[OSM-talk] (licence of wikidata) was: Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 07/06/2015 12:43, Simon Poole wrote: - while superficially the licence of wikidata is claimed to be CC0 That does raise an interesting question - while the source of wikidata is claimed to be CC0 the source of wikipedia isn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights A side-issue here is that that as I understand it* isn't compatible with ODBL, so those people using: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/source=wikipedia probably shouldn't be using that as a source. However the bit that I really don't understand is that, to take an example wikidata page: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23098 the source of that is from other, non-CC0-licensed places - how can the result be CC0? Cheers, Andy * but please feel free to explain where I'm wrong here, in the jurisdiction in which OSM is based. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Unsigned road refs (was: Re: Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?)
On 30/05/2015 13:51, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: I find it odd that inaction, incapability or incompetence of local sign installers is a worry for a database of geographical facts, which OSM is. Why should it be incompetence? Near where I live there's a ring road around a local town. There are no signs indicating the ref of the road because that's not the information that the road planners want to get across. Instead, they'll add the destinations that people actually want to get to, with the ref of that road in brackets. It's not incompetence; it's trying to communicate clearly with road users. Þann 30.5.2015 12:22, skrifaði Martin Koppenhoefer: Am 29.05.2015 um 13:58 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: That's really neat. How do you know wether a street is signposted or not ? I don't know of any tag that gives that info. there are ~600 visible_name 37000 unsigned_ref 518 unsigned 400 signed 161 name:signed 124 name:sign 86 ref:signed 48 unsigned_name 47 ref:unsigned 16 name:signposted I haven't checked on which kind of objects or which do not refer to highways or names Very likely I also missed some variants It seems that for names nobody cares to say whether they are signposted or not (or maybe only when the sign is different from the actual name), while for ref it seems common practice(?) to use unsigned_ref Looking at the values and distribution, those look to be mainly US-based, where a road can be part of multiple routes. It's a slightly different problem that's being solved there, I think, and again I suspect it's due to the road planners trying to communicate clearly with road users. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Keulen (was Re: Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?)
On 30/05/2015 07:59, Roland Olbricht wrote: I happened to drive through Belgium a few days ago, heading home. A good approximation of home in this case is name=Köln. Actually, I found a street sign (150 km away from Köln) that reads Keulen. Should I have followed it or not? A name:xx that's actually used on signposts on the ground (the name of a place in a neighbouring country on a road in that country going to that place) to guide travellers to a place is clearly on the ground verifiable. I used Abergavenny (in a largely English-speaking part of Wales) as a specific example previously to try and separate the commonly used e.g. on signposts names from the translations. I've mentioned http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/267762522 elsewhere in the thread - if you're getting a bus there from the west it'll certainly have both Doire and Derry on it, and up in the Donegal Gaeltacht if there's a sign it'll almost certainly _only_ say Doire. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Snowdonia National Park Boundary
On 29/05/2015 09:16, David Woolley wrote: There are ways of reversing changes exactly, but they are difficult to use if there have been ad hoc attempts to repair in the mean time, as you have to reverse those repairs first and you need to distinguish them from legitimate changes that happened to overlap. Indeed, but in this case it's long enough (6 weeks, ish) ago that a revert probably isn't going to be practical. Also, based on changeset comments, the addition of the coastline ways arround the Llyn to the national park boundary appears deliberate, so it's probably worth trying to discuss the changes with that mapper via a changeset discussion (who probably doesn't read this list). Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 29/05/2015 07:07, Andrew Hain wrote: Thank you Dave. As a British mapper I am ashamed that some people want to make the map of my country less useful, and not only to Russian speakers a long way away. Hang on, where is _anybody_ saying that? The whole point of the thread is about whether it would be possible to use wikidata to make the map _more_ useful to people who don't speak a particular language, not less. As I said yesterday: It's a perfectly reasonable request for someone to ask can I have a map that shows place names displayed in my language / alphabet. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 29/05/2015 12:51, Maarten Deen wrote: It depends on what you want. When someone asks me to navigate to Natanzon, Haifa how can I enter it when the only name in the map is נתנזון, חיפה? I don't see why the transliterated name is not important. No-one is saying that the transliterated name is not useful for all sorts of reasons (the thread title can wikidata links help... makes it clear that this is about trying to make it easier to get to these names, not harder). The question here is, in a case when a name:xx isn't widely used in the place and doesn't appear on signs*, how can a user of the data know that they've got there or not? OSM shouldn't be it's own parallel universe - we map what's on the ground. Cheers, Andy * I have absolutely no idea what signage is around Haifa - if a name:en for a place does appear on signs and is useful to use to see if you have got there then clearly there needs to be some indicator that says that name:en is useful here, but (say) name:cy is not. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 29/05/2015 12:14, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: On 29/05/2015, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: how do we distinguish in the Abergavenny case between the two established names and the up to 7,000 (but realistically in the short term a few hundred) translations? That's unfortunately something that name:xx in OSM doesn't give us currently You don't distinguish them, and that's fine. There may be many many more pleople using Abergavenny than Абергавенни, but that doesn't mean that the name isn't established, at its more limited scale. I'd say that whether or not a name is actually usable to help navigate to a place is a pretty important piece of information. For example, when processing OSM data for my own use I'll try and drop unsigned names and refs from roads (there's no point in saying turn left on Foo Street if Foo Street does not appear on the sign). It's the same principle here - if there are 300 names for a place, are you really suggesting that I have to do an external check to some other database to find that as it's in South Wales, signs are likely to be in Welsh and English, so it's those language names that I need to look out for? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 29/05/2015 10:42, Nick Whitelegg wrote: You don't even need on the ground evidence. You just need someone ... or something ... with knowledge of Cyrillic and Roman alphabets to be able to transliterate Abergavenny into the Cyrillic, presumably. Absolutely. But leaving aside whether that's created on the fly (perhaps from a stored IPA pronunciation, though initial attempts to do that haven't proved successful*) or stored (either in OSM or wikidata or elsewhere) how do we distinguish in the Abergavenny case between the two established names and the up to 7,000 (but realistically in the short term a few hundred) translations? That's unfortunately something that name:xx in OSM doesn't give us currently, though from reading Andy Mabbett's links it's something that wikidata would. A question to those suggesting Абергавенни as a name:ru for Abergavenny / Y Fenni - how to distinguish the latter (both are names that you can to compare with signposts to see that you're going in the right direction) with the former (which you can't, but a speaker of that language might use to refer to that place in their own language)? Cheers, Andy * https://metacpan.org/pod/Text::TransMetaphone::ru , which Komяpa tried last night. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 29/05/2015 14:14, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: I'm not a fan of (un)signed=* (the most common in tagginfo) because their meaning is not obvious enough. name:signed=en;cy would be a first and open the multiple-value can of worms. But name:signed=yes/no has 161 uses in taginfo, and name:CC:signed=yes/no seems like an obvious extension. The thread was about trying to avoid name inflation; I was trying to also avoid name:signed inflation :) Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 28/05/2015 22:27, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: You can argue against machine-made non-reviewed translitterations, because they don't add anything that a data consumer couldn't and because they likely contain mistakes. But that's apparenlty not the case of the name:ru changeset that got reverted. The source of the names in the reverted changeset is described in the changeset discussion http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30451655 : to find russian names for places, I googled for English place names plus достопримечательности, погода or some other russian word. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Snowdonia National Park Boundary
On 28/05/2015 20:12, Colin Smale wrote: Querying the history on the website just times out so I can't easily see when it went pear-shaped and how it used to be http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/287245 http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=287245 shows recent changes to it (I haven't been through and seen what should / shouldn't have been deleted). Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 27/05/2015 22:56, Andy Mabbett wrote: A demonstrator, using Wikidata labels, is: http://googleknowledge.github.io/qlabel/demo/map/ (choose select language). Coders might enjoy viewing the source code. That's interesting, but seems just to do multiple http transactions to get the names it needs (something that's not really scalable). What I'd typically want to do with wikidata would be something like: 1) define a series of properties that I'm interested in. 2) extract that information from wikidata (either a structured download or from some sort of dump) in one go, not as a series of http transactions. 3) load that into local database tables where it can be easily accessed. (1) might be something like villages in Derbyshire or mills in the Derwent valley or something broader (suppose I wanted to include who owns what building in a database containing OSM data). Unfortunately I don't see this in any sort of sensible format - I just see a bunch of web pages like http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:List_of_properties which isn't really helpful. 