Re: [OSM-talk] When two bots go to war
On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 11:42 +0200, Maarten Deen wrote: > There seems to have been an automated edit to add > opening_hours:covid19=same. > > I'm a bit curious how this can be an automated edit. Or does the bot > take external data of objects where the covid19 opening hours are the > same? > > And are covid19 restrictions still in place in Sweden? My speculation is that Distriktstandvården (a chain of dental clinics) has taken "ownership" of "their" nodes and once a day check that the values in osm database correspond to that of their internal database. Whatever covid restrictions Sweden had are long gone, just lingering on in some databases. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] When two bots go to war
Well, this one came to light only because it happened in a big city where a local mapper happened to notice it. Who knows if there are other bot wars going on in Siberia or elsewhere where there are very few local mappers. And I don't mean that a bot never should be allowed to edit an object a second time, just that the bot owner should have to review it if that bot tries to change an object twice. On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 09:16 +0200, Casper Kersten wrote: > I think we can rely on reason and logic here instead of extra > guidelines. This was obviously not intentional and we don't need to > write guidelines against it. > > (Re-sent because I accidentally replied privately instead of to the > mailing list) > > Op di 12 sep 2023 om 08:30 schreef Snusmumriken via talk > : > > I recently happen to witness an edit war between two bots, that > > changed > > a tag on an object back and forth once a day. It stopped once I > > pointed > > it out. > > > > These are the guidelines for bots > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct > > > > Shouldn't they be amended with something like; "A bot should not > > edit > > the same object twice" > > > > ___ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] When two bots go to war
I recently happen to witness an edit war between two bots, that changed a tag on an object back and forth once a day. It stopped once I pointed it out. These are the guidelines for bots https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct Shouldn't they be amended with something like; "A bot should not edit the same object twice" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'
On Tue, 2023-01-10 at 08:39 +0100, Yves wrote: > > > Le 10 janvier 2023 08:12:43 GMT+01:00, Snusmumriken > a écrit : > > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 23:06 +, Andy Townsend wrote: > > > On 09/01/2023 20:17, Snusmumriken wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 08:21 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > > > You seem unwilling to understand that defining a way to refer > > > > > to > > > > > ids > > > > > will cause social pressure not to change ids, > > > > Is there actually evidence that would corroborate this claim? > > > > > > There have definitely been complaints to the DWG when people > > > "resurrect" > > > old long-deleted nodes, or exhibit "unusual mapping behaviour" > > > such > > > as > > > never deleting any nodes, and always re-using them in some other > > > feature. There have also been complaints about changes to > > > objects > > > that > > > people consider "special" such as > > > https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/1 > > > and, er, > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/69#map=17/48.06733/12.86258 . > > > > Right, I guess one could say that when it comes to retaining > > existing > > osm ids there is bad practice and good practice, and a grey area. > > Any > > proof or indications that creating a URI scheme would increase the > > bad > > practice? > > > No, adding such a URI scheme wouldn't change at all the way > contributors contribute. > > However it would further degrade the impact of the "bad practice". Could you elaborate? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'
On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 23:06 +, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 09/01/2023 20:17, Snusmumriken wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 08:21 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > You seem unwilling to understand that defining a way to refer to > > > ids > > > will cause social pressure not to change ids, > > Is there actually evidence that would corroborate this claim? > > There have definitely been complaints to the DWG when people > "resurrect" > old long-deleted nodes, or exhibit "unusual mapping behaviour" such > as > never deleting any nodes, and always re-using them in some other > feature. There have also been complaints about changes to objects > that > people consider "special" such as > https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/1 > and, er, > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/69#map=17/48.06733/12.86258 . Right, I guess one could say that when it comes to retaining existing osm ids there is bad practice and good practice, and a grey area. Any proof or indications that creating a URI scheme would increase the bad practice? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'
On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 08:21 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > You seem unwilling to understand that defining a way to refer to ids > will cause social pressure not to change ids, Is there actually evidence that would corroborate this claim? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'
On Fri, 2023-01-06 at 13:47 +, Ed Loach wrote: > > Good point. Also consider that OSM ids have an advantage over > > coordinates, because if an OSM object gets deleted then a query for > > that id will return "Not found". That in itself is valuable > > information > > to a data consumer. > > But rather than being deleted, they may become a different thing True but it would still be up to the data consumer to handle it ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'
On Fri, 2023-01-06 at 11:50 +0100, Sören Reinecke wrote: > To sum up: Coordinates can be used in the same wrong way as OSM id as > they're both not sufficient enough for the use case most people are > using it (indirectly). Coordinates are already part of the 'geo' URI > scheme. There is no visible reason to me why adding another unstable > identifier like the osm id is a bad idea. As long as OSM ids are used > in > a dynamic and not in a hardcoded way and proberly updated by the > tools > people are using to retrieve these data (e.g. Overpass, Sophox or > end-user apps like OrganicMaps) 'geo' uris are always generated by > tools. If some does that manually then this person is in charge to > change that when the physical position of the POI changes too. People > tend to forget about these little urls as long as they don't see a > GUI > (graphical user interface) connected to it like a map on their > website. Good point. Also consider that OSM ids have an advantage over coordinates, because if an OSM object gets deleted then a query for that id will return "Not found". That in itself is valuable information to a data consumer. I really don't understand why anybody would make that into some kind of Pandora's box that must not be opened. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Status of Who Did It?
