Re: [OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

[Michael Collinson]

and note that Bing imagery is provided to us on the same basis - for use 
in OSM but not otherwise.


Mike

On 2022-10-27 00:08, Clifford Snow wrote:


On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 2:59 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

Concerning this changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128035436

Changeset comment:

added missing roads according to proprietary aerial imagery

Editing organization's follow on comment:
"Proprietary" for Lyft meaning "provided to us for use in OSM but
not the general public"

Is this acceptable?  In my mind it is not as the whole community
should have access in order to verify and build on these edits.

I look at it as if they were using local knowledge. For example, If I 
walk downtown and take pictures of business doors to capture address, 
name, and hours for use in updating OSM but don't upload those pics - 
I consider that acceptable.


For Lyft to make their imagery public they would have to insure that 
nothing private, such as faces, license plates, etc. I'm sure they 
don't want the added cost required make them public.


Clifford

--
@osm_washington
www.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] razed railways and other things that don't exist today

[Zeke Farwell]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 1:11 PM Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> I think people should keep in mind that a culture of deltionism is
> demoralizing to contributors and harms OSM more than a few  marginal
> items in the database.
>

This is a fair point, but given how often this comes up, it doesn't seem
like it's just a few marginal items.  Also it's just as demoralizing for a
well intentioned mapper who maps an area and removes some former railway in
the process to then get berated for it.


> I also agree with stevea@ -- old railways are usually visible in the
> landscape, and the data about where they were in between visible places
> seems more useful than harmful.
>

There is no question that the data about the location of former railways is
useful.  However, data being useful is not the standard for inclusion in
OSM.  We map the world as it exists today and this excludes plenty of
useful data.  Former features that no longer exist are simply out of scope
for OSM .


> Also note that people who do not like railroads often do not see the
> evidence as well as people who are used to looking for it.
>

I support mapping old rail beds as railway=razed where they are visible in
forests, fields, and other open land.  These traces are often not visible
to those with an untrained eye and that's certainly an issue.  However, I
draw the line at sections going through buildings, highways, excavated
areas, or under water where there really are no visible traces by any
reasonable standard.  In these situations, a person with a trained eye may
see clues and patterns leading them to the deduction that a railway used to
be there, but this is not the same as visible remnants.  This is mapping
something that is really no longer there in any meaningful way.

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

[talk-au] Oceania Community Subcategory Feedback

[Dian Ågesson]

Hello Australia and New Zealand lists,

Earlier this month I reached out to gauge interest in an Oceania 
category on the OSM Community [1] page. This effort has progressed and 
the request for the Oceania subcategory is being considered.


Three moderations have been proposed:

* Andrew Davidson (user:TheSwavu [2])
* Sam Wilson (user:Sam Wilson [3])
* Dian Agesson (user:Diacritic [4])

In accordance with the Moderator Selection Criteria [5], there are now 
five days for community discussion on this proposed new subcategory.


Please, leave your comments here [6].

Dian.

Links:
--
[1] https://community.openstreetmap.org/
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheSwavu
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Sam%20Wilson
[4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Diacritic
[5] 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/moderator-selection-criteria/2392

[6] https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/oceania-subcategory/4240/5___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 2:59 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> Concerning this changeset:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128035436
>
> Changeset comment:
>
> added missing roads according to proprietary aerial imagery
>
> Editing organization's follow on comment:
> "Proprietary" for Lyft meaning "provided to us for use in OSM but not the
> general public"
>
> Is this acceptable?  In my mind it is not as the whole community should
> have access in order to verify and build on these edits.
>
> I look at it as if they were using local knowledge. For example, If I walk
downtown and take pictures of business doors to capture address, name, and
hours for use in updating OSM but don't upload those pics - I consider that
acceptable.

For Lyft to make their imagery public they would have to insure that
nothing private, such as faces, license plates, etc. I'm sure they don't
want the added cost required make them public.