2) must be a problem that people have solved already As ever, stackoverflow has some of the answers but some of the questions such as http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28391434/how-to-parse-bigdata-json-file-wikidata-in-c-efficiently suggest to me I really wouldn't start from there if I were you (though http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29886388/get-all-wikidata-items-that-are-an-instance-of-a-given-item is closer). I suspect that these are problems that someone, somewhere has already solved, but I'm not seeing obvious answers that aren't a bit of a cludgy hack, or requires something from Google that's going away in 32 days, or whatever. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 28/05/2015 11:20, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote: El Jueves 28. mayo 2015 10.59.21 Steve Doerr escribió: There might be a case for adding pronunciations (of 'difficult' names at least) to the OSM database. Someone must have proposed a tagging scheme for this, surely? Yup. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Phonetics name:pronunciation, as mentioned on that page, is in use in a few problems, and would surely solve the Slough problem: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10021975/history (though John Betjeman's idea might have been better) Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 28/05/2015 10:30, Komяpa wrote: Hello, I'd like to share my story. We're making a new Global Map for World of Tanks game. Game is translated into many languages, of which Russian and English are most significant. Now we're in open beta, you can look at the map at https://ru.wargaming.net/globalmap/ To release the map, we need the whole map in Russian, and in English. For closed beta, we chose to enable a small subset of a map, 80 provinces, for which I manually added the translations: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30451655 This changeset got reverted by SomeoneElse: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30706979 Now we can't use OSM to render the map directly. Sure you can. You just need to combine OSM data with some other data (such as a list that you've previously created). The problem (described in some detail on my changeset above) is that the fact that somewhere like Abergavenny has two names (or three, if you count the old Latin name). Both Abergavenny and Y Fenni are verifiable on the ground, by looking at the Welcome to... sign on the roads in. Абергавенни does not appear on that sign. Ethnologue (http://www.ethnologue.com/world) says that there are 7000 languages in the world. Taginfo (http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=name) says that there are 45,000,000 names in OSM. It's a perfectly reasonable request for someone to ask can I have a map that shows place names displayed in my language / alphabet. It's not a reasonable request to ask OSM to store up to 7,000 variants against 45,000,000 names, when most of those objects simply do not have names in those languages. We don't duplicate absolutely everything that can possibly be gleaned (or calculated) about a place in OSM (e.g. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abergavenny - there's no call for a king_charles_was_here=yes tag). Lots of people combine OSM data with other data (e.g. http://bombsight.org/ , which appeared on the news recently to highlight a news item) - that's why I asked up the thread for more details on how it might be done with wikidata. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 28/05/2015 16:38, Andrew Guertin wrote: A quick internet search shows plenty of results for Абергавенни, including Wikipedia, hotel booking sites, and Harry Potter websites, and by looking at Google's book results, you can see that it's been in use since at least the 1800s. And with just a few minutes' look, I found someone from the next city over using the name[1]. I understand this was just an example, but it seems to show the opposite of what you wanted. The town with the English name Abergavenny also has a Russian name Абергавенни, which is in use by locals, and has been established for hundreds of years. No, it does not. Abergavenny / Y Fenni has actual names that people from there use to describe the place (and appears on signs) in two languages; Абергавенни is merely a translation of one of them. It's not verifiable on the ground. There is a fundamental difference between an actual name for a place and a translation of one of those names - it's that distinction that we would lose by populating name:ru, name:xx or whatever alongside name:cy and name:en. The russian-language link talking about Abergavenny Food Festival does indeed use the word Абергавенни- and that's a translation of Abergavenny in that message (they even put Abergavenny in brackets afterwards to make it clear that that's what it is - it's clearly not guaranteed to be understood on its own). If Абергавенни is added as name:ru for Abergavenny, how would we tell the real names (the ones that people have historically used locally to refer to the place) from the tranlations? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] ooops.... I destroyed a building...
On 27/05/2015 21:29, thomas van der veen wrote: Hi, I just did a quick update to a path in Newbury and goes through a tunnel in a building... but my edit seems to have destroyed the building and I am not sure how to get it back. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.40251/-1.32458 is the location. The Santander bank is gone. Does anyone know how to make the building appear again? TIA!!! Should be sorted now. What seemed to have happened was that the north wall of the bank which was shared with the south wall of the next building had got merged with the footpath / tunnel, and the three walls of the bank no longer appeared as a building because it wasn't closed on the north side. I removed the bank tags from the footway and closed the building, so hopefully it should look OK now. It might be that it would be better having a small gap between the two buildings down which the footpath runs (presumably there is a gap at ground floor level but not above) rather than having the tunnel sharing nodes with the walls of the adjacent building, but at least the bank's back as a building now. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline bleeding (again)
On 19/05/2015 12:13, Dave F. wrote: Hi For the past few weeks I've been getting random blue fill at high zoom levels. Is this caused by the coastline being broken again? When it happens, right-click the browser and view image. You'll get a URL something like: http://c.tile.openstreetmap.org/14/8126/5331.png Adding /status to the end shows when it was last generated: http://c.tile.openstreetmap.org/14/8126/5331.png/status Adding /dirty to the end schedules it to be rerendered http://c.tile.openstreetmap.org/14/8126/5331.png/dirty (when this actually happens depends on how busy things are). If a flooding problem has been fixed, this rerendering will fix a left-over tile that hasn't been scheduled to be rerendered yet. More details here: http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/178/how-often-does-the-main-mapnik-map-get-updated/183 What's the best way to prevent this happening? Is there a way to get notification (email/text etc) if a specific entity gets modified? Geofabrik's OSMI coastline view should show problems: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=coastlinelon=-3.92892lat=54.54719zoom=5opacity=0.63overlays=coastline,coastline_error_lines,line_not_a_ring,line_overlap,line_invalid,line_direction,questionable,coastline_error_points,unconnected,intersections,not_a_ring,double_node,tagged_node Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Issue with Changeset
On 15/05/2015 10:22, Jason Woollacott wrote: Looks like there has been an issue with changeset 30821940 Which seems to have added the A30 through the whole of Cornwall on an incorrect route. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30821940 Didn’t want to back this change out myself, as not sure what else it changed. Any thoughts or comments.. Their other changeset has a couple of odd deletions in it too, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/345001740 . I'd suggest that a local mapper get in touch with them (via changeset comments perhaps?) and try and figure out what they were trying to do (as ever, looks like cockup rather than conspiracy). At first glance there don't appear to be an v1 items worth saving in these changesets, but it'd be nice to check. I'm happy to try a JOSM revert a bit later if no-one else steps forward, but after 10 days I suspect a delay of an extra half-day or so won't cause the revert too many extra problems. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ref names on Residential roads
On 12/05/2015 17:28, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Why not ref:highway_authority To keep the tags just a little bit organized? https://xkcd.com/927/ (sorry) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ref names on Residential roads
On 12/05/2015 11:22, Matthijs Melissen wrote: Maybe the tag unsigned_ref is an outcome? 0 uses in the UK: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/unsigned_ref There are 86 ref:signed=no (mostly by me, so not a widely used tag) but that's where something demonstrably is the real reference for a road (e.g. the A601 around Derby) but there's no on-the-ground-signage. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=ref suggests official_ref as the most popular choice for made up by a council refs (1,310 in the UK). Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ref names on Residential roads
On 12/05/2015 11:30, Andy Robinson wrote: Where I see these on C/U roads I change the ref= tag to highway_authority_ref= http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/highway_authority_ref 276 of those - that's one that I wasn't aware of! Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ref names on Residential roads
On 12/05/2015 09:52, Bob Kerr wrote: On residential roads where there has been a ref= added is being rendered on Mapnik. Is this something new since I have not been checking recently. This is all over the highlands https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/57.5695/-4.4282 I don't think that it's a rendering change but just that someone has decided to apply internal unsigned council-generated refs to these roads. If they're not signed I'd have thought that official_ref was more appropriate here - if someone wants to render the data they can, but it's no use to general map users. It's been mentioned before: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22official_ref%22+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Fpipermail%2Ftalk-gbbtnG=Searchtbs=li%3A1 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22admin_ref%22+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Fpipermail%2Ftalk-gbbtnG=Searchtbs=li%3A1 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22c+roads%22+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Fpipermail%2Ftalk-gbbtnG=Searchtbs=li%3A1 The roads you link to have been like that for nearly a year: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22762295 Where C road refs (that aren't signed, and aren't available from a suitably-licensed source) have appeared locally to me I've removed them though I'm aware (see the recent C-roads discussion on this list) that they sometimes are signed - I've seen them myself. With these U refs I'd suggest that local mappers discuss with the person adding them whether it's the best way to store the data. It may be that they really are signed usable references - not just something made up in a council office and never used outside of there. Cheers, Andy PS: UK taginfo showing use of various ref tags: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=ref ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] Problems with the wiki (was Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?)
