Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 5 April 2016 16:18:53 GMT+01:00, Greg Morgan >In my case, you'll have to provide more context here. I look at OSM >Inspector and Keep Right and see all these broken things. That is a >beautiful discovery. Mappers are trying to improve the map that is >very >much a human endeavor and

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

Context Please! On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: > On 16-03-23 13:24:29, Andy Townsend, wrote 1.0K characters saying: > >> On 23/03/2016 12:22, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: >> >>> On 16-03-23 12:20:35, Andy Townsend, wrote 0.3K characters saying:

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 16-03-23 13:24:29, Andy Townsend, wrote 1.0K characters saying: On 23/03/2016 12:22, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: On 16-03-23 12:20:35, Andy Townsend, wrote 0.3K characters saying: On 23/03/2016 12:07, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: Again, that's not the goal if it. As said above, the role is NOT

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

Possibly! I am not sure if I understand the full scope of the issues, but if someone could catch some of the issues presented in one or more Overpass queries, I (or anyone, really) can use geojson2maproulette to make a MapRoulette challenge out of it. Martijn > On Mar 22, 2016, at 10:37 AM,

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: >On 16-03-22 17:25:37, malenki, wrote 2.1K characters saying: this is nonsense >>Example: >>Think of an MP where the way has – additionally to the tags you want >>to fix – intermittent=yes and the relation has not. >> >>Would

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: > >> Can you give me an example ? > > Two lakes, collectively known as "Sheep Lakes" but individually known as "North Sheep Lake" and "South Sheep Lake" R [natural=water name=Sheep Lakes] W [natural=water

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 23/03/2016, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: > Maybe it's an higher priority, but that doesn't interest me. If someone > wants to, good for them. Fair enough, we all have different priorities. > Now, the lower priority 'redundant tag deleting' > is still needed, and if it

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 22/03/2016, Pierre Béland wrote: > This is a good proposition to look at unclosed polygons and see if a > potential incorrect keys to fix. > > I agree with others that using a Bot is not a safe way to handle these > problems. Could a script to extract such unclosed polygons

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 22/03/2016, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: > On 16-03-22 10:23:51, Nicolás Alvarez, wrote 1.2K characters saying: >> >>> El 22 mar 2016, a las 10:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon >>> escribió: >>> >>> # First goal: >>> First goal is quite simple. The idea is

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 23/03/2016 12:22, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: On 16-03-23 12:20:35, Andy Townsend, wrote 0.3K characters saying: On 23/03/2016 12:07, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: Again, that's not the goal if it. As said above, the role is NOT to change tags, but to remove redundancies. It doesn't matter.

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 16-03-23 12:20:35, Andy Townsend, wrote 0.3K characters saying: On 23/03/2016 12:07, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: Again, that's not the goal if it. As said above, the role is NOT to change tags, but to remove redundancies. It doesn't matter. All of the screed that I wrote yesterday applies

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 16-03-22 16:46:03, Christoph Hormann, wrote 1.5K characters saying: On Tuesday 22 March 2016, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: Can you give me an example ? I probably could (after all i am on record for saying waterbody mapping in OSM is a practical case of the infinite monkey theorem) but

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 23/03/2016 12:07, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: Again, that's not the goal if it. As said above, the role is NOT to change tags, but to remove redundancies. It doesn't matter. All of the screed that I wrote yesterday applies to "redundant data" too - we need to understand how it got there,

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 16-03-23 09:54:34, Warin, wrote 6.0K characters saying: On 23/03/2016 2:47 AM, Pierre Béland wrote: On 2016-03-22 14:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: # First goal: First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations which have a natural=water . Then, it will: * Delete

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 16-03-22 14:52:55, Andy Townsend, wrote 7.8K characters saying: On 22/03/2016 13:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: Technically, it was already run on the whole planet, and so far no bugs were found. That's not true. Many people complained and all your work was reverted.* The complaining was

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 23/03/2016 2:47 AM, Pierre Béland wrote: On 2016-03-22 14:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: ># First goal: >First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations >which have a natural=water . Then, it will: >* Delete natural=water from all the ways if they are NOT closed or >

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

I think that this would be a great Maproulette subject! > On Mar 22, 2016, at 9:23 AM, Maarten Deen wrote: > >> On 2016-03-22 14:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: >> >> # First goal: >> First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations >> which have a

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:12:42 +0100, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: > >Mappers frequently map things in ambiguous ways or change existing > >mapping in ways that make it ambiguous and it is hard to decide from > >the data alone how to interpret such mapping. A bot will not be any > >better in doing

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 2016-03-22 14:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: ># First goal: >First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations >which have a natural=water .  Then, it will: >    * Delete natural=water from all the ways if they are NOT closed or >    ring 0. > This is a good proposition to

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On Tuesday 22 March 2016, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: > > Can you give me an example ? I probably could (after all i am on record for saying waterbody mapping in OSM is a practical case of the infinite monkey theorem) but right now i don't have the time to look for a good real world example. In

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 22/03/2016 13:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: Hi everybody, So, what do you think ? I think it's a silly idea. Identifying complex potentially problem areas is one thing - as you've found, attempting to fix them automatically is quite another. In among the "obvious" fixes will be many

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 16-03-22 15:23:44, Maarten Deen, wrote 1.7K characters saying: On 2016-03-22 14:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: # First goal: First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations which have a natural=water . Then, it will: * Delete natural=water from all the ways if they are

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 2016-03-22 14:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: # First goal: First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations which have a natural=water . Then, it will: * Delete natural=water from all the ways if they are NOT closed or ring 0. I have been fixing waterways and water

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 16-03-22 14:53:42, Christoph Hormann, wrote 1.9K characters saying: On Tuesday 22 March 2016, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: # Why ? Well, OSM has a quite exhaustive lakes/water surfaces database, but it's a complete pain to work on because: * Some non closed ways have a natural=water

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On 16-03-22 10:23:51, Nicolás Alvarez, wrote 1.2K characters saying: El 22 mar 2016, a las 10:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon escribió: # First goal: First goal is quite simple. The idea is to work only on relations which have a natural=water . Then, it will: * Delete

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

On Tuesday 22 March 2016, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: > > # Why ? > Well, OSM has a quite exhaustive lakes/water surfaces database, but > it's a complete pain to work on because: > * Some non closed ways have a natural=water or a water=* tag, > which makes no sense and is forbidden. >

Re: [OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

> El 22 mar 2016, a las 10:10, Frank Villaro-Dixon > escribió: > > Hi everybody, > > I launched a bot (FrankVD_bot) this week which didn't make everyone happy, as > it wasn't discussed with the community, which is quite normal. Here's then > the RFC for (let's call

[OSM-talk] [BOT] [RFC]: water surfaces

Hi everybody, I launched a bot (FrankVD_bot) this week which didn't make everyone happy, as it wasn't discussed with the community, which is quite normal. Here's then the RFC for (let's call it) scorpion. # Targets The targeted zones are actually the multipolygons with natural=water on