Clifford

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

[OSM-talk] Use of "Proprietary" imagery to edit OSM

[Mike Thompson]

Concerning this changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128035436

Changeset comment:

added missing roads according to proprietary aerial imagery

Editing organization's follow on comment:
"Proprietary" for Lyft meaning "provided to us for use in OSM but not the
general public"

Is this acceptable?  In my mind it is not as the whole community should
have access in order to verify and build on these edits.

Thoughts?

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

Re: [Talk-si] "izboljšave" uporabnika 4KK

[Miha Pavšič via Talk-si]

Živjo,

ja, že prej je to počel (recimo 9 mesecev nazaj). Sam sem najprej opazil 
relacijo "Razvojna os 3A Ljubljana-Kočevje”, kjer je vrisal “proposed” cesto od 
razcepa Malence naprej, kot vir pa navedel novico iz leta 2015. Gre samo za 
neko staro idejo, ki se je takrat pojavila, ampak je vsaj na začetnem delu 
nerealistična in se o njej sploh ne govori več. Bila je idejna zasnova, sploh 
ne nekaj načrtovanega, in kot taka zadeva po mojem nima kaj iskati v OSM. Kako 
pa bi izgledalo, če bi vsak risal neke idejne zasnove?

Skratka, changeset sem pokomentiral (letoss septembra), komentarja z njegove 
strani ni bilo, pa tudi na moje sporočilo direktno njemu ni odgovoril.

Lep pozdrav,
Miha

> On 26 Oct 2022, at 17:58, Damjan Gerl  wrote:
> 
> Prosim napiši kakšno opombo na changeset, tako da bo tam "javno" odgovoril 
> (če bo), da bomo vsaj videli kaj/kako odgovori. In lahko dobi tudi več 
> odgovorov drugih osm-erjev.
> 
> Potem pa se lahko ukrepa in vpraša, da ga iz osm-boarda opomnijo ali začasno 
> blokirajo, če je potrebno.
> 
> LP,
> Damjan
> 
> From "Blaž Lorger" blaz.lor...@krs.net
> To talk-si@openstreetmap.org
> Cc Date Wed, 26 Oct 2022 17:35:56 +0200
> Subject [Talk-si] "izboljšave" uporabnika 4KK
> 
> 
> Mogoče ste že opazili da je v zadnjih dneh uporabnik 4KK 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/4KK) naredil več sprememb na področju 
> Slovenije. 
> Kakšna je pozitivna, so pa tudi neustrezne. 
> Zgleda se je koncentriral na ceste pri tem pa je spremenil tudi precej 
> relacij. Zaradi površnega dela so vsaj nekatere izmed teh relacij zdaj 
> nepravilne. Kot na primer ta turn restriction 
> (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2653752/history). Zdaj je legalno 
> narediti oster zavoj in se vrniti v krožišče. 
> 
> Na moj poziv naj popravi take napake je jasno odgovoril da tega ne namerava 
> storiti. 
> Predlagam da se lotite popravljanja. 
> 
> Pozdrav, 
>   Blaž 
> 
> ___
> Talk-si mailing list
> Talk-si@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-si


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

Re: [OSM-talk-fr] [osm-fr asso] [OSM-Talk-fr] [vote] Accompagnement pour stratégie d'asso

[Florian Lainez]

Hello, comme je l'ai dit sur le forum, je vous propose de discuter du 
sujet ce soir à 21h ici 
https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/accompagnement-pour-un-projet-strategique-dasso/10311


À toute à l'heure

Le 17/10/2022 à 18:01, Florian Lainez a écrit :


Hello, je propose que l'on se fasse accompagner pour élaborer une 
véritable stratégie d'asso pour les années à venir.


Dites-moi ce que vous en pensez ici : 
https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/accompagnement-pour-un-projet-strategique-dasso/10311


Merci de continuer la discussion sur le forum directement.

--
Florian Lainez
@overflorian 

--
Florian Lainez
@overflorian 
___
Talk-fr mailing list
Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr

Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today

[Greg Troxel]

Frederik Ramm  writes:

> you are correct in all aspects, however in the spirit of friendly
> collaboration I would say that a limited amount of
> stuff-that-should-not-be-in-OSM can be *tolerated*. If someone does a
> lot of good work for OSM otherwise and would really like to record an
> ancient former railroad that ran through where their house now sits -
> I shrug and let them do it. Only if someone starts to make it their
> mission to map every ancient railroad in the country and/or create
> relations so that you can see where trains used to ride in 1848 is
> when I'll ask them to stop and find a better place for it.