On 07/05/2015 12:03, Simon Poole wrote: I'm really not sure what this discussion is doing on tagging and have redirected follow ups to talk (it has in the matter of a few mails already gone substantially off-topic though). The page in question is actually a fork of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google_Map_Maker which was written as a response to the introduction of MM. I personally consider it dangerous to base such a comparison on anything but general principles. On the one hand you are always in danger of being out of date and at least in a legal grey zone if not already out side of it, on the other hand it tends to degenerate in to political/point of view material, are all commercial companies actually evil as Xxzme version seems to imply? This page is an excellent example of what can go wrong with the OSM wiki. It's a personal POV page, written by a user with views that are, shall we say, not shared by all, and who seems to have issues with any form of collaboration (a temporary wiki ban was used before to address some previous issues). Where the wiki works well it's a collaborative documentation of How We Map*. It does contain some effective opinion pieces (e.g. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Duck_taggingoldid=603101 )** , but they are clearly labelled as such and don't attempt to misdocument how people in OSM map things. If random edits like this are allowed to continue*** it'll devalue the wiki even more as a resource. I'm not a wiki admin, but I'm sure that those who are are well aware of this problem and I would hope they are already considering what to do here. Cheers, Andy PS: Although I'm a member of the DWG, this was written in an entirely personal capacity as an ordinary mapper who tries to use the wiki for documentation. * incidentally that's another page that has had this user happen to it: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=How_We_Mapaction=history ** yes, and that's another one: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Duck_taggingaction=history *** https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xxzme ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] What was the outcome of the discussion about C class roads with ref tags?
On 04/05/2015 08:35, Graham Jones wrote: I don't know where the discussion got to, but thought I should point out that at least one road in North Yorkshire is a C road that is signposted as such. The road here does have signs with the C designation. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/54.5696/-1.0016 I don't think I added it so at least one other person must agree! The concensus I think is that if a road has had a C number added purely as a bookkeeping reference by the council, but doesn't appear on any signage, then a tag such as official_ref or admin_ref makes more sense. See previous discussions here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-April/thread.html#14788 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2014-August/thread.html#16392 (and others linked from those threads). http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=ref suggests more traction for official_ref over admin_ref. However yours looks more interesting than the usual OSM C road: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25020986/history It looks like it was previously a B road (OOC maps suggest the B1268) and kept its number when it was downgraded. If it's a real ref on a real road sign I don't think that anyone would disagree with it being tagged with a C road ref. I've seen at least one other signposted one in North Yorkshire (north of Castle Howard somewhere - I suspect there are more) so it's not unique. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What was the outcome of the discussion about C class roads with ref tags?
On 04/05/2015 10:50, Philip Barnes wrote: In this case if you have surveyed it and it is signed then it would be helpful if it was tagged as signed=yes, or something similar. SomeoneElse I think he has used similar tagging for unsigned A roads. FWIW I've used name:signed=no and ref:signed=no where appropriate, but there's no concensus around that: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/ref%3Asigned#overview http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/name%3Asigned#overview Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What was the outcome of the discussion about C class roads with ref tags?
On 04/05/2015 11:10, Steve Doerr wrote: Personally, I quite like the fact that our map has C numbers on where other maps don't. What I don't like, though, is seeing U numbers for unclassified roads, which are cluttering up the map of my home area (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.42292/0.34775). ... what _I_ like is the ability to create a map that shows whatever I want it to show! I certainly don't see the standard style as our map (singular) - it's just one of many and these days isn't particularly useful for what I normally use a map for. That doesn't mean that it isn't a good compromise though - there can't be one perfect style for every possible use. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Chain Store Cleanup
On 02/05/2015 02:18, Andrew MacKinnon wrote: The same is true with an amenity=restaurant called Subway, since it should be amenity=fast_food and any Subway that is not the well known chain would almost certainly be sued by the well known chain and forced to changed its name. I wouldn't be so sure here. As an example, there's a bakery chain in the UK called Greggs. They're mostly tagged shop=bakery (with a few Subway-esque amenity=fast_food / cuisine=sandwich as well). Occasionally shops like this get wrongly tagged, sometimes as amenity=cafe, and there's always a temptation to just fix them. However, guess what? Yesterday I accidentally walked past a genuine Greggs amenity=cafe: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3490805096 It seems to share staff with the neighbouring bakery, but is entirely separate inside. A better approach to tidying up shops is the one that Math1985 has been using in the UK - add a note, and get some local feedback to separate the genuine errors from the unexpected ones: http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/303935 A Subway _restaurant_ is clearly a bit of a stretch, but not entirely impossible. I'd definitely add notes rather than remotely fixing these. Alternatively, perhaps contact the previous mapper? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BBC License Violation?
On 01/05/2015 22:18, Robert Banick wrote: Hi All, I was reading the below linked article on the BBC today and came across the map. It looks like they’re using OSM-derived internally displaced person (IDP) camp data without attribution. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20039682 Looks like that story's moved. I just see Contact BBC News online - help, feedback and complaints. Can you link to the current URL? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed Semi Mechanical Edit : recycling:excrement
On 17/04/2015 02:05, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/17/2015 02:10 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I propose to use context to determine the meaning, and retag according to current conventions. For example recycling:excrement at a marina dock will be assume as a marine sewage pumpout station. The same tag in a city park will be a dog waste bin. Usually it's quite clear. Someone on talk-de has complained that you have deleted information in your recent marine sewage not-really-mechanical-but-still-large-scale-use-context-to-determine-meaning-without-having-first-hand-knowledge edit. One that I was unsure about was the loss of the amenity tag on http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3360668597/history#map=19/53.44159/-0.84441 in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/29963851 (see changeset discussion there). When tagging that I was copying and pasting from the wiki at the time (the item concerned is what Germans would call a Robidog I think - they're rare in my bit of the UK although dog waste bins aren't. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tiles caching issue
On 16/04/2015 18:59, Daniel Koć wrote: Recently I got tired of a caching problem with rendered tiles, which causes freshly changed tiles to dis- and reappear with no particular pattern. I wrote about it here: https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/955 For me it's very annoying, so I'd like to know if there's a way to fix it or make less visible somehow? As Tom said the whole system is, in effect, only eventually consistent, but I make so many edits, that I need relatively short loop to check if I didn't make any stupid drawing/tagging error. One option might be to have a small local server set up as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ and applying minutely updates. Because it's local to you you don't have to worry about caching at all, and if you want to you can try bleeding edge versions of OSM-carto (or another map style of your choice) too. With a bit of browser jiggerypokery you can make your tiles appear instead of one of the layers on osm.org if you want. If you're only rendering a small area this won't work if you regularly map on multiple continents, obviously, and an up to date server needs to be downloading and updating itself enough of the time to have an up to date database, so it's not a solution for everyone, but it might work for you. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] weeklyOSM 243 now in English
