Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Colin Smale]

 

On 2015-08-18 02:13, Warin wrote: 

> On 17/08/2015 11:13 PM, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> ...which IMHO is part of the bigger picture of data quality. Quality is not 
>> the same as perfection. It is about agreeing things, complying with what has 
>> been agreed, the ability to measure the compliance objectively and feedback 
>> to help improve the compliance.
> 
> ISO 9000 is a standard for quality .. it means if you produce something .. 
> you will continue to produce that something consistently .. rubbish or not.

Actually it is a standard for Quality Management Systems. It does not
tell you what attributes your product should have - that's between you
and your consumer/customer. OSM doesn't really have any way of assessing
its product against desired attributes. How do you think OSM's product
should be measured for these purposes? At the moment it is very
subjective - "good" is anything which is not considered "bad", and "bad"
means shouted down by a few people on a mailing list and/or vetoed by
the DWG in a sort of Star Chamber process. 

> 'Agreed'? Buy whom? OSM can have new tags introduced by anyone. The reality 
> of this is that tags that get used frequently by a number of mappers get 
> 'recognised'.

Agreed between producer and consumer. Our definition of quality will not
include a limitation to ONLY use certain tags, implying that it is the
consumer's responsibility to ignore arbitrary tags. What are our
consumer's expectations? What (apart from product price) will drive
their decision to use OSM instead of other sources? 

> Tags that get 'approved' by the tagging group get the status=approved thing, 
> those rejected get the status=rejected .. but even the rejected tags get 
> used, some even advocate their use. 
> One can take the attitude that at least these tags have been review by some, 
> compared to tags that are simply added by one person without review. 
> 
> Compliance .. with what? The wiki documented tags? Those can be added by 
> anyone. As there is no scheme/philosophy for OSM .. then you have nothing to 
> comply to that cannot be changed so easily that it is not worth the effort.

Compliance with the agreed "specifications." Once again, we don't have a
good definition of "quality" for OSM data, so we cannot use that to
judge whether data is "good" or "bad", or, put another way, "compliant"
or "non-compliant". 

So what dimensions could we apply to OSM data to assess its quality? I
am just throwing some ideas in the mix here, this is not my "answer". In
all cases please imagine the words "to what extent" at the start of the
sentence. 

Completeness 

* Is the data complete, given its intended scope? For example, do we
have ALL the train stations in the UK? 

* Correctness 

Are there any typos in the tagging? Is a train station not tagged as a
tram stop? 

Is the use of those tags which are documented, in line with the
documentation? 

* Consistency 

Is the tagging consistent, across its intended applicable domain? (I
intend to suggest that it is probably impossible to get tagging
consistent across the whole world, but within a country for example it
should most definitely be achievable) 

* Timeliness 

Is the data still valid today? Or to make it "SMART", how long ago was
the data reviewed? Different things will need different standards here -
some things are obviously more volatile than others. 

* Verifiability 

Did the date come from a suitably licenced source? 

Is the data verifiable by an independent member of the public without
any legal privilege? 

* Consumability 

Is the data represented and made available in a way which facilitates
its use? For example, dates in arbitrary local formats would not be
compliant here. We might not be too happy with tags using non-Latin
characters. The use of XML is good, but it's a shame we don't have even
a basic XSD yet (I am working on this though) 

All this might tell us how the data scores, but it doesn't tell us what
we should consider "good enough". In some cases we can expect to get
close to 100% (e.g. train stations in the UK), but all sorts of factors
will keep the score below 100% in practice (like when a new station
opens, it MAY take a long time to find its way into OSM. In the mean
time we are down to 99.9%). In other cases, we might be ecstatic if 15%
of the data was entered/reviewed in the last 5 years. 

--colin 

 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Colin Smale]

 

Absolutely agreed. I am trying to ignite a constructive debate here, not
to get a specific answer to a rhetorical question. I have been around
OSM long enough to know how it "works." 

On 2015-08-18 01:49, Warin wrote: 

> On 17/08/2015 11:54 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi,
> 
> On 08/17/2015 03:13 PM, Colin Smale wrote: So if I think something is useful 
> to me, and I am prepared to maintain
> it to my own satisfaction, I can feel free add it

I'd think it should be documented in the wiki .. so others can 'see'
what it is and use it if they like.

And the source tag should be used.
Do remember you won't be around forever, so there must be some thought
for the future.
And give some thought to creating tags that are able to be applied world
wide, or if not world wide at least to a fair number of features.