Well said.

I think people should keep in mind that a culture of deltionism is
demoralizing to contributors and harms OSM more than a few  marginal
items in the database.

I also agree with stevea@ -- old railways are usually visible in the
landscape, and the data about where they were in between visible places
seems more useful than harmful.

Also note that people who do not like railroads often do not see the
evidence as well as people who are used to looking for it.

> I would stress "not adding more of this" over "removing the stuff that
> already is in OSM" though. I don't want a horde of self-appointed
> cleaners running through OSM "because the wiki says so".

Good point.   "Deletionists double-plus bad".


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-si] "izboljšave" uporabnika 4KK

[Damjan Gerl]

   Prosim napiši kakšno opombo na changeset, tako da bo tam "javno" odgovoril 
(če bo), da bomo vsaj videli kaj/kako odgovori. In lahko dobi tudi več 
odgovorov drugih osm-erjev.

   Potem pa se lahko ukrepa in vpraša, da ga iz osm-boarda opomnijo ali začasno 
blokirajo, če je potrebno.

   LP,
   Damjan

   From "Blaž Lorger" blaz.lor...@krs.net
   To talk-si@openstreetmap.org
   Cc
   Date Wed, 26 Oct 2022 17:35:56 +0200
   Subject [Talk-si] "izboljšave" uporabnika 4KK

   Mogoče ste že opazili da je v zadnjih dneh uporabnik 4KK 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/4KK) naredil več sprememb na področju 
Slovenije.
   Kakšna je pozitivna, so pa tudi neustrezne.
   Zgleda se je koncentriral na ceste pri tem pa je spremenil tudi precej 
relacij. Zaradi površnega dela so vsaj nekatere izmed teh relacij zdaj 
nepravilne. Kot na primer ta turn restriction 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2653752/history). Zdaj je legalno 
narediti oster zavoj in se vrniti v krožišče.
   Na moj poziv naj popravi take napake je jasno odgovoril da tega ne namerava 
storiti.
   Predlagam da se lotite popravljanja.
   Pozdrav,
 Blaž
___
Talk-si mailing list
Talk-si@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-si

[Talk-si] "izboljšave" uporabnika 4KK

[Blaž Lorger]

Mogoče ste že opazili da je v zadnjih dneh uporabnik 4KK 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/4KK) naredil več sprememb na 
področju Slovenije.

Kakšna je pozitivna, so pa tudi neustrezne.
Zgleda se je koncentriral na ceste pri tem pa je spremenil tudi precej 
relacij. Zaradi površnega dela so vsaj nekatere izmed teh relacij zdaj 
nepravilne. Kot na primer ta turn restriction 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2653752/history). Zdaj je 
legalno narediti oster zavoj in se vrniti v krožišče.


Na moj poziv naj popravi take napake je jasno odgovoril da tega ne 
namerava storiti.

Predlagam da se lotite popravljanja.

Pozdrav,
  Blaž
___
Talk-si mailing list
Talk-si@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-si

Re: [Talk-hr] Otvaranje kategorije za Hrvatsku na community.osm.org

[Janko Mihelić]

Trenutno je u tijeku glasanje za podršku moderatorima, pa odite tamo i
kliknite "za" ili "protiv".

Janko

čet, 20. lis 2022. u 14:19 Janko Mihelić  napisao je:

> Pozdrav,
>
> ako niste čuli, otvorio se novi server za komunikaciju oko Openstreetmap-a
> koji bi trebao objediniti dosadašnji forum, help, i možda mailing listu.
> Otvorili smo zahtjev za hrvatskom kategorijom, pa možete na linku niže
> slati primjedbe na moderatore koje smo predložili, ili dati prijedloge za
> budućim korištenjem tog kanala komunikacije.
>
> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/croatia-subcategory/4380/4
>
> Janko
>
___
Talk-hr mailing list
Talk-hr@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-hr

Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today

[stevea]

Some historical perspective on a project like OSM, its growth, the social 
aspects of "what that means and does to tagging" over time might be helpful.  
The dates and numbers I'm about to offer as examples are wholly illustrative 
(and indicate not arithmetic, but geometric growth, a very powerful force) and 
are no way based in reality because I've "done the research on the actual 
numbers," because I haven't.  I'm simply making a point or two.