On 22/03/2015 15:54, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 21 March 2015 at 21:18, Manfred A. Reiter ma.rei...@gmail.com wrote: The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 243, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu This is an excellent serve, thank you. Might I suggest compiling and archiving, it on the OSM Wiki? We could then use a script to distribute it to the talk pages of interested mappers. Well, it's a wiki - if you think that it's valuable to do this, I very much doubt that anyone would complain :) Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-it] Deletion of relations in Sicily / Di eliminazione delle relazioni in Sicilia
Whilst investigating something else, I came across a large number of deleted relations in Sicily (1) , and wanted to check that these deletions had been discussed within the Italian community first. I've added a changeset discussion comment to it asking this, but haven't seen a reply yet. I'm posting here because it seems like the most widely used OSM forum for the Italian community. If it's not I'd be grateful if someone could post in a more widely used forum. (In italiano con Google Translate) Mentre indagando qualcos'altro, mi sono imbattuto in un gran numero di rapporti eliminati in Sicilia (1), e volevo controllare che queste delezioni erano stati discussi all'interno della comunità italiana prima. Ho aggiunto un commento changeset discussione che chiedere questo, ma non ho ancora visto una risposta. Sto postando qui perché sembra che il forum OSM più utilizzato per la comunità italiana. Se non è sarei grato se qualcuno potrebbe postare in un forum più largamente usato. Best Regards /i migliori saluti, Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse), on behalf of the OSM Data Working Group (1) http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/29645361 ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] Deletion of relations in Sicily / Di eliminazione delle relazioni in Sicilia
On 23/03/2015 21:46, Luca Delucchi wrote: the user answer to the changeset comment, he was sure about removal of the relations, some Sicilian guys can check if he answer the true or not, for me seems really strange to remove more than 600 relation... maybe a revert could be useful? At the very least, an edit that deleted 683 relations should have been discussed with the community first, if for no other reason because it was rude not to do so. I've added another comment to the discussion http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/29645361 trying to get that across. If (after checking with people on the ground locally) the Italian OSM community wants to see this changeset reverted and someone from within the community is happy to do that then please go ahead. If you'd like help with the revert, then please ask and I'm sure that we'll be able to sort something out. Best Regards, Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse), on behalf of the OSM Data Working Group ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Your opinion about SOTM US
On 15/03/2015 23:20, Mikel Maron wrote: On Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:59 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: Yeah, that's just setting up a HOT tasking manager right? Except the HOT tasking manager will probably choke on one half hour tasks for all of US :) Set up multiple projects on the OSMTM, say 1 (or more) per state... For info, the German community runs a joint mapping project every couple of weeks: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wochenaufgabe http://blog.openstreetmap.de/blog/2015/01/wochenaufgabe-kw-0607-apotheken/ Perhaps it's worth pitching a few counties where there's good aerial coverage to them for a future task? Also, the West Midlands group in the UK have started having similar (quarterly) projects: http://www.mappa-mercia.org/2015/01/suggestion-for-osm-uk-quarterly-projects.html Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Taginfo challenge
On 14/03/2015 21:48, Andreas Goss wrote: Just because people some people make bad decisions when mapping, doesn't mean that the whole project has to lower its standards. And some people in this case are what? 99%? I seriously there are many people who would spend a second though when changing Toilets= As an aside I'd guess, based on the tag-changing changesets that I see in the history list locally, that between 30-50% of them are problematical in some way: o Sometimes what was tagged originally was nonsensical, and the correct response should be clearly that makes no sense; I need to resurvey it rather than let me just change the tags to something that looks valid o Sometimes some non-standard tag is removed because the person editing remotely simply does not understand the concept that the original mapper was trying to get across. It might very well be that there _isn't_ an appropriate tag in wide use in OSM right now; but removing the original mappers tag is not the right thing to do. o Sometimes the person changing the tags is acting in good faith based on external QA such as the JOSM validator*, or the OSM wiki. An example would be the assumption that the wiki that coniferous was synonymous with not deciduous. So to answer the original question, I think that most mappers _would_ give a second thought to an obvious tag change. It doesn't mean that they wouldn't change hihgway=footway to highway=footway, but it does mean that they'd have a look at see if it really did look like a footway first. Cheers, Andy * and it's worth mentioning here that every time I've raised a validator false positive with the JOSM developers they've resolved the issue almost immediately. ** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug8nHaelWtc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Second decade visions
How about just less chat*, more mapping? Cheers, Andy * endless tagging list discussions, wikivotes etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Cat Forest
On 14/02/2015 21:30, SomeoneElse wrote: Hi folks, Every now and then, not far from null island, some features pop up in the middle of the Atlantic. One of them's called Cat Forest. You can see references to it here: The source of Cat Forest has been found: https://github.com/hotosm/learnosm/issues/335 Thanks to the new mapper who explained which guide they were going through at the time. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Best practices for outdoor mapping party
On 09/03/2015 16:09, Harald Kliems wrote: Does this sound reasonable? Anything else I should be thinking of? I'll apologise upfront in case any of this sounds like the bleeding obvious - I'm sure you'll have thought through lots of this and more already... One thing that immediately comes to mind is not to assume that people have much idea about what OpenStreetMap is - I'd definitely include some sort of brief, simple introduction (e.g. what's the difference between OSM and public domain government sources, and what's the difference between OSM and Google etc.). I'd also try not to be too prescriptive about how people record stuff - cameras work for some people, paper and pencil for others, other methods for others again. Try and pick an area where there's a variety of new stuff to map. With regards to the editing part, check at the library first what kit is available with what web browser (if it's IE only you'll be using Potlatch 2 rather than iD as the default in-browser editor, and even then only if Flash is supported). By all means mention JOSM, but I wouldn't suggest it to newbies unless they're familar with something like AutoCAD (which uses some similar control mechanisms) - and downloading and running Java software on the library computers may be restricted. People will have different priorities - some may want to just do the outdoor mapping part, some the social bit and some the editing afterwards, so try and make sure that the timetable is public upfront (with contact details available in case of problems) and try and make space for whatever people want to do. Don't try and rush it - let people discover things that they can map. Finally - remember to have fun! Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bus flag stops?
On 08/03/2015 15:12, Paul Johnson wrote: If someone pulls the cord or there's someone waiting at it, yes. But it's not like a bus station where the bus will always stop regardless of demand. In the UK customary stops like this tend to get tagged as physically_present=no: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/502390265 Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-GB] Proposed import of approximately 6 bicycle repair tool stands in the UK
On 05/03/2015 20:39, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I'm happy to import *JUST the six notes* if that's preferred, without any node Could you have a go at locating these notes a bit better than the previous reverted import (e.g. put the note for the one that says that is in the Swan Hotel in Stafford within the Swan Hotel in Stafford, and not a couple of buildings away, and add the note for the one that already exists in the hospital down south where the node already exists, with suggested extra tags)? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-us] Why?