> ... to a file on your local computer where it will continue to please
> you for years to come ;)

With that attitude there would be very little in OSM.

I add stuff that interests me, stuff that others may find usefull and
occasional stuff that simply improves the look of the map (and may give
some help to people not familiar with the area).

Adding new tags .. things that would be usefull to others is my goal
here.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Nicolás Alvarez]

2015-08-17 6:04 GMT-03:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Am 17.08.2015 um 08:28 schrieb Colin Smale :
> >
> > OSM IDs are too volatile, and IIRC there were objections to putting
> "foreign keys" (like shop branch numbers) into OSM on the grounds that
> someone would need to maintain that link.
>
>
> Some people are adding tax identification numbers for businesses, the tag
> is ref:vatin
> but the number is typically referring to an operator. Of course this has
> to be maintained as well.
>
>
I have added many ref:vatin tags in my area. They are easy to survey and
verify: shops either have them in a sign visible from outside, or in a sign
inside near the point of sale, or they are about to get into trouble with
the tax office. They can perhaps serve as foreign keys.

-- 
Nicolás
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Russ Nelson]

Serge Wroclawski writes:
 > TIGER wasn't what I was referring to.
 > 
 > Please don't speak on my behalf.

Very well. Feel free to point to anything anywhere that people are
afraid to delete. I want to see 1) something that obviously doesn't
belong there, 2) which isn't TIGER and 3) evidence that someone
expressed a reluctance to delete it.

Is it unreasonable of me to ask for evidence of a claim that you have
made? I mean, besides TIGER, which is a perfectly reasonable
assumption for an ambiguous claim.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Warin]

On 17/08/2015 10:48 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:

On 17/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

Am 17.08.2015 um 02:39 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo :

* A broken bridge with just a few meters left on both riverbanks

I surely wouldn't have removed this one. Isn't this a significant feature to
many people?

In only deleted the middle bit, not the bridge=yes stumps. At least
that's what I remember; I couldn't find it again in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/16286467. Maybe it was a
different railway line.


Retag the middle bit demolished:bridge=yes would be a better solution?
Retains all the data. If the bridge were rebuilt then it could simply be 
retagged back.



On the other hand, there's an instance of a bridge that is the only
thing left standing (green undisturbed meadows on both sides), and
that bridge is kept in OSM (while the sections in the meadow were
not).


Then retag the ways leading to the bridge using the prefix demolished:


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Warin]

On 17/08/2015 11:13 PM, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2015-08-17 13:37, Warin wrote:


On 17/08/2015 4:28 PM, Colin Smale wrote:


 Will the free-tagging laissez-faire camp win, or will the 
curated/managed tagging camp win?


I'm in the 'systematised free tagging' camp .. I want a structure 
that has a simple good logical basis for the tags. But allows added 
tags .. hopefully following the structure present.

At present there is no structure/philosophy that can be followed.

How do you see this structure/philosophy taking shape? Where will it 
come from? I don't think there is consensus that such things are 
actually worth working on.




I'll give an example of the present.

 shop=bicycle has a number of sub tags ... these are usefull ... but 
have NO application to other shop= tags!


It would be better to structure this for all shops .. and possibly other 
things too!!! This would lead to a consistent scheme that would aid 
learning and implementation ...


I have a thread on the tagging group about shop sub tags .. one 
suggestion has been to us the same sub tags as the vending machine ... so


shop=grocer

vending=bread

vending=sweats


etc... This is still very much in the discussion/thinking stage.Another 
suggestion is to use the new sub tag 'sells' ...


SO .. I hope over time OSM will recognise that an overall structure is 
of benefit to all. The structure itself ... that will take yet more time.



How will this tug-of-war be organised? Will the forces at work cause 
OSM to tend to converge towards "quality" or self-destruction? After 
all, OSM says its product is the data, not a mapnik representation. 
The raster tiles may look OK, but the underlying data may tell a 
story of mapnik and OSS-carto having to work very hard to mask bad 
data quality.
The quality of the data is not your/my issue .. it is the structure 
of the tags.


...which IMHO is part of the bigger picture of data quality. Quality 
is not the same as perfection. It is about agreeing things, complying 
with what has been agreed, the ability to measure the compliance 
objectively and feedback to help improve the compliance.




ISO 9000 is a standard for quality .. it means if you produce something 
.. you will continue to produce that something consistently .. rubbish 
or not.


'Agreed'? Buy whom? OSM can have new tags introduced by anyone. The 
reality of this is that tags that get used frequently by a number of 
mappers get 'recognised'.


