[OSM-talk] Maps rendering forum

[Daniel Koć]

Hi,

I think we need a place to discuss maps rendering using OSM data, so I
created special subforum to talk about it:

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=100


-- 
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Help me build an OSM Community Index

[Bryan Housel]

Yep, to echo what Clifford said - we don’t need to get the exact boundaries 
perfect.  As long as a person editing around this area sees that there is 
something nearby, I am happy.  

Because the project is really just a bunch of .geojson files, we can be 
flexible and update as often as needed.
For comparison, here are the current Pacific Northwest community boundaries:

Vancouver:  
https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index/blob/master/features/north-america/canada/vancouver_metro.geojson
 

Mt Vernon:  
https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index/blob/master/features/north-america/us/mt_vernon_wa.geojson
 

Seattle:  
https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index/blob/master/features/north-america/us/seattle.geojson
 


> On Apr 4, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> Paul,
> For this application having a well defined region isn't a big issue. To me 
> it's more of "if you are interested, here is a  nearby OSM group(s)." I think 
> as we learn how users react to the feature, we can find ways to improve it.  
> To that end, I gave Metro Vancouver as an area to github issue. It probably 
> should extend out more than just the metro relation but I felt it was a good 
> start.
> 
> Clifford
> 
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:50 AM, Paul Norman  > wrote:
> On 3/31/2018 5:25 AM, Bryan Housel wrote:
> a `.geojson` file to describe where the region where it is active.  (multiple 
> resources can share a .geojson file)
> 
> I'm having trouble figuring out what a sensible region is for the meetups in 
> Vancouver and the Pacific Northwest.
> 
> Our meetups are along the coast, but I don't believe there are any other 
> meetups for a few hundred km as you go inland. Closer to home, I'd consider 
> Chilliwack part of our region in many ways, but it's 100km from there to our 
> normal meeting place. This makes it too far to suggest, because it's a 90+ 
> minute drive. Where would I cut it off?
> 
> Going up and down the coast, we have a different problem. Vancouver, 
> South-Central Salish Sea, and Seattle all share a meetup organization, and 
> have overlap in members. The boundaries here are fuzzy.
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us 
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> 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] Help me build an OSM Community Index

[Clifford Snow]

Paul,
For this application having a well defined region isn't a big issue. To me
it's more of "if you are interested, here is a  nearby OSM group(s)." I
think as we learn how users react to the feature, we can find ways to
improve it.  To that end, I gave Metro Vancouver as an area to github
issue. It probably should extend out more than just the metro relation but
I felt it was a good start.

Clifford

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:50 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 3/31/2018 5:25 AM, Bryan Housel wrote:
>
>> a `.geojson` file to describe where the region where it is active.
>>  (multiple resources can share a .geojson file)
>>
>
> I'm having trouble figuring out what a sensible region is for the meetups
> in Vancouver and the Pacific Northwest.
>
> Our meetups are along the coast, but I don't believe there are any other
> meetups for a few hundred km as you go inland. Closer to home, I'd consider
> Chilliwack part of our region in many ways, but it's 100km from there to
> our normal meeting place. This makes it too far to suggest, because it's a
> 90+ minute drive. Where would I cut it off?
>
> Going up and down the coast, we have a different problem. Vancouver,
> South-Central Salish Sea, and Seattle all share a meetup organization, and
> have overlap in members. The boundaries here are fuzzy.
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] QA bots commenting on changesets - your thoughts?

[john whelan]

> * do not message the same person twice about the same kind of problem

and I would support this.  The other problem is how recent was the
mapping.  If its more than a week old they may have corrected the way they
work after it had been brought to their attention by another mapper.

Cheerio John

On 4 April 2018 at 10:53, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 04/04/18 10:44, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
> > What do you think about it? Are such bots useful or not?
>
> The bot programmer must take extreme care not to make their bot an
> annoyance. In my opinion this would include:
>
> * do not message the same person twice about the same kind of problem
>
> * at the very least allow mappers to "opt out" of bot messaging, or
> ideally use an opt-in where when someone submits a changeset, they don't
> only tick "I would like someone to review my changeset" but also "I am
> willing to receive automated messages about this changeset"
>
> 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
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] QA bots commenting on changesets - your thoughts?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 04/04/18 10:44, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
> What do you think about it? Are such bots useful or not?