On 05/03/2015 21:47, stevea wrote: I add that another, vital, and even preferred approach towards mediocre or crude data is to contact the editor and offer help (instruction) in improving them. This really grows the project, too, when and as it takes. Fixing something myself (and/or with others, too) can remain as a last resort. SteveA California Amen to that! It's more work in the short term but encouraging new mappers is the only way OSM will grow in the longer term. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-de] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster
On 04/03/2015 18:18, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Ok, making a possibly final call for input on the proposed cluster mechanical edit: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Bryce_C_Nesbitt Just to be clear - you're only removing these tags where they were added by the original problematical mechanical edits, not where they have been manually added by other mappers? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-de] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster
On 04/03/2015 19:20, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Andy, It appears from an audit that there's been a modest amount of editing,and mechanical copying of the trees affected by the original import. In the UK that import was reverted, but worldwide it is messier. The denotation=cluster tag itself is problematic at best, and better methods of finding tree clusters have been demonstrated. Thus it really seems that the most pragmatic choice is a wholesale purge of the cluster value, and a selective (no touching manual mapping) purge of the fixme. I can certainly see arguments for that (I was around at the time the tag was introduced and never exactly understood what denotation=cluster was supposed to be for), but suspect that a consultation with some of the other mappers using it since would make sense. If you're getting rid of _all_ denotation=cluster worldwide then the wiki page that currently says This was a mechanical edit based on proximity to other trees. needs changing. Limiting the purge to the nodes last touched by user Nop would, unfortunately, be half baked. The cluster value was created by Nop out of a disagreement with the concept of mapping individual trees. The problem spread from there. Well if the aim was to just undo the original mechanical edits that would of course still be an option - not by looking at node last touched by but by looking at the node lists from the original mechanical edit changesets. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags
On 25/02/2015 08:51, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 25.02.2015 02:58, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: It is apparent that a number of imports have left tens of thousands of fixme notes that have a low chance of ever getting addressed. Pick your favorite from the lists above: set␣better␣denotation is my mine. That's from a mechanical edit that should never have happened in the first place. The edit was basically done in order to establish the denotation tag for trees, which was almost nonexistent before. The denotation values were not pulled from an external source, but based on guesses of the kind another tree within x meters = must be a cluster of trees. In my opinion, it could make sense to also remove the denotation keys on trees with set␣better␣denotation. After all, the continuing existence of that fixme shows that no human ever verified these. I also agree with the general goal to get rid of pointless fixme values. Just for a bit of background on this specific issue, for the lucky people who missed out on it last time around, the mechanical edit that added those values was discussed here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-September/thread.html#4297 and there's some discussion (a couple of years after the event) on the German forum here: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=309562 The discussion on the GB list lead to a revert there: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-November/010492.html More comment from the Netherlands: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=121302#p121302 Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags
On 25/02/2015 05:00, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Any fixme in wide use I'm not interested in deleting. I'd strongly oppose the mechanical deletion of low volume fixme values. Mappers local to me often use individually worded fixmes describing something that needs investigation. By definition these values are not in wide use, but definitely should be kept. If I'm going to be in an area I always load the local notes and fixmes onto the Garmin so that if I'm near something that needs some attibute checking, I know about it. Get rid: fixme=check/adjust␣position␣and/or␣merge␣with␣existing␣stop␣if␣exists fixme=type_of_palm fixme=imported_to_be_checked FIXME=stream␣attribute␣data␣missing Keep: fixme=continue fixme=position fixme=resurvey fixme=dual_carriageway I may be missing something here, but what actually is the benefit of this? Even in the situation where a problematical import brought in lots of Palm Trees but not their species (or whatever) the fixme tag is still serving a useful purpose - in this case this data was imported by a problematical import. How will removing any fixme tag make the actual _data_ in OSM better? It'll just make it harder for people editing it to determine what is good data and what isn't. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing on osm.org
On 18/02/2015 11:38, Nick Whitelegg wrote: I've tried some foot routing out and it appears that someone has done a mass addition of access=private to large numbers of ROWs in Hampshire. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_footroute=50.96550%2C-1.17800%3B50.96090%2C-1.18780#map=17/50.96265/-1.18302 See also https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41053/prow-tagging-england-wales In this case graphhopper's correct, because http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4453997 does not have foot=yes on it, but instead access:foot=yes. It used to have foot=designated on it until 3 years ago. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Cat Forest
Hi folks, Every now and then, not far from null island, some features pop up in the middle of the Atlantic. One of them's called Cat Forest. You can see references to it here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/308544 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/219747755/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/235437228/history and if you select undelete at the location below you can see that lots of them have been added and deleted over the years: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch#map=15/0.0841/0.0044 Other related features (which you can see in the changesets that added Cat Forest) include Happy Park and Coast Highway. I'm guessing that it's an OSM course somewhere. There are better ways of practicing with OpenStreetMap than adding things to the middle of the Atlantic (there's the dev server, which might be appropriate depending on what was being done, and there's also OpenGeoFiction for _real_ fictional maps), although it's not a huge issue - things such as this normally get spotted and deleted a few days after they were added. Mainly I'm just curious :) Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM contact for complicated licence violation investigation
On 12/02/2015 11:53, Michael Kugelmann wrote: On 12.02.2015 at 12:30 Richard Z. wrote: came across a pretty major license violation and need technical help and another pair of eyes to figure out what is going on. http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Data_working_group or http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group ? http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group ? Of those, it's http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group . There are a couple of email addresses at the bottom of that page which should help. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] guide to vandalism” in OSM?
On 12/02/2015 13:32, Dave F. wrote: Thanks to both for the clarification. The way it was written it implied bona fide editors were deliberately adding false POIs to catch vandals. I translated that bit; I added quotes to the German original and changed the payoff to try and make it obvious that no, these people weren't seriously writing a how to vandalise OSM guide*, but clearly I didn't do a good enough job :-) . I'm sure that the openstreetmap.de folks would welcome more translation volunteers, though. Actually, one thing that I just didn't think about doing was linking to a translation of the French forum as well as the original, since (depending on what browser you're using) automatic translation either just happens or is immediately accessible by Google Translate / Microsoft Translator or whatever - and with French/English both do a more than passable job. I'll bear that in mind for the future ... Cheers, Andy * There's actually been a bit of previous in the French OSM community about the use of notes, which has on occasion spilled over onto international lists. However, trying to provide any background about that would be way out of scope for a one-line bullet-point item in a weekly newsletter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] this has to stop: iD user mistakes all over the place
On 10/02/2015 23:38, colliar wrote: ... I am fed up with ... ... at this point it's probably worth mentioning that we've been here before: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-August/thread.html#67854 Unfortunately, experience suggests that there's relatively little that a discussion on on the talk mailing list is going to be able to do here. There are essentially two sides to the argument - at one extreme new mappers should never be able to break data (and if they can't edit at all because they can't understand what they need to do, tough) and at the other new mappers must have everything complicated hidden from them (and if some complicated OSM structure breaks, tough). Obviously you're not at one extreme and the iD developers aren't at the other, but there _is_ a difference of opinion here that it's not easy to reconcile. If you want new mappers, you have to actually allow them to map. If you've got specific examples of things that new users get wrong consistently (and even better if you can understand what they've done wrong and why) then I suspect that it would really help would be to raise an issue on Github about it, or add to an existing one if one already exists. * iD making it way to easy to delete objects but not offering an option to undelete them (is there any history information at all ?) Whilst I'm in no way a fan of the iD user interface, even I had no problems finding the undo button. I don't think that new mappers tend not to find it either, since an answer to the common question what do I do if I get a conflict is undo back past the problem, and new mappers haven't said (on the help site or on IRC) how do I undo? * simply combining ways and merge nodes without any validation or warning about conflicts in tags or problems with relations What might help here is to get details from the new mapper concerned of how they felt that they needed to merge nodes or ways. The merge operation is fairly visually obvious when it happens; what's not so obvious is that the resulting merged node with semicolon-separated tag values isn't particularly useful in OSM. There are a couple of merge Github issues; it may be that they already describe the problem that you are referring to here. * not telling the user about the importance of all tags, even unknown to the software and allowing user to communicate with user of the last change of the object I suspect that this comes down to the two sides to the argument mentioned above - the idea is that new mappers shouldn't have to worry about all tags (or indeed, where possible, tags at all). Any plans of supporting lanes-tagging-system ? Otherwise there will be even more complains in the future. This sounds like https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/387 to me. That's probably the best place to explain what you'd want the end result of a new mapper knowing about turn lanes would be. Is there anyone taking care of mistake made by iD users and documenting the most common ones to either better explain how to avoid them and/or fix the software ? Back in 2013 I did have a look, and came up with this: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-August/068018.html Since then the Thing X changed to thing Y problem has been much diminished by the fix for iD issue 542. POI added without a main tag is still pretty common, and unexpected deletions are rarer than the were (perhaps also because of the iD 542 fix). The initial who made what sort of error analysis was in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-August/067936.html , and note that in there iD new users made statistically fewer serious errors than P2 ones (or, on a very low sample size, JOSM users). I don't have the numbers, but based on a gut feel since 2013 I'd say that currently the editor for which the highest proportion of new users are going to cause _widespread_ problems is probably JOSM. ... So far, I try to keep calm and rather save my changes and upload them later after solving conflicts instead of starting an edit war by reverting or uploading older versions but I spend more time with communication and investigating problems than actually mapping and resolving notes and I still have quite some gpx tracks and photos from over a year ago to map. Supportive communication with new users is really important, so thanks for taking the time to do this. I don't believe that OSM has an iD users problem; it has a new mappers one - or more accurately, a data far more complicated than it needs to be problem which means even experienced mappers can have problems. For example, have a look at this help question and the ones that it links to: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/40792/editing-large-multipolygons-in-josm Those were asked by an experienced OSM mapper who usually edits in JOSM - how's someone without an in-depth knowledge of how OSM data is organised or any of
Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project - Fix tha Road Name
On 06/02/2015 12:08, Brian Prangle wrote: ... So we thought that adding Notes about road names that need fixing on the standard OSM map, asking for confirmation of the correct name, might elicit some response via a comment indicating the correct name. I see that you and RobJN have added quite a few notes near Rotherham now. It'd be an interesting test to see which notes get resolved and by whom. Are there any plans to check the statistics in, say, a couple of months time? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: [Imports] amenity=bicycle_repair_station :::: only 18 so far
On 26/01/2015 19:19, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: 2) Nobody seems to mind if a school POI is off by 30 meters. But the people do seem to care for bicycle repair stations. Citation needed, I think. That may be true in the US (were schools imported there?) but I'd be very surprised if in the UK there were many school POI nodes (of which there are still a few) that were actually outside the school grounds. A quick peek at a couple of areas in the UK in taginfo (including ones with fewer local mappers) suggest most schools are mapped as areas, and I'd expect them to be as accurate the aerial imagery locally, which is certainly better than 30m. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: [Imports] amenity=bicycle_repair_station :::: only 18 so far
On 26/01/2015 19:55, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net mailto:o...@raggedred.net wrote: Again, that doesn't justify adding data you know are poor quality. Please don't do that. The data in question is collected via GPS: it's of similar quality to other POI's collected via GPS. No, not unless by GPS you mean a quick location, possibly based on cell site rather than GPS, before the phone had got an accurate lock (based on the locations that I could see where the correct location should have been - something that could of course have been done at import time, but wasn't. Every one I sought out to verify was readily findable. I think the quality is quite good, and perfectly adequate for a cyclist to locate the stations in a time of need. Well, the name on most of the UK ones is something like So-and-so hospital, so given that those are well signposted, a cyclist could always go to the hospital reception and ask. However, adding a node to OSM does rather suggest that you know where that node is somewhat better than that. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=bicycle_repair_station :::: only 18 so far
On 25/01/2015 05:20, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Where do OSM cycling enthusiasts hang out : is there a mailing list or group focused on cycling features? #osm-gb on IRC. :) (I'm only half joking - the channel topic is usually Pubs and cycle routes a speciality) Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=bicycle_repair_station :::: only 18 so far
On 25/01/2015 19:06, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I figure that OSM has a small role to play here: if everyone's smartphone bike app can FIND these stations, that will increase awareness and thus encourage universities and cities to install them. There does seem to have been a few issues with some of the ones that have been imported already (I've only looked at the ones in the UK; not sure if they are typical of the rest). http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3306866930 looks fairly obviously misplaced - there's a Swan Hotel just up the road, but this node seems to be in the back yard of a bank. Some discussion about the name would make sense - I wouldn't necessarily use the name of the location, unless it's actually called The Swan Hotel bike repair station (which it might be I guess, but it seems unlikely) http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3306867054#map=17/51.64923/-0.40445 is similarly called after the thing that it is in: Watford General Hospital. In this case the node seems to be a duplicate of http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2802994130 just across the road - I'm guessing that something went wrong when checking the nodes for import? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] Unsigned road names (was Fix the road name!)
Hijacking the thread somewhat, but something that I was wondering about recently... There are many roads that are signed, and we can add them to OSM. Great! There are some roads that are signed, and the sign differs from what the local authority thinks that a road is called (usually just common typos - no surprise, everyone makes mistakes), and we can add the wrong name as a not:name. Also great! Sometimes something that isn't a name that anyone would ever use to refer to something creeps into OSM. These usually (eventually) get shunted off into another key - perhaps official_name, or something else. However, there are names where the name in OSM is what the local authority uses, and what local people would agree that it is called, but there's no sign on the ground. How do we reflect that? It's useful to know from a routing perpective because turn right on foo street is of no use if foo street isn't signed as such. It still makes sense for foo street to be in OSM as the name rather than any other key, because everyone agrees that it is the name - there just isn't a sign for it. What's the best way to tag this? Currently I've been using name:signed=no (and ref:signed=no where the road ref isn't signed). Is there a better / more accepted way of doing this? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [talk-au] Bruxner Motorway
On 24/01/2015 11:41, Leon Kernan wrote: It may have been a few years since I've been to northern NSW, however this doesn't look right to me. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-28.8528/153.4695 Anyone familiar with the area able to confirm there is/isn't a brand new Bruxner Motorway between the Pacific Highway and Casino? I can't find any info about it. The changeset comment This is a temporary change for capture purposes for new motorway (M60) isn't promising :) It's a relatively new mapper with relatively few changesets so perhaps they just need a bit of help understanding what OSM is and how best to visualise what they're trying to show? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-GB] Data search request: help please
On 22/01/2015 21:59, Andy Mabbett wrote: I need some help, please. I want to compile a list of all the pubs (including taverns bars, etc) in the UK, with the word Louise as part of the name. Do you mean in the UK, or in OSM in the UK? How might I do this, given that I am not a coder? My first thought was that if you meant in OSM you could just try: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=louise#values There are few enough pages that you can scan the results manually: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164418353 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97237916 but that seems a much smaller number than I was expecting... Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Mappa Mercia events
On 20/01/2015 00:51, Matthijs Melissen wrote: I have the impression that Saturday meetings seem to have a higher turnout than evening meetings, as they also allow people from a bit further afield to join. Maybe we could also plan again one or two Saturday meetings in the Summer? I believe that Andy previously suggested some of the villages north of the TM canal. Near them there's also Shugborough Hall and Cannock Chase, and through that runs various long distance paths, one of which (the Sabrina Way) is largely unmapped: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/537430#map=9/52.7778/-1.9446 Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Hanbury Meeting - Fauld Crater
On 10/01/2015 17:09, Donald Noble wrote: I know that tagging for the renderer is not particularly helpful, however, might it be appropriate in this instance to map the significant slopes around the edges of the crater with man_made=embankment ? There are slopes there in reality, and they are made by human activity (even if not intentionally). That does make some sort of sense - the sides (especially at the top) are quite steep. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Change: How mature is OpenStreetMap?
On 09/01/2015 14:09, Hans De Kryger wrote: I think the reason most long time mappers don't communicate the mistake the was made to new mapper s is the fact that where afraid of getting into a long drawn out conversation with them or it turning into a disagreement and end ing up nowhere. Just two frustrated mappers. I would like to point out a case in point. There's a mapper whose page a ran across that said All emails to me will immediately be deleted without being read.Now how do we communicate when we have mappers who feel that way in the community It's hard. Yes - communication is sometimes really hard work (a social rather than a technical challenge - maybe that's what the parent poster was saying and I didn't understand?). Anyway, for those who haven't seen it, I'd recommend watching this SOTM video, not for the policing aspects but for the how mappers interact bits: http://stateofthemap.org/session/More_than_Just_Data Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging Notes feature question
On 09/01/2015 12:23, Dave F. wrote: OK, but however you perceive it, it still activates the 'view notes'. Although it adds clarity to do so, it's not essential to the 'add a note' function. Speaking as a frequent user of the add notes function, I'd say that it is extremely useful to activate the notes layer in this way to avoid duplication. The current functionality is not broken and does not need fixing (and I'd have thought that Github was perhaps the better place to discuss it anyway?). Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Change: How mature is OpenStreetMap?