Tags that get 'approved' by the tagging group get the status=approved 
thing, those rejected get the status=rejected .. but even the rejected 
tags get used, some even advocate their use.
One can take the attitude that at least these tags have been review by 
some, compared to tags that are simply added by one person without review.



Compliance .. with what? The wiki documented tags? Those can be added by 
anyone. As there is no scheme/philosophy for OSM .. then you have 
nothing to comply to that cannot be changed so easily that it is not 
worth the effort.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Warin]

On 17/08/2015 11:54 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 08/17/2015 03:13 PM, Colin Smale wrote:

So if I think something is useful to me, and I am prepared to maintain
it to my own satisfaction, I can feel free add it


I'd think it should be documented in the wiki .. so others can 'see' what it is 
and use it if they like.

And the source tag should be used.
Do remember you won't be around forever, so there must be some thought for the 
future.
And give some thought to creating tags that are able to be applied world wide, 
or if not world wide at least to a fair number of features.


... to a file on your local computer where it will continue to please
you for years to come ;)


With that attitude there would be very little in OSM.

I add stuff that interests me, stuff that others may find usefull and 
occasional stuff that simply improves the look of the map (and may give some 
help to people not familiar with the area).

Adding new tags .. things that would be usefull to others is my goal here.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Crossposting

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Richard  wrote:
>
> So I am wondering - would there be some option to relax the
> rules so that reply-crossposting would work without being
> subscribed to every single list?
>

Debian has an open list policy and it doesn't seem to be for the worse.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Crossposting

[Richard]

Hi,

it occurs that people crosspost to several OSM lists.

Problem arises when someone tries to reply to such posts
- most people are not subscribed to all the same lists like
the original poster and hence everyone gets plenty of bounces
and does not reach all intended recipients.

So I am wondering - would there be some option to relax the
rules so that reply-crossposting would work without being 
subscribed to every single list?

Alternatively, should crossposting be inhibited by filters?
Current situation - getting a bunch of bounces every now and
then is a bit frustrating.

Richard


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release

[Marc Zoutendijk]

> Op 17 aug. 2015, om 16:48 heeft Martijn van Exel  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> Richard -- 
> 
> I filed a bug for this, there was some discussion, and I closed it: 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1754 
> 
> 
> Feel free to reopen if you think this needs more discussion. The consensus 
> seemed to be that lakes within forests should be tagged as inner of the 
> forest multipolygon.
> 


But in this situation:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/38.1061/-2.7978 

We have an island within a lake and it does not get rendered either, despite 
the fact that the island is the inner of the multi.
I opened a new issue for that.

Marc.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

Am 17.08.2015 um 17:05 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo :

>> You would also have to have overlapping landuse forest areas.
> 
> When would you need that ?


when a forest with a name is part of a bigger forest with a different name 


cheers 
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 17/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>> Am 17.08.2015 um 11:20 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny :
>>
>> Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and I
>> would  support such proposal.
>
>
> how do you suggest to put names? On locality nodes? On landuse objects?

Usually on the landuse (or leisure or natural or...) area.

> If you do the latter you will often have to make compromises, because of 
> things
> that are part of the named forest but are different landuses, e.g. a lake,
> or buildings, campings, meadows, settlements, cemeteries etc.

That compromise is made all over OSM : we ignore the small areas
inside a landuse such as lakes, buildings, or corner shops in a
landuse=residential. Where to draw the line between too much detail
and too little is a very subjective decision.

> You would also have to have overlapping landuse forest areas.

When would you need that ?

> I believe it's
> impractical to have it all in one tag: forest objects, the information where
> trees grow and where the landuse is forest. Multipoligon relations also
> impose a limit then how detailed you can get without loosing editability or
> even hitting api limits.

The only detailed MP you really need is for landcover=trees, but
there's no reason to give this a name and therefore no reason to have
a single huge MP. You can split it arbitrarily to make it managable.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 17/08/2015, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/08/2015 7:20 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it
>> was

The problem with that is that the map will be wrong for 5-15 years
(depending on what kind of trees are being grown). I suggest tagging
the logged area as natural=scrub, and leave the overall
landuse=forest(ry) as-is.

>> (yes, as I understand it and it seems to be a widely used in this way -
>> landuse=wood, natural=wood,
>> landcover=trees are used currently for the same objects).
>
> Err disagree, they are not the same.
> To me "landuse=wood" (or landuse=forestry) imply that the area is used
> to produce wood products.
>
> There are areas that have trees .. that are NOT used to produce wood.
> Here I would use natural=wood (or tree/s), landcover=trees.

