Am Fr., 14. Feb. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale <
colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:
> Yes I realise that but attention must be paid to all possible sources of
> precision leakage.
>
> What use would proprietary parameters be? If they were used, are relevant
> and kept private, this would impede the
On 2020-02-14 10:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Do., 13. Feb. 2020 um 08:41 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale
> :
> Locations are stored in OSM as pairs of {lat,lon} and I assume these are both
> 64-bit floats in the database.
>
> AFAIK they are stored as integers (shifting the decimals)
>
> If
Am Do., 13. Feb. 2020 um 08:41 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale <
colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:
> Locations are stored in OSM as pairs of {lat,lon} and I assume these are
> both 64-bit floats in the database.
>
>
> AFAIK they are stored as integers (shifting the decimals)
>
> If so then then my comments about
On 13.02.20 08:41, Colin Smale wrote:
>>> Locations are stored in OSM as pairs of {lat,lon} and I assume these
>>> are both 64-bit floats in the database.
>>
>> AFAIK they are stored as integers (shifting the decimals)
>>
> If so then then my comments about preserving precision still apply to
>
On 2020-02-13 00:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
>> Il giorno 13 feb 2020, alle ore 00:05, Colin Smale
>> ha scritto:
>>
>> Locations are stored in OSM as pairs of {lat,lon} and I assume these are
>> both 64-bit floats in the database.
>
> AFAIK they are stored as
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 13 feb 2020, alle ore 00:05, Colin Smale ha
> scritto:
>
> Locations are stored in OSM as pairs of {lat,lon} and I assume these are both
> 64-bit floats in the database.
AFAIK they are stored as integers (shifting the decimals)
Cheers Martin
On 2020-02-12 23:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
>
> Il giorno 12 feb 2020, alle ore 14:06, Colin Smale ha
> scritto:
>
> Exactly this. A hobbyist or volunteer CAN verify an admin boundary (where it
> is available as open data) - it is independently verifiable. It is
>
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 12 feb 2020, alle ore 14:06, Colin Smale ha
> scritto:
>
> Exactly this. A hobbyist or volunteer CAN verify an admin boundary (where it
> is available as open data) - it is independently verifiable. It is
> objectively of better quality than an OTG observation
On 2020-02-12 10:42, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-02-12 10:28, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> Where a boundary coincides with the centre line of
>> a road for example, and there is a discrepancy in OSM between the
>> locations of the two, there should be a recognition that the
>>
Colin doesn’t seem to be advocating for deference to and worship of authorities
in all situations. That’s an over the top interpretation.
It’s maybe better to say that it’s something to consider when evaluating data —
as we always look at a mappers context in OSM when looking at edits and
On Feb 12, 2020, at 12:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Start with "If A, then B" where A is "it is on the ground" and B is "you may
> map it." Now, try the contrapositive "If not B, then not A" (in logic
> notation: ¬B -> ¬A).
>
> this is not how complex situations work. "If its black
Hi,
On 2020-02-12 10:28, Colin Smale wrote:
> Where a boundary coincides with the centre line of
> a road for example, and there is a discrepancy in OSM between the
> locations of the two, there should be a recognition that the
> professionally surveyed locations are more likely to be correct
I
On 2020-02-12 09:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I believe it is a misconception to think it must be "visible" on the ground,
> rather it must be determinable on the ground / "in loco". There might well be
> nothing to "see", but you could still check on the ground, by talking to the
> local
Am Mi., 12. Feb. 2020 um 01:29 Uhr schrieb stevea :
> On Feb 11, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
> talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > OTG is not "everything must be mapped on survey", it means
> > that direct survey (what is actually existing) overrides official data,
> opinions
On Feb 11 18 h 49 min 26 s UTC−5, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> ??? just do not create unreasonably large multipolygons (or split existing,
> possibly undo import if it makes area uneditable and do it right).
Your answer seems to be that it is possible to map appropriately with the
On Feb 11, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via talk
wrote:
> OTG is not "everything must be mapped on survey", it means
> that direct survey (what is actually existing) overrides official data,
> opinions and desires.