On 06/01/2015 01:25, Michał Brzozowski wrote: * Software for monitoring OSM changes is still very rudimentary. I wanna be the f**king NSA. It's incredibly hard to check newbies' work quickly (eg. you have to load every changeset separately into OSMHV). I'm not sure that it is incredibly hard - I rarely need to throw new users' changesets at osmhv - that usually gets saved for the wide changesets of people making things match JOSM's presets. It's usually pretty easy to categorise new users into adding new things; no problems, adding things OK but haven't quite grasped $some_concept (like joining roads at nodes) or Oh dear they're really struggling. * Why do these newbies make so many mistakes? Because it's difficult, dammit! When I started mapping there was a large area of white space for several miles around my house - not even the roads were mapped. It took a long time to get the hang of things, but while I was doing it there were no local mappers breathing down my neck saying that I was tagging for the renderer or similar. We have to give new mappers the time to get the hang of things, and offer help when required, but constructively and not just saying your're doing it wrong. One of the sad things about OSM is that many people are willing to fix the _data_ but not to fix the _people_ - if you look at the changset history anywhere you'll often see quite wide changesets with descriptions such as fix typo - but rarely are the people making these changes going back to the original mappers explaining the best way to map a certain feature. The documentation is a mess, editor presets are incomplete (whereas they should include all approved and other widely used features) Sometimes we forget that real life is complicated. It's not a simple case of tag X or tag Y - something might be a pub, or a restaurant, or somewhere in between, and sometimes what might be the best category can change. We saw it recently where well-meaning people tried to mechanically change wood=deciduous to leaf_type=broadleaved (most deciduous trees in the UK are broad_leaved, though some aren't - for example http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40614704 ). At the weekend I went and had a look at this area: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6SY and it turns out that things are _much_ more complicated than how it is currently mapped (by me!) suggests. There are at least four groups of planting type there (old-growth broadleaved deciduous on the SSSI, planted-for-forestry pine in neat rows, some odds and sods mixed deciduous between the pine plantings, and some areas that are virtually heathland). No amount of remotely changing tag X to tag Y will capture that detail - you need to go there and have a look. However, if a new mapper arrives at an area like this part of Clipstone Forest but blank and maps it all just as some sort of woodland, perhaps even very roughly to start with, they've still made the map better than it was before. Sometimes we forget that we were all new mappers once. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New building colour
On 04/01/2015 13:01, Lester Caine wrote: Perhaps now is the time to be looking again at real time rendering with a selectable style sheet, or perhaps simply a base layer on top of which different languages and styles can be selected. That sort of thing has been suggested before(1) but having configurable tile layers on osm.org needs someone to actually write the code to support that. If you just want to create a map style for your customers, then of course that isn't a requirement - the tools to do it are available and the process to set up an OSM-a-like tile server is well documented(2). There are maintenance aspects that are less well documented, but even most of that info's around somewhere. I switched from mostly using the osm.org standard style back in the summer when it became clear that its priorities weren't mine. Cheers, Andy 1) https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2014-December/028206.html - and probably many times previously too. 2) See summary of links at the end of https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2014-December/028205.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin nuvi track recording
On 29/12/2014 16:53, Volker Schmidt wrote: I tried to find, unsuccessfully, information about track recording with GARMIN nuvi models. I had occasion to use a nuvi 50 (with OSM maps) for car navigation. It worked fine apart from the track recording that seems to be permanently in lock on road mode, which is not useful if you want to use the recorded tracks for mapping. Is there any similarly simple-to-use Garmin model that does permit to set the track recording without lock on road, or is there a trick to make the the nuvi 50 forget the lock-on-road mode? Does lock on road definitely cause the _recorded track_ to match the road (as opposed to the current displayed position used for navigation calculations)? On my old Nuvi 265W it certainly seems that recorded tracks aren't coincident with the road, even when it's displaying a position exactly on the road that it thinks that it is supposed to be on. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Post-Christmas Midlands OSM Meet-up
On 29/12/2014 17:06, SK53 wrote: So I'd like to suggest everyone meets at the rendezvous, and that at least the first short walk is done as a group. Has anyone cleared parking at the pub? Some places can get sniffy about it (even if spending lots of money there later). There's also apparently some parking off the road to the sewage works to the north, what appears to be places to park on-road in the village, and also the odd layby further afield. I'll be driving down from around Chesterfield, so if anyone wants a lift from that direction, shout up. Cheers, Andy PS: The good news is that the Bing imagery in Hanbury itself only seems about 5m out - they do seem to be getting their act much more together of late. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Totesport
On 21/12/2014 12:02, Andrew Hain wrote: Betfred took over Totesport a few years ago but there are still tags name=Totesport, name=totesport or operator=Totesport in Ashford, Birmingham(2), London (2), Manchester (2), Northampton, Oxford, Rotherham and Wakefield. I'd be tempted to add OSM notes for these containing a link to the problem node or way since http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1117527074 hasn't been touched for four years; it's likely that other shops have changed hands too. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] No more voting on mechanical edits
On 18/12/2014 18:59, Rovastar wrote: Well please share the thoughts about what suggestions you have. The big problem is not really whether a particular shop has an apostrophe in the name or not, but the fact that we don't have anything like all of said shops mapped. I suggested that any plan for changes to the shop names and values that we have now would also need to address how new users decide which ones to use. For iD, names are suggested via https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/ , and https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/blob/master/canonical.json is the canonical list of known good ones. I suggested to Matthijs that some sort of localisation might make sense there, since shop names do vary (and thinking further about it shop functions do too - an Australian Woolworths is very different to what a UK Woolworths was). He was aware of name-suggestion-index but didn't seem to be aware of the canonical list. Speaking entirely personally, I don't think that Matthijs suggesting that we add e.g. a missing apostrophe to a shop brand that is well-established as having one** is necessarily wrong, it's just almost entirely pointless if we have so few of that shop brand mapped that the data isn't really useful. Postprocessing data from large databases to make sense of it is something that you _always have to do_*. It's not just OSM; any large dataset has this problem. Try extracting data for railway stations as an example (seriously - try it - don't just write an email about it - actually try it, look at the exceptions and see what you get). Is that preserved railway station a station? What about the miniature railway in a park? What actual features did $customer want when they were looking for a station anyway? When OSM's data is more complete it might make more sense to say right, now lets look at those exceptions - but that has to be done on a case by case basis, you can't just assume that X is Y, because you've seen an X locally and have never been to the area where Y is. Having 10 people ticking a box on a wiki doesn't address that problem, a proper discusion does. Following on from that, removing wrong data from OSM globally does cause one problem - it makes it much harder to see which areas have been inexpertly mapped. If someone's got the spelling or a shop tag woefully wrong, what about their other edits? That wrong tag might be the canary in the coal mine that indicates other problems that need a proper survey to investigate and fix. Another similar issues is missing bridges over rivers and streams - adding a generic bridge might fix the problem on the QA site, but it takes away the pointer to an area that needs a survey (is there really a bridge, or a culvert under the road?). That's why (despite the teeth-sucking on the #osm-gb list whenever it happens) I think that Matthijs' adding of OSM notes for these miscategorised shops is an excellent idea, though I wish that each note contained a link to the item in question. What we seem to be forgetting in this discussion is that we're all supposed to be on the same side here, something that the name-calling (e.g. referring to someone as an OSM dinosaur) and cheap points-scoring doesn't help with. Many people in OSM regularly help other people with their pet projects. For example, I've mapped more bits of Derwent Aqueduct infrastructure than any sane person could show a reasonable interest in (sorry Paul if you're reading) and I've also tried to help Matthijs get community acceptance for what he's trying to achieve here. We have to work together, but in the case of mapping shops (the 90% that we don't know about yet), the main thing that you have to do is to _actually go out and map the shops_. You can't do it from behind a computer keyboard. Cheers, Andy * I've worked on statistical data extraction and combination from mechanical and digital systems on and off since the mid-1980s. ** Some brands do seem to use entirely consistent branding, some do not and some are in a process of change (as discussed at length on the previous thread). ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
On 18/12/2014 10:48, Dan S wrote: 2014-12-18 10:39 GMT+00:00 SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk: On 18/12/2014 02:10, Matthijs Melissen wrote: If you oppose this proposal, or if you want to register particular areas or objects for an opt-out, please edit the wiki page under the section 'Oppositions and opt-out'. At the risk of restating the obvious, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy must still be followed, including the bit where it says You must not go ahead with your plans if there is noticeable opposition. So this particular proposal is not opt out. If there is noticeable opposition, then it shouldn't go ahead. Andy, The Mechanical Edit Policy, which you just linked us to, quite clearly says Matthijs must provide Information on how to opt out. It says it in two places. Indeed, but it says it _after_ it says You must not go ahead with your plans if there is noticeable opposition, so the section in Execute is somewhat moot if there is noticeable opposition. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] No more voting on mechanical edits
On 18/12/2014 10:24, Dan S wrote: Hi Matthijs, The DWG email used the word consensus inappropriately, since consensus means everyone agreeing, and we didn't. However, consensus is essentially impossible in big wiki communities like ours, so let's assume there's a relative meaning of the term ;) Maybe I've been using the word inappropriately all these years but I've always thought that concensus meant general agreement - the idea that we, as a community, generally think this not that absolutely everyone agrees with every part of something 100%. It doesn't mean 10 people who could be bothered ticked a box on a wiki page. It means, we, as a community, have thought about it, discussed it, and although some people may disagree, the general feeling of the community is X. My DWG mail to Matthijs (part of which was selectively quoted to this list) contained a number of suggestions about how to best to proceed. These included better explaining why a change now rather than later was beneficial, and why some of the other suggestions raised last time wouldn't work for the problem as he sees it. It also covered the issue of how to ensure that new mappers use the correct tags. Thinking about these other issues is actually far more important than whether or not to do X mechanical edit. Best Regards, Andy Townsend ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [talk-au] Cycling network tag
On 08/12/2014 11:25, Steve Bennett wrote: It was quite an eye opener for me earlier this year to cycle in the UK to discover that they really do have LCN, RCN, and NCN. And they're slightly different from what I expected: NCN is basically a network that links towns together, LCN and other stuff, but with the same goal of efficiently getting from place to place. RCN is a cycle tourism network, and follows scenic, rather than efficient, routes. (Following an NCN route is often disappointing...) I think that it depends a bit where you are. In some places NCN routes are essentially boring cycle motorways, but in the more interesting bits of the UK countryside there are places where NCN routes need more just than a city bike. In those cases I'd just try and tag surface and mtb:scale appropriately so that cycle routers and renderers can work appropriately. The cycle tourism network that I suspect that you're referring to is the National Byway http://www.nationalbyway.org/welcome.asp which is a bit of a one-off - there are other RCNs that suit different cycling styles and needs. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?