Martin was talking about an area where the trees have recently been
logged (harvested), so this is absolutely about wood production.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release

[Martijn van Exel]

Richard --

I filed a bug for this, there was some discussion, and I closed it:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1754

Feel free to reopen if you think this needs more discussion. The consensus
seemed to be that lakes within forests should be tagged as inner of the
forest multipolygon.

Martijn


Martijn van Exel
skype: mvexel

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Richard  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 07:27:11PM -0700, Paul Norman wrote:
> > This email is also in user diary form at
> osm.org/user/pnorman/diary/35589
> > where issue numbers are linked.
> >
> > OpenStreetMap Carto 2.33.0 has been released. This release focuses on
> > cartographic style improvements, but the release notes also include
> 2.32.0.
> >
> > The biggest changes are
> >
> > - A randomized symbology for forests for natural=wood and landuse=forest
> >   #1728 #1242
>
> ok, now I see those trees across some lakes and parking lots.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/279637976
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125058043
>
> presumably those could be mapped better but it did not happen previously
> and also seems to work with other renderers without this glitch
>
> Should I file bugs?
>
>
> Richard
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 16/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> which landuse is good for an area where trees have just been logged and
> will soon be planted again?

landuse=forest, which I've always reasoned of as being landuse=forestry :)

> Which landuse value is suitable for an area
> where the trees have just been extinguished by a fire?

Same landsue as before the fire, if there was any.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release

[Richard]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 07:27:11PM -0700, Paul Norman wrote:
> This email is also in user diary form at osm.org/user/pnorman/diary/35589
> where issue numbers are linked.
> 
> OpenStreetMap Carto 2.33.0 has been released. This release focuses on
> cartographic style improvements, but the release notes also include 2.32.0.
> 
> The biggest changes are
> 
> - A randomized symbology for forests for natural=wood and landuse=forest
>   #1728 #1242

ok, now I see those trees across some lakes and parking lots.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/279637976
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125058043

presumably those could be mapped better but it did not happen previously
and also seems to work with other renderers without this glitch

Should I file bugs?


Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 16/08/2015, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 2015-08-16 15:27 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel :
>>
>> landuse=forest does not imply the area is completely tree covered.
>
> Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original intention
> was for that tag was to mean something else - but it is not changing how
> it is used by most mappers.

If only there was a good way to assert "typical usage", we might have
managed to standardise on it and solve the problem by now.

The landuse=forest definition of "area where trees are grown for
commercial purposes, expected to be covered by trees by default but
often also natural=scrub for about a decade after logging" is fairly
typical too. FWIW, that's the definition I've been using in my
mapping, as all the others (managed, named, size, etc) seemed very
impractical.

If everyone adhered to my POV we wouldn't have a problem (sarcasm).
But I've given up hope of that happening, so the next best thing IMHO
is the landcover=trees reboot, which isn't perfect but which we can
hopefully agree on.


On 16/08/2015, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> One could argue that natural=trees is a synonym for landcover=trees.

That'd work for me as well, it actually sounds much better. But
pragmatically I prefer to follow the more popular tag, unless I see
some strong consensus for natural=trees elsewhere.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 08/17/2015 03:13 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> So if I think something is useful to me, and I am prepared to maintain
> it to my own satisfaction, I can feel free add it

... to a file on your local computer where it will continue to please
you for years to come ;)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Colin Smale]

 

On 2015-08-17 13:37, Warin wrote: 

> On 17/08/2015 4:28 PM, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> If only all this energy were directed at helping OSM forwards. We haven't 
>> had a lot of progress in the last few years (I am not talking about mapping 
>> as such, but about the OSM framework itself). 
>> 
>> There are still periodical discussions about how to link OSM with other data 
>> sources - OSM IDs are too volatile, and IIRC there were objections to 
>> putting "foreign keys" (like shop branch numbers) into OSM on the grounds 
>> that someone would need to maintain that link. So how ARE we going to do it 
>> then?
> Maintenance/verification takes place by those concerned. 
> If a branch shop number is of concern to you .. then you check it.  
> The idea that everyone must be able to check everything is ridiculous.

So if I think something is useful to me, and I am prepared to maintain
it to my own satisfaction, I can feel free add it and it will not be
deleted by someone else who doesn't see the point or who has different
priorities?

