Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Using results from osm-compare as attributes #38

Closed
bkowshik opened this issue May 16, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

Using results from osm-compare as attributes #38

bkowshik opened this issue May 16, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@bkowshik
Copy link
Contributor

We can potentially use the comparators in osm-compare as attributes in Gabbar. The workflow would look like:


cc: @amishas157 @batpad

@bkowshik
Copy link
Contributor Author

bkowshik commented May 17, 2017

Sync comparators

  • added_place
  • common_tag_values
  • draggedHighwayWaterway
  • large_building
  • major_name_modification
  • major_road_changed
  • null_island
  • pokemon_edits

Async comparators (uses callback)

  • invalid_name
  • invalid_tag_combination
  • invalid_tag_modification

External API requests

  • name_unmatches_with_wikidata
  • feature_overlap
  • water_feature_by_new_mapper
  • pokemon_footway

@bkowshik
Copy link
Contributor Author

Following are some compatibility issues:

  • Real changeset features have all osm attributes in feature.properties.tags. But, compare functions expect all attributes in feature.properties
  • Some flags like deleted do not exist in the real changeset stream. Ex: added_website.js

@bkowshik
Copy link
Contributor Author

Following is a summary of compare functions results on the validation dataset.

  • Total changesets: 2,582
  • Total features: 257,000
Compare functions Feature flagged
cf_common_tag_values 44
cf_added_place 27
cf_pokemon_edits 2
cf_null_island 0
cf_dragged_highway_waterway 0
cf_large_building 0
cf_major_name_modification 0
cf_major_road_changed 0
  • Feel like number of features flagged by compare functions are too few.
  • Models give feature importance scores and comparators had extremely low scores. Which in-turn means they are not playing a significant role in improving the quality of predictions.

@batpad
Copy link

batpad commented May 17, 2017

@bkowshik this seems to me that we should revisit the idea of more "tagger" compare functions which serve the function of more general tagging of the types of changes in a changeset, and see if that helps at all to increase the relevance? Happy to discuss.

@bkowshik
Copy link
Contributor Author

bkowshik commented Jun 7, 2017

Closing for now. Let's revisit this in a couple of weeks time.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants