Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation
Oct 30, 2020, 16:33 by talk@openstreetmap.org: > A split polygon with only an outer MP is not an "area". > It is a valid multipolygon representing an area. A bit pointless multipolygon and maybe something that should be converted to version not using relation, but it is a valid tagging. > There's a clue in the name 'MultiPolygon' there has to be more than one. > Strictly speaking it means that it CAN have more than one part. > Splitting into two serves no purpose, adds no quality. > It does not make it invalid > Incomplete MP relations are not beneficial to OSM quality. > MP with single outer and 0 inners is not invalid. (this does not make it desired and preferable, but in this case accusing iD of producing invalid relations is baseless and invalid) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation
Am 30.10.2020 um 16:33 schrieb Dave F: But anyway... Point slit stands: Why did iD take this authoritarian position. Already pointed this out n-times now: because it synthesizes an area object type. As has been noted other, editors don't make this assumption. Other editors don't try to synthesize an area type. A split polygon with only an outer MP is not an "area". It is, you are really totally mistaken on this. Particularly if you are reusing ways that are parts of other MPs it is quite common to have an MP with a sole outer ring composed of multiple ways (aka a "split polygon"). That it is typically unnecessary in the case of a building doesn't make it invalid. Simon The correct solution to split polygons with tags on the ways is to rejoin those ways, not create a MP. As I pointed out, the question is -when- to rejoin those ways. As I pointed out, that's for the contributor to decide, not the editor. A MP with only one* outer is invalid. Nope. There's a clue in the name 'MultiPolygon' there has to be more than one. Splitting into two serves no purpose, adds no quality. Entropy isn't beneficial for the OSM database. Incomplete MP relations are not beneficial to OSM quality. DaveF OpenPGP_0x4721711092E282EA.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation
On 29/10/2020 06:41, Simon Poole wrote: Am 29.10.2020 um 00:17 schrieb Dave F: iD editor attracts a hell of a lot of "WTFs", doesn't it? I mean, even its most ardent fan must occasionally raise a Roger Moore eyebrow. bhuousel has taken the presumptive decision that the contributor's desired end result will always be a MP relation. This is wrong, plain & simple (& quite arrogant). iD editor should provide tools to allow contributors to make their own decisions as easily as possible & not take them on their behalf. I'm not sure why you believe Bryan has or had anything to do with that specific design decision, but he didn't, that happened a substantial time before he had any formal involvement. Because he was the only one to reply to github queries (2018) on this subject. He closed the query & he talks in the first person: "I'm OK with this being hard to do in iD." But anyway... Point slit stands: Why did iD take this authoritarian position. As has been noted other, editors don't make this assumption. Other editors don't try to synthesize an area type. A split polygon with only an outer MP is not an "area". The correct solution to split polygons with tags on the ways is to rejoin those ways, not create a MP. As I pointed out, the question is -when- to rejoin those ways. As I pointed out, that's for the contributor to decide, not the editor. A MP with only one* outer is invalid. Nope. There's a clue in the name 'MultiPolygon' there has to be more than one. Splitting into two serves no purpose, adds no quality. Entropy isn't beneficial for the OSM database. Incomplete MP relations are not beneficial to OSM quality. DaveF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] FLOSS alt? | Re: reddit AMA with some OSMF Board members. 15:00Z 9 Nov
Oct 30, 2020, 14:31 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:03 AM Rory McCann <> r...@technomancy.org> > wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 10:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> > Rory, I am absolutely sure there was no bad intent in the choice of >> > format and platform, but given where this discussion went so fast, I >> > believe the setting should be reconsidered, evaluating the possibility >> > of choosing an open platform. >> >> Hmm, I do want to support open channels. Do you have an idea of an >> alternative? >> > > I may be biased, but how about the fediverse? > In this case I would support doing both. I am supporting open channels (and mirroring such discussion in some open non-proprietary place) but reaching out to people using Redding/Fb/whatever makes sense and is a good idea. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] FLOSS alt? | Re: reddit AMA with some OSMF Board members. 15:00Z 9 Nov
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:03 AM Rory McCann wrote: > On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 10:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Rory, I am absolutely sure there was no bad intent in the choice of > > format and platform, but given where this discussion went so fast, I > > believe the setting should be reconsidered, evaluating the possibility > > of choosing an open platform. > > Hmm, I do want to support open channels. Do you have an idea of an > alternative? > I may be biased, but how about the fediverse? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] reddit AMA with some OSMF Board members. 15:00Z 9 Nov