> Or are we insisting on building what we in the trade call a "data island"? 
> Let's build some technical bridges, so it becomes a real alternative to 
> maintain a parallel data set. 
> 
> And then of course there are support for 3d mapping and the "area data type" 
> which have been under discussion for years. 
> 
> You forgot 'indoor mapping'... :-)

Indeed, another good example 

> How will we square the circle with regards to data quality? 
> 
> I've had students trying to square circles  having shown them how to 
> square rectangles/squares/triangles on the same machine. 
> 
> Will the free-tagging laissez-faire camp win, or will the curated/managed 
> tagging camp win? 
> 
> I'm in the 'systematised free tagging' camp .. I want a structure that has a 
> simple good logical basis for the tags. But allows added tags .. hopefully 
> following the structure present.
> At present there is no structure/philosophy that can be followed.

How do you see this structure/philosophy taking shape? Where will it
come from? I don't think there is consensus that such things are
actually worth working on. 

> How will this tug-of-war be organised? Will the forces at work cause OSM to 
> tend to converge towards "quality" or self-destruction? After all, OSM says 
> its product is the data, not a mapnik representation. The raster tiles may 
> look OK, but the underlying data may tell a story of mapnik and OSS-carto 
> having to work very hard to mask bad data quality.
> The quality of the data is not your/my issue .. it is the structure of the 
> tags.

...which IMHO is part of the bigger picture of data quality. Quality is
not the same as perfection. It is about agreeing things, complying with
what has been agreed, the ability to measure the compliance objectively
and feedback to help improve the compliance. 

> Where is this all going to end? 
> 
> Aren't there more important things to worry about than whether or not a 
> couple of hundred ways deserve a place in OSM? 
> 
> --colin 
> 
> Those who are worried about it .. do it .. and try to fix these issues. Big 
> issues or small issues ... depends on your view point.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 17.08.2015 um 11:20 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny :
> 
> Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and I 
> would 
> support such proposal.


how do you suggest to put names? On locality nodes? On landuse objects? If you 
do the latter you will often have to make compromises, because of things that 
are part of the named forest but are different landuses, e.g. a lake, or 
buildings, campings, meadows, settlements, cemeteries etc.
You would also have to have overlapping landuse forest areas. I believe it's 
impractical to have it all in one tag: forest objects, the information where 
trees grow and where the landuse is forest. Multipoligon relations also impose 
a limit then how detailed you can get without loosing editability or even 
hitting api limits. 

Cheers 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 17/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>> Am 17.08.2015 um 02:39 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo :
>>
>> * A broken bridge with just a few meters left on both riverbanks
>
> I surely wouldn't have removed this one. Isn't this a significant feature to
> many people?

In only deleted the middle bit, not the bridge=yes stumps. At least
that's what I remember; I couldn't find it again in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/16286467. Maybe it was a
different railway line.

On the other hand, there's an instance of a bridge that is the only
thing left standing (green undisturbed meadows on both sides), and
that bridge is kept in OSM (while the sections in the meadow were
not).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Warin]

On 17/08/2015 4:28 PM, Colin Smale wrote:


If only all this energy were directed at helping OSM forwards. We 
haven't had a lot of progress in the last few years (I am not talking 
about mapping as such, but about the OSM framework itself).


There are still periodical discussions about how to link OSM with 
other data sources - OSM IDs are too volatile, and IIRC there were 
objections to putting "foreign keys" (like shop branch numbers) into 
OSM on the grounds that someone would need to maintain that link. So 
how ARE we going to do it then?



Maintenance/verification takes place by those concerned.
If a branch shop number is of concern to you .. then you check it.
The idea that everyone must be able to check everything is ridiculous.

Or are we insisting on building what we in the trade call a "data 
island"? Let's build some technical bridges, so it becomes a real 
alternative to maintain a parallel data set.


And then of course there are support for 3d mapping and the "area data 
type" which have been under discussion for years.



You forgot 'indoor mapping'... :-)


How will we square the circle with regards to data quality?

I've had students trying to square circles  having shown them how to 
square rectangles/squares/triangles on the same machine.


Will the free-tagging laissez-faire camp win, or will the 
curated/managed tagging camp win?


I'm in the 'systematised free tagging' camp .. I want a structure that 
has a simple good logical basis for the tags. But allows added tags .. 
hopefully following the structure present.

At present there is no structure/philosophy that can be followed.