On Tue, 2020-07-28 at 00:06 +1000, nwastra wrote: > I have been using Latest OSM Edits per Tile by Pascal Neis for my > local area while whodidit is down > https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-tiles > > On 27 Jul 2020, at 11:28 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via talk < > talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > See > > https://github.com/simon04/whodidit > > linked on top of the page, > > https://github.com/simon04/whodidit/issues/47 > > indicates that problem was reported to the author > > > > 27 Jul 2020, 14:57 by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com: > > > Hello > > > > > > I wondering what is the current state of the Who Did It service? > > > I've > > > been using this service > > > https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/ > > > for some time and it's been quite helpful. But now I only get "No > > > input file specified." when I try to get an RSS link. Thanks for all the responses. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Status of Who Did It?
Hello I wondering what is the current state of the Who Did It service? I've been using this service https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/ for some time and it's been quite helpful. But now I only get "No input file specified." when I try to get an RSS link. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Too subjective & problematic Re: no-go-areas
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 22:53 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > On 12. Jan 2020, at 08:47, Snusmumriken < > > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com> wrote: > > > > Not saying that OSM should do it, just that it doesn't differ that > > much > > from postcode areas, where a certain authority has designated a > > certain > > number to a certain area, although there is no ground-truth that > > could > > be independently verified > > of course there is ground truth that can be verified: ask people or > businesses in the area about their postcode / address I don't believe any postcode _area_ in OSM has ever been created that way. But I would love to learn of one. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Too subjective & problematic Re: no-go-areas
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 21:00 +, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > So you suggest that we help routers to blacklist these areas, Wow, you're putting words in my mouth that is the exact opposite of what I wrote a couple of e-mails back. That is really dishonest. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Too subjective & problematic Re: no-go-areas
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 18:46 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I understand that it would politically sensitive, but from a data- > > model > > point of view it doesn't really differ from postcode areas (under > > the > > assumption that there's an authority that designates some areas as > > high-risk areas) > > There is a single authority assigning > postal codes. > > With high-risk areas you may have different > organizations with competing opinions. > > Also, in general people are not disputing postal codes. > > In case of officially designed dangerous zones > situation is going to be different. Well, wasn't that the assumption I put forward in my previous e-mail? In Sweden, Swedish police lists 60 areas as what they call Vulnerable areas, subdivided into three groups based upon severity. Here's a wikipage about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerable_area And here's an official report by the Swedish police (in Swedish) https://polisen.se/siteassets/dokument/ovriga_rapporter/kriminell-paverkan-i-lokalsamhallet.pdf In everyday speech these are often called no-go zones ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Too subjective & problematic Re: no-go-areas
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 08:35 -0600, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 1:47 AM Snusmumriken < > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-01-11 at 21:22 +0100, Martin Trautmann via talk wrote: > > > On 20-01-02 12:23, pangoSE wrote: > > > > > > > A map cannot solve a lack of general awareness when visiting a > > > > new/unknown place. Going to the mountains to hike can also be > > > > dangerous > > > > if you are not well prepared. This is of course not marked on > > the > > > > map! > > > > > > I agree that I don't know any non-subjective way how to identify > > such > > > an > > > area. > > > > Well, one could rely on authority, e.g. if a national police > > authority > > designated certain areas as high risk. > > Yeah, that's not really going to work, either. Just look at > Portland. Most arrests happen in poor, black neighborhoods, but > you're most likely to get hurt or killed in a suburban white area. > Besides, if you really want to go that route, just composite their > data as a layer over OpenStreetMap in Leaflet. There's no reason > whatsoever to include it in OpenStreetMap's database. I understand that it would politically sensitive, but from a data-model point of view it doesn't really differ from postcode areas (under the assumption that there's an authority that designates some areas as high-risk areas) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Too subjective & problematic Re: no-go-areas
On Sat, 2020-01-11 at 21:22 +0100, Martin Trautmann via talk wrote: > On 20-01-02 12:23, pangoSE wrote: > > > A map cannot solve a lack of general awareness when visiting a > > new/unknown place. Going to the mountains to hike can also be > > dangerous > > if you are not well prepared. This is of course not marked on the > > map! > > I agree that I don't know any non-subjective way how to identify such > an > area. Well, one could rely on authority, e.g. if a national police authority designated certain areas as high risk. Not saying that OSM should do it, just that it doesn't differ that much from postcode areas, where a certain authority has designated a certain number to a certain area, although there is no ground-truth that could be independently verified. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?
On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:44 +, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Thursday, 4 July 2019, Snusmumriken wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:50 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > I strongly disagree with this idea, > > > and multiple times changed such splits > > > back to one way. > > > > I would consider that as an act of vandalism by removing ground > > truth > > information that your fellow mappers have gathered and encoded in > > the > > database. > > > It is only vandalism if you loose information, if you are improving > the mapping by changing such misleading information to correctly > mapped turn lanes then it is improving the map. Turn lane tagging is great and it certainly has its place osm mapping. But in my experience of mapping it cannot replace the need to sometimes split ways at a legal barrier to get a complete picture of how the traffic can legally flow and thus provide a relevant routing suggestion. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?
On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 13:50 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I strongly disagree with this idea, > and multiple times changed such splits > back to one way. I would consider that as an act of vandalism by removing ground truth information that your fellow mappers have gathered and encoded in the database. > > > Jul 4, 2019, 11:49 AM by snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com: > > On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via > > talk > > wrote: > > > I've always had the impression we should not create separate > > > traffic > > > lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier > > > (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between > > > said > > > flows." > > > > A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a > > perfectly fine reason to have a separate way. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?
On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 14:03 -0600, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk wrote: > I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic > lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier > (e.g., grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said > flows." A painted line that has the legal status of "do not cross" is a perfectly fine reason to have a separate way. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform
On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 08:27 +, Wiklund Johan wrote: > As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the > opinions of Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose > but to please poorly built routing engines. I concur ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