Let's say early in OSM's history, oh, 2005 or so, there were 10 mappers 
worldwide who began the first tendrils of rail mapping, and that by 2006 that 
grew to 50.  People in sizes like that can talk to each other and agree on 
things to a 100% level of agreement, or pretty close to 100%.  This is because 
the "problem set" has a small enough size that its "solution set" can be hashed 
out in a few emails, not many kilobytes of wiki, and heads nod in almost 
perfect unison among a relatively small group of people.  If you are "in the 
club," it's easy, and even quite fun!

By 2007 (and, for example, the USA's TIGER Import of hundreds of thousands of 
km of rail) there are 500 active, enthusiastic rail mappers in OSM, and lots of 
work to do, and it feels like maybe "1% of the problem" (of mapping all of 
Earth's rail accurately) has barely had its surface scratched.  On the social 
dimension, this remains manageable, especially as things fragment in to 
different countries, and hundreds of people still might only be a couple, a 
few, or maybe at most a dozen, even in a very complex rail area (like Germany 
or greater Europe):  "localization of the solution space" really does help a 
lot.  This remains doable, but people eye the future and imagine public 
transport and better renderers, and so allow a timeline of a few years for 
these things to develop.  It remains relatively easy, especially if you "remain 
local / regional," and "others (clever ones, busy ones, more-curious ones...) 
"think globally."  OSM is fine.

Fast forward to 2010-11 and now there are many thousands of rail mappers and 
things like PTv2 move from "good ideas" to "coming on strong," OpenRailwayMap 
gets rolling, major differences in how rail all over the world show that the 
problem is large, maybe quite difficult if people are honest, and yet it 
remains manageable as the tools get better and the numbers, while growing and 
at least medium-sized, are not totally overwhelming.

I can go on with real life examples (from this time period of 2014-16-18-20-22, 
and personally, as I've given SOTM talks, one on rail...) and had a fair bit to 
do and say about "rail growth in OSM" in my own country (USA), I've seen this 
growth — geometric growth — and how it has had to cope with rail over the 
one-to-two centuries this transport technology has been around (including ORM 
and OHM as examples of how OSM "maps" it, both logically and literally).  There 
are now hundreds of thousands of rail mappers in OSM, in over a hundred 
countries.  Think of the "social dimensions" of not only "that" but "how that 
has grown and continues to grow."  The amount of fragmentation of understanding 
(especially given humans' many languages and both the limitations of using 
English and the "Balkanization" of isolated language communities) has now 
become quite large...maybe "huge" by some people's estimation.  Logically 
mapping how we have, do and will put "razed" (demolished...all the other 
flavors) of "doesn't (completely) exist today" rail into tagging schemes that 
we all agree upon, especially given that many don't have OSM's now-decades-long 
historical perspective of "how things (like tagging) have grown up w.r.t. rail 
in our project" are now "difficult," but remain explainable and doable.  I 
believe we are up to the task, but it is complex, the geometric growth 
compounds this, so do the relatively long (in software-, data-project world 
sense) timescales, and especially (in a project like OSM), the social 
dimensions (of consensus, multilingualism and so on).  We (all of us in OSM who 
might map rail and other things "that don't exist today") are still "in the 
club," but it is less easy to talk amongst ourselves about why we "do this" 
(but "not that").

And, I'm simply talking about "razed railways" (and a bit more).  It's big and 
complex, and doesn't "shoehorn" (get forcefully or uncomfortably crammed) very 
well into a small box.

Now, please understand there are many, many other topics in OSM which are not 
completely unlike "razed railways" (and why they are an "odd duck" and don't 
seem to categorize well, or need a lot of explaining, or both).