The bot programmer must take extreme care not to make their bot an
annoyance. In my opinion this would include:

* do not message the same person twice about the same kind of problem

* at the very least allow mappers to "opt out" of bot messaging, or
ideally use an opt-in where when someone submits a changeset, they don't
only tick "I would like someone to review my changeset" but also "I am
willing to receive automated messages about this changeset"

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] QA bots commenting on changesets - your thoughts?

[Bryan Housel]

I think the more we can do to automate QA, the better.   

There should be some common sense guidelines for running bots though:
*  user names with “bot” in them
*  user profiles that say what the bot does and where the source code is
*  common place on GitHub for bot development (osmlab/bots?) 



> On Apr 4, 2018, at 4:44 AM, Michał Brzozowski  wrote:
> 
> There's a bot in Poland that comments on changesets which break addresses 
> (e.g. combining addr:place with addr:street), along with an explanation and 
> links to forum topic.
> 
> What do you think about it? Are such bots useful or not?
> 
> Michał
> ___
> 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] QA bots commenting on changesets - your thoughts?

[_ dikkeknodel]

Hi Michał,

I can see value in making sure that mistakes are not accidentally introduced. 
However, I am not sure whether a bot like you describe is a wanted solution.

  *   I have concerns about false positives, when the bot considers an action 
as braking a connection and gives comment while the change is actually valid. 
This relates to what Martin brings in, false positives raise the noise level 
and the comments will therefore be ignored in the future. I don’t know what an 
acceptable level for false positives is, but there must be literature on it 
from psychology/computer sciences.
  *   Feedback by a bot as comment to a changeset is too late for maintaining 
data integrity, the mistake is already submitted to the database. The feedback 
should be given when trying to submit a changeset. I can imagine an 
implementation similar to what JOSM does for validation before submitting a 
dataset. This validation should then occur on the OSM server instead, or access 
to the changeset API should only be allowed for applications that have decent 
validation implemented. The second option is maybe preferable from a money 
perspective, since the calculations will be done locally and no server capacity 
is required. It will however put more requirements on hardware and software 
used to input data.

Cheers, dikkeknodel

Van: Martin Koppenhoefer
Verzonden: woensdag 4 april 2018 11:17
Aan: Michał Brzozowski
CC: osm
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] QA bots commenting on changesets - your thoughts?



2018-04-04 10:44 GMT+02:00 Michał Brzozowski 
mailto:www.ha...@gmail.com>>:
There's a bot in Poland that comments on changesets which break addresses (e.g. 
combining addr:place with addr:street), along with an explanation and links to 
forum topic.
What do you think about it? Are such bots useful or not?

while the example situation merits some kind of response, I am not sure if 
automated changeset comments are a good answer, because this will raise the 
noise level and very soon we will not find the needles in the comments haystack 
any more. Maybe the time has come for tags in changeset comments (bot=yes) ;-)
Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Help me build an OSM Community Index

[Paul Norman]

On 3/31/2018 5:25 AM, Bryan Housel wrote:
a `.geojson` file to describe where the region where it is active. 
 (multiple resources can share a .geojson file)


I'm having trouble figuring out what a sensible region is for the 
meetups in Vancouver and the Pacific Northwest.


Our meetups are along the coast, but I don't believe there are any other 
meetups for a few hundred km as you go inland. Closer to home, I'd 
consider Chilliwack part of our region in many ways, but it's 100km from 
there to our normal meeting place. This makes it too far to suggest, 
because it's a 90+ minute drive. Where would I cut it off?


Going up and down the coast, we have a different problem. Vancouver, 
South-Central Salish Sea, and Seattle all share a meetup organization, 
and have overlap in members. The boundaries here are fuzzy.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] QA bots commenting on changesets - your thoughts?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-04-04 10:44 GMT+02:00 Michał Brzozowski :

> There's a bot in Poland that comments on changesets which break addresses
> (e.g. combining addr:place with addr:street), along with an explanation and
> links to forum topic.
> What do you think about it? Are such bots useful or not?
>


while the example situation merits some kind of response, I am not sure if
automated changeset comments are a good answer, because this will raise the
noise level and very soon we will not find the needles in the comments
haystack any more. Maybe the time has come for tags in changeset comments
(bot=yes) ;-)

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

[OSM-talk] QA bots commenting on changesets - your thoughts?

[Michał Brzozowski]

There's a bot in Poland that comments on changesets which break addresses
(e.g. combining addr:place with addr:street), along with an explanation and
links to forum topic.

What do you think about it? Are such bots useful or not?

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