By quoting the board statement i did not really intend to argue with the authors of said document about the exegesis of it - that would be kind of pointless. What i want to express is that this is a good practical case study how much commitment the board members have in their practical communication with the OSM community to open communication channels and platforms. As (like you and Martin point out) individual board members but still in their capacity as board members and not as a group of private individuals. We have a saying in German that goes "wie man in den Wald hineinruft so schallt es heraus". So if the board boldly advertises their commitment to open communication channels and then holds an exclusive event on a proprietary platform said board will have a hard time dealing with corporations boldly communicating their commitment to OpenStreetMap, community rules, OSMF policy, the license or similar things but then practically not living up to said promises from the perspective of the board or the OSM community. Language can be a powerful tool of social interaction but your ability to use it to that effect depends on you having and maintaining the reputation to be earnest, concise, well-defined and dependable in your communication - not only from your own perspective but also from that of the recipients of the communication. If people have the impression that they cannot rely on what you say - and it does not matter if that is due to them misreading your communication or you being vague in it - you loose the ability to effectively communicate with people. As a result you would massively narrow your social horizon to those people who are culturally close and like-minded to you. Back on subject - the solution to the problem here to be able to reach out to people on reddit who are more comfortable there than on open platforms while not being exclusive in my eyes could be fairly simple - you just allow questions on both reddit and open platforms and you post answers on both equally as well. Yes, that is additional work. But commitment without inconveniences is ultimately not really commitment. We even have a practical reference for Q&A in the OSMF context on open platforms by the way. Before the board decided there to be a need for moderation (which was never re-evaluated afterwards by the way) in the lead-up to the board elections we had open Q&As on the OSM wiki with the candidates. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] FLOSS alt? | Re: reddit AMA with some OSMF Board members. 15:00Z 9 Nov
On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 10:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Rory, I am absolutely sure there was no bad intent in the choice of > format and platform, but given where this discussion went so fast, I > believe the setting should be reconsidered, evaluating the possibility > of choosing an open platform. Hmm, I do want to support open channels. Do you have an idea of an alternative? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] 1st November 2020 - Edit API unavailable during maintenance
Hi OpenStreetMap'ers, This Sunday 1st November 2020 from 10:30am until 13:30 GMT/UTC the OpenStreetMap editing API will be read-only. We are upgrading the cluster of database servers. During the maintenance you will be unable to save map changes. Kind regards, Grant Part of the OSM sysadmin team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] reddit AMA with some OSMF Board members. 15:00Z 9 Nov
On 2020-10-30 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: When digging slightly deeper it surfaces that people who do not want to sign up at can only read. "Ask me anything" in readonly mode? I'm sure you can send them questions via email (https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Contact) and I'm hoping the participants will monitor their email during the AMA. That should be near real-time enough. The only down part is the countries where reddit is banned completely. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] reddit AMA with some OSMF Board members. 15:00Z 9 Nov
Am Do., 29. Okt. 2020 um 22:31 Uhr schrieb Rory McCann :
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, at 9:30 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> > So i suppose you will circumnavigate any subject related to OSMF
> > governance or the election and that you will not refer to what is going
> > to be said there in any future discussion of OSMF matters (because then
> > it would need to be considered as part of a consultation by the board).
>
> What, you think, I personally am not allowed to even _talk_ about anything
> to do with OSMF unless it's (e.g.) on this mailing list?! Come on,
> Christoph, that's ridiculus. If someone emails me, am I required to publish
> that email and any reply I make?! Seriously that's not what the committment
> to open communication channels means.
There's a difference between a chat among some people and a "Ask me
anything" which you, representing yourself as a board member and other
members of the board ("Some of us on the OSM Foundation Board") announce on
the talk list with the words: "It's an oppertunity to ask us some
questions.".
When digging slightly deeper it surfaces that people who do not want to
sign up at can only read. "Ask me anything" in
readonly mode?
Rory, I am absolutely sure there was no bad intent in the choice of format
and platform, but given where this discussion went so fast, I believe the
setting should be reconsidered, evaluating the possibility of choosing an
open platform.
Cheers
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