One of my points?  Often, the history of how we got here and oddities of why go 
a long way to explain.  But the natural human desire to understand quickly and 
not necessarily digest all of that makes for quizzical or difficult 
understandings.

Thank you for reading.
___
talk mailing list

Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26 Oct 2022, at 11:45, Mateusz Konieczny via talk  
> wrote:
> 
> Note that when you found some gone railway
> mapped in OSM then it is useful
> 
> - edit OSM object to note which traces are left if any
> (ideally, it would be done by original mapper)
> 
> - or delete nonexistent sections without traces


what is the scale/resolution  for determining a “non-existent” section? If you 
do it too fine grained, it would be like mapping a dashed divider line, with 
yes/no alternating every 2 meters.
Is a former station a trace that is valid in this sense?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Which OSM Wiki pages you checked to find out
reason for existence of things like demolished:building=yes?

Recently demolished building may be visible on aerial images

Using lifecycle prefixes it is possible to clearly mark that specific object 
must not be
remapped without proper verification.

Once there is no real risk of remapping them by person thinking that this 
objects
are still existing such elements should be deleted from OSM.

Fully gone elements (for example levelled railway embankment replaced by
residential buildings) should be deleted from OSM.

Is there any OSM Wiki page claiming otherwise?

> it is used by Open Railway Maps (ORM)

If they want to display also fully gone railway tracks -
then they need to use OpenHistoricalMap dataset

If they use OSM then they will show only recently
demolished one and ones that left traces.

Some incorrectly mapped ones may be displayed,
but they may be correctly deleted at any moment
once this mistakes are spotted.

-

Note that when you found some gone railway
mapped in OSM then it is useful

- edit OSM object to note which traces are left if any
(ideally, it would be done by original mapper)

- or delete nonexistent sections without traces
and review edits that added them.
It is common to see changeset adding
400km of destroyed railway without any verification
in place, in such case entire changeset should be
reverted.
Obviously in case of any doubt - comment using
changeset comment and create OSM note,
then get back to it in some time
( https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3412415
is my latest one, spotted it while mapping something else)

Without doing this mappers of railways gone without
any trace will easily win. They copy from old
maps and can easily mark hundreds of kilometers
in one edit.
Sometimes they demand to prove nonexistence
of railways.
But it is fine to remove entire edit if it was done
without survey and added features not
existing in any way on the ground.

Oct 25, 2022, 09:42 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:

> Hi,
>
> Question:
>
> If OSM is about mapping what exists today .. why have the tags that mean 
> there is nothing left of it?
>
>
> demolished:*=*
>     Not existing anymore because of active removal
>  removed:*=*
>     Not existing anymore because of active removal (possible duplicate of 
> demolished:*=*)
> razed:*=*
>     Not existing anymore because of active removal (duplicate of removed:*=*, 
> possible duplicate of demolished:*=*)
> destroyed:*=*
>    Destroyed by an event other than active demolition
>
> I think these tags would be of use in Open Historic Map (OHM) and that is 
> possibly why they are in the OSM wiki?
>
> Possibly the OSM wiki should recommend that the data with these tags be moved 
> to OHM?
>
>
> The argument for mapping these things from the 'old railway' people is that;
>
> 1) it does not render on the 'standard map' so it is not a problem.
>
> 2) it is used by Open Railway Maps (ORM)
>
>
> My contention is;
>
> 1a) This is a problem when people try to map new things, the old things lead 
> to mapping things that never existed like railway=crossing where a new 
> footway/highway is also mapped over a now non existent railway line.
>
> 1b) People mapping new things may not see the old stuff on the new imagery .. 
> and simply delete it, leading to edit wars.
>
> 1c) People map things like an old embankment for old railway lines .. right 
> through existing roads
>
> 3) Old data should be mapped into OHM so it can be preserved .. together with 
> the start and stop dates .. these 2 tags are fairly well ignored in OSM.
>
> 2) ORM should take current data from OSM and old data from OHM. This would 
> add the start/end dates that could be used in ORM to select the time period. 
> Thus those only interested in the present could have that, and those 
> interested in some past date could have that.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

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