I know only one example of a non-commercial enterprise (Rustpunt.nl) in Nederland where we managed succesful matching and conflation, aligning data at both sides, followed by a periodocal maintenance process.
The corrections and matchings work and the data is high quality because one man running this enterprise drives all over Nederland to visit his ‘Rustpunten’, adding new ones, updating his own system, deleting the ones leaving and kicking out the ones no longer adhering to his high standards.

(it’s actually a very nice initiative: a Rustpunt is shielded but outside seating, plus selfservice coffee, tea, beverage and snacks, access to a toilet, and bicycle stands, air pump for the tubes, electricity for e-bikes. They cannot provide table service or provide alcohol or smoking products. They are all over Nederland, recognizable by an official logo, and are very popular with recreational cyclists and hikers. I have seen comparable locations in England announced as “honesty bar” and “honesty cafe”, but these looked like completely separate private initiatives.)

The problem of matching was solved by proximity matching, followed by manual checkup and correction. Once mapped, the id of the POI in the external database is stored as the ref. The source site can, and actually does, grab the exact location in OSM which is much more accurate than the “pin place” location of the source database. This actually happens, because we can see that in the data in the maintenance rounds.

In principle, maintenance has been setup as: we have access to the source site, can grab a file with all the data of all the POIs, one mapper uses QGIS to process this. New locations (new id’s) are automatically added and postchecked manually, mainly to correct the location. Id’s in OSM which are no longer in the source file, are manually processed to see if the can be removed bluntly, or maybe just altered to a different type of POI (e.g. they lose the Rustpunt-status, but continue as a cafe with service, which we also map).

This works, but it is flimsy, because it hinges on two or three persons personally taking the time to do this once in a while. If one person quits, it’s gone. If the technical tools and sytems change, it’s gone unless someone start all over. I am one of the few persons doing this, and as I take on other things, it tends to slip to the background.

All this to say: sometimes a lot can be made to work technically, but organisational setup for the long run is maybe even more important to ensure a working service.

3 Likes