How will this tug-of-war be organised? Will the forces at work cause 
OSM to tend to converge towards "quality" or self-destruction? After 
all, OSM says its product is the data, not a mapnik representation. 
The raster tiles may look OK, but the underlying data may tell a story 
of mapnik and OSS-carto having to work very hard to mask bad data quality.




The quality of the data is not your/my issue .. it is the structure of 
the tags.


Where is this all going to end?

Aren't there more important things to worry about than whether or not 
a couple of hundred ways deserve a place in OSM?


--colin


Those who are worried about it .. do it .. and try to fix these issues. 
Big issues or small issues ... depends on your view point.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 17.08.2015 13:20, Warin napisał(a):

On 17/08/2015 7:20 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it
was (yes, as I
understand it and it seems to be a widely used in this way -
landuse=wood, natural=wood,
landcover=trees are used currently for the same objects).


 Err disagree, they are not the same.
 To me "landuse=wood" (or landuse=forestry) imply that the area is
used to produce wood products.

 There are areas that have trees .. that are NOT used to produce wood.
Here I would use natural=wood (or tree/s), landcover=trees.


There is also one more important factor: tag usability (aka mapper 
friendliness).


How the mapper should know what type is it really and what should she do 
when she doesn't know all the details?


--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

Am 17.08.2015 um 02:53 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo :

>> http://www.dieter-kloessing.de/Berlin/Berlin-Zehlendorf3.html#Anchor-Stammbahn-47857
> 
> That actually looks like disused rather than abandoned to me.


these are clearly abandoned, have been there (although the linked page is not 
mine nor of someone I know). No train there for 35 years, trees growing on the 
tracks and partly tracks removed. Disused are railways where a train could run, 
but doesn't (or could with few maintenance).

cheers 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Warin]

On 17/08/2015 7:20 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it 
was (yes, as I
understand it and it seems to be a widely used in this way - 
landuse=wood, natural=wood,

landcover=trees are used currently for the same objects).


Err disagree, they are not the same.
To me "landuse=wood" (or landuse=forestry) imply that the area is used 
to produce wood products.


There are areas that have trees .. that are NOT used to produce wood. 
Here I would use natural=wood (or tree/s), landcover=trees.




Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and 
I would

support such proposal.

2015-08-17 10:58 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer >:




sent from a phone

> Am 17.08.2015 um 01:30 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@gmail.com>>:
>
> I am not aware about values that should be used in that case.


you are saying that landuse=forest is not a good tag to describe
an area where trees have just been logged and will soon be planted
again?


cheers
Martin 





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Mateusz Konieczny]

In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it was
(yes, as I
understand it and it seems to be a widely used in this way - landuse=wood,
natural=wood,
landcover=trees are used currently for the same objects).

Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and I
would
support such proposal.

2015-08-17 10:58 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Am 17.08.2015 um 01:30 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny :
> >
> > I am not aware about values that should be used in that case.
>
>
> you are saying that landuse=forest is not a good tag to describe an area
> where trees have just been logged and will soon be planted again?
>
>
> cheers
> Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 17.08.2015 um 02:39 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo :
> 
> * A broken bridge with just a few meters left on both riverbanks


I surely wouldn't have removed this one. Isn't this a significant feature to 
many people?

cheers
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 17.08.2015 um 08:28 schrieb Colin Smale :
> 
> OSM IDs are too volatile, and IIRC there were objections to putting "foreign 
> keys" (like shop branch numbers) into OSM on the grounds that someone would 
> need to maintain that link.


Some people are adding tax identification numbers for businesses, the tag is 
ref:vatin
but the number is typically referring to an operator. Of course this has to be 
maintained as well.

cheers 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 17.08.2015 um 01:30 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny :
> 
> I am not aware about values that should be used in that case.


you are saying that landuse=forest is not a good tag to describe an area where 
trees have just been logged and will soon be planted again?


cheers 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Serge Wroclawski]

Russ,

TIGER wasn't what I was referring to.

Please don't speak on my behalf.

- Serge
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Preview of OpenStreetMap Carto proposed road rendering changes

[Paul Norman]

I have set up a preview at 
http://bl.ocks.org/pnorman/raw/c61d6b11193081910866 of the proposed road 
rendering changes done by Matkoniecz as part of GSOC. There are more 
details at 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1736#issuecomment-131638433, 
but please keep in mind that only selected parts of the world are loaded 
into my database, and it is not as fast as the OSMF production hardware.


I've tried to pick a reasonable cross-section of areas, but if there's a 
specific area you want to see you can always load it locally in 
Kosmtik/Tilemill.


Issues should go to 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1736, not here.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk