OSM has better coverage • 28 states with absolute difference > 1000km (California up to 16600 km) • relative difference as high as 97% Example: California (Yosemite Park) OSM 2012 TIGER 2012 13
  14. 14. Pedestrian Data Development per Urban Area • All urban areas show positive absolute and relative values for OSM 2012 vs. TIGER 2011 => OSM has better coverage • 22 of 70 urban areas with absolute difference > 300 km (Washington, D.C. 1815 km) • relative difference sometimes above 100% Example: Washington D.C. OSM 2012 TIGER 2012 14
  15. 15. Geometry Errors and Positional Inaccuracy  Additional problems with imported data:  TIGER/Line 2005 data is at times inaccurate  Positional inaccuracy not due to shift (appear to be random)  Some areas show geometry errors (blue circle) Example: West Virginia OSM 2012 TIGER 2012 15
  16. 16. Summary  TIGER/Line import was successfully accomplished during second attempt, but…  2005 TIGER/Line data imported in 2007 = outdated.  Results showed severe increase in missing data coverage for car navigation related data in OSM in 2010.  Outdated 2005 TIGER/Line data causes geometry and positional accuracy errors in OSM dataset.  However…  Active data contributions are improving the dataset every day.  Especially pedestrian and cyclist related information is being collected and/or attributed. 16
  17. 17. Future Work  Investigate in more detail which data types (geometries, attributes, feature classes) have been collected and imported. Other imported datasets?  Similar pattern to European OSM quality? (urban areas more active = better quality) 17
  18. 18. Discussion  Does data import discourage mappers from improving car related road network?  JOSM and Potlatch support tiles with TIGER 2011data to trace the new TIGER data. Is this enough?  Discussion about reimporting untouched areas. What about higher quality and more recent data than TIGER in certain states?  What does the OSM community think? Did the imports help or make work more cumbersome? Impact on motivation?  Should there be more restrictions or limitations on imports? 18
  19. 19. Thank you Related papers for the US (http://mygeomatics.com/people/dennis-zielstra/) Zielstra, D., and Hochmair, H. H. (forthcoming). Comparison of Shortest Path Lengths for Pedestrian Routing in Street Networks Using Free and Proprietary Data. Transportation Research Board: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Zielstra, D. and Hochmair, H. H. (2011). A Comparative Study of Pedestrian Accessibility to Transit Stations Using Free and Proprietary Network Data. Transportation Research Board: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Volume 2117, pp. 145-152. OSM Weekly News @ http://opengeodata.org/  @den_uf dzielstra@ufl.edu  @pascal_n neis@uni-heidelberg.de Feel free to contact us! 19

×