I thank Mateusz for making (reiterating?) this important point. I
Feb 12, 2020, 00:07 by talk@openstreetmap.org:
> Feb 11, 15:59, stevea wrote :
>
> > Rather than get snarled in counter-examples, let's discuss how OTG isn't
> > and can't be strictly
> > followed in many cases. It IS followed in the majority of cases, but in
> > those corner cases where
Feb 11, 15:59, stevea wrote :
> Rather than get snarled in counter-examples, let's discuss how OTG isn't and
> can't be strictly
> followed in many cases. It IS followed in the majority of cases, but in
> those corner cases where
> it isn't, because it can't be ("nothing" is OTG), must be
On Feb 11, 2020, at 2:41 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-February/083993.html
Thank you. That's recent, and reminds me that I agreed with you as I (and I
suspect others) support a yet-to-be, well-designed tagging protocol which
clearly denotes
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-February/083993.html
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Tuesday, February 11, 2020, 04:42:42 PM EST, stevea
wrote:
Thanks, Mikel, but may I please ask what you mean by "control boundaries?"
SteveA
> On Feb 11,
Thanks, Mikel, but may I please ask what you mean by "control boundaries?"
SteveA
> On Feb 11, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
>
> btw, I think it's entirely compatible to follow On the Ground, with tagging
> that recognizes the distinction between political boundaries and control
>
btw, I think it's entirely compatible to follow On the Ground, with tagging
that recognizes the distinction between political boundaries and control
boundaries.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Tuesday, February 11, 2020, 03:55:48 PM EST, stevea
wrote:
On Feb 11,
On Feb 11, 2020, at 12:05 PM, Mark Wagner wrote:
> Have you actually been to the US-Canada border? For thousands and
> thousands of kilometers, it's really obvious:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/US-Canada_border_at_Crawford_State_Park_20130629.jpg
>
> Even when it's not
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 09:03:45 -0800
stevea wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2020, at 2:58 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
> > On 07.02.20 20:12, stevea wrote:
> >> A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which
> >> frequently do not exist "on the ground,"
> > National borders don't exist on the
On 2020-02-09 04:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> Re: "on a government map, by legal / statutory decree, from data
>> authoritatively published on a website"
>
> These examples are not "good practice" sources for openstreetmap.
> While many mappers import data from such sources, there is no
> Re: "Similarly, type=route relations (road, bicycle, hiking, equestrian...)
> enter OSM from ODbL-compatible government-published maps, yet remain unsigned
> (or poorly signed) in the real world."
Please do not add this section. Most types of route relation should
only be mapped if they are
Done:
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Good_practice#Supplementing_and_clarifying_the_On_The_Ground_.22rule.22
Follow it there, if you like.
SteveA
> On Feb 8, 2020, at 12:04 PM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
> I am in favor of this or similar language. I think for a more vote-like
> discussion it
I am in favor of this or similar language. I think for a more vote-like
discussion it might be better to use the wiki talk page (easier to add +1s
and short comments).
On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 2:59 PM stevea wrote:
> I don't know if here or https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Good_practice is a
>
I don't know if here or https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Good_practice is a
better place to discuss and eventually insert these suggested improvements into
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Good_practice#Verifiability (and its first section,
"Map what's on the ground").
I suggest adding these essences
Very well stated, Colin. I agree that "independent verifiability" is at the
heart of OTG and what we mean to distill from it as crucially important and a
tenet of OSM that we can all agree upon (well, I hope so, anyway).
By explicitly stating that John Random Public can "consult the source"
On 2020-02-08 18:03, stevea wrote:
> See, "the on the ground rule," to the best of my ability to determine it (an
> exception is your opinion as you explicitly express here, and that's part of
> the problem with it), isn't clearly defined and it needs the elasticity of
> such ad hoc
On Feb 8, 2020, at 2:58 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
> On 07.02.20 20:12, stevea wrote:
>> A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which
>> frequently do not exist "on the ground,"
> National borders don't exist on the ground? huh? Have you ever actually
> _crossed_ an international
On 08.02.20 11:58, Rory McCann wrote:
On 07.02.20 20:12, stevea wrote:
A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which
frequently do not exist "on the ground,"
National borders don't exist on the ground? huh? Have you ever actually
_crossed_ an international border? I assure you
On 07.02.20 20:12, stevea wrote:
A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which
frequently do not exist "on the ground,"
National borders don't exist on the ground? huh? Have you ever actually
_crossed_ an international border? I assure you they exist on the
ground. From large
34 matches
Mail list logo