On 01/12/2014 11:58, John Aldridge wrote: On 01/12/2014 11:39, Stuart Reynolds wrote: Looking for some advice in Bletchley, specifically, but to answer a more general point about footpaths. : So what is the guidance here? Ought the road have a distinct footpath both sides? Or not footpath, and use the tags on the road, or just connecting spurs from the footpath to the road at key points (e.g. opposite Selwyn Grove), or what…? I think mapping the path explicitly is perfectly reasonable if it is (for at least some of its length) separated from the road by a non-trivial distance (say more than a couple of feet of grass). I'd agree with that - and where that isn't the case I'd definitely use sidewalk=left/right/both to indicate that the road has a sidewalk. Also, it can be difficult to work out exactly what's going on if you haven't actually been there, so I'd be reluctant to change mapping from sidewalk=blah to a separate footway without a survey (unless its really obviously wrong - e.g. no connections at all between footpaths and roads). That's not a problem here I'm sure as I suspect Traveline folks will all have a very good mental picture of all station surrounds on their patch! Usage of adjacent seems to be fairly localised in the UK: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6k7 Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData Layer down?
On 29/11/2014 12:16, tony wroblewski wrote: Hi I've been unable to access the OS OpenData layer in both JOSM and ID. Has the address or URL changed, or is the server just down at the moment? Server room maintenance perhaps? There's some work mentioned here: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Platform_Status (I'm aware that at least one other server is currently temporarily down) Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData Layer down?
On 29/11/2014 12:44, tony wroblewski wrote: Thanks Andy Yep, I guess it's hosted on faffy, and it's currently down. It's actually a little more complicated than that I think. It _was_ hosted there, but that broke (hardware failure of some sort) during the last maintenance period). The admins then moved things around to fit it in elsewhere, but there's some work being done this weekend: https://twitter.com/osm_tech (thanks to the more social-media-aware denizens of #osm for that link) Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] Issues with Mapbox paid mappers (was: Detrimental validation software)
On 13/10/2014 18:32, Aaron Lidman wrote: Richrico should have responded. The Mapbox data team has a policy to respond to all questions from the community. I'm sorry he didn't, he has now, and we've reminded all members of our data team of this policy. This should no longer be an issue in the future and all of our data team policies are completely transparent and can be found on the wiki:http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapbox#Data_Team_Guidelines (apologies for raking up an old thread, but just for info to all concerned) I've just reverted a couple of Richrico's changesets. One I'm sure is wrong based on my recollection of the area; the other looks wrong based on the imagery and I've added a note so that I can check the next time I'm in the area. I only did this after various attempts to get in contact (including OSM messages and the guidelines linked above). Conversations on #osm-gb suggest I'm not the only one to have reverted some of these changesets. However, given that this user's changesets are international in scope it's likely that there are other areas that need checking too. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM University of Liverpool exercise (or 200 free(ish) volunteers)
On 27/11/2014 13:50, Nick Bearman wrote: and what areas in Liverpool would benefit most from the students contribution. Currently, giving the time available to the students, I would be thinking of a desk-based digitisation exercise, but this can be flexible. Based on a fleeting visit to Liverpool earlier in the year, I'd agree with most of what's already been said. Certainly the areas outside the centre of town are less well mapped than the centre; even just looking out towards Wavertree most looks still just traced from aerial imagery rather than a record of what's there (though I notice that the construction areas east of the University that weren't marked when I was there previously are now mapped, so there's clearly lots of ongoing work there). A couple of thoughts spring to mind: o One is to try and get your students to map their home area or some other area that they're familiar with rather than the centre of town. Even just using aerial imagery they're going to be able to say things like hey! I know that there's a footpath joining these two roads or there's a gate on that alley that stops you getting through. o Another is to think perhaps about particular topics rather than particular areas - such as the project in the West Midlands to get listed buildings (and more) mapped: http://www.mappa-mercia.org/maps/west-midlands-heritage-map A topic might also be something like mapping all the restaurants in Chinatown from food hygiene data or mapping the historical remains of the former Liverpool docks - but there are lots of other possibilities. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Is there some loop trip founder?
On 26/11/2014 23:01, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: But is there any tool capable of finding interesting trips starting in some selected place, that returns to the point of origin after going through some interesting* places using good* ways? http://walks.io/ has a go at doing a bit like that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits
On 20/11/2014 07:52, Lester Caine wrote: ... although the list of other local mappers on your profile is one place where I would like to see that particular link included! ... and don't forget that iD already includes an edits by section at the bottom of the screen which links to people who have edited locally recently. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits
For info, I added a comment to the first of these changesets and the editor replied there: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26783815 Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Allegedly named motorways
There seem to be quite a few GB motorways in OSM with names, and some of those names don't look very plausible. For example, there's: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37906957 This is the M4 past Heathrow and apparently it is named the Chiswick to Langley Special Road. That name seems to originate here: http://www.ciht.org.uk/motorway/m4chisslou.htm It's possible that this name was used as a description of the original development project, but I've never heard it used as an actual _name_ for this section of M4. According to musical chairs, the local authority don't think that it has a name either: http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=846864 There's a similar issue a bit further out, the Slough-Maidenhead By-Pass: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/81517663 http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=18177 Again that sounds like a description; I've never seen that sign on the M4. The M27 is allegedly the South Coast Motorway http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/77680006 http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=17958 It certainly didn't have signs up saying that the last time that I was there. A welsh stretch of M4 is apparently named Mr: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24272190/history Obviously some names ARE in common use: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/2287 (and a selection of bridges, and also bits of A1M could plausibly still be thought of as Great North Road). The overpass query, by the way, is: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/67B I'm sure there are others out there that I haven't found yet. Can anyone think of a valid source for Chiswick to Langley Special Road, Slough-Maidenhead By-Pass, South Coast Motorway, or Mr as names? If not (and if people agree) I'll change the relevant name tag to description (so that nothing gets lost - except for Mr which is surely just a typo). If any is in any sense a valid name but isn't signed I can set name:signed=no as per http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32826117 so that at least data consumers can filter out not-real names. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Monitoring route relations
On 16/11/2014 10:13, Colin Smale wrote: I have also been looking for such a facility - in my case for admin boundaries. For admin boundaries in the UK and Ireland I use EdLoach's : http://www.loach.me.uk/osm/boundaries/ Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] State of the Map US 2015 in New York, NY, June 6-8
On 12/11/2014 03:13, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote: They are technically extraterritorial through a treaty agreement with the U.S. government (1). Good luck getting there without a US visa though! Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of checking.
More info on this - it seems to be a bunch of people working for this company: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/%C3%96V_Firma_Mentz_Datenverarbeitung_GmbH I've had no reply from the mapper that I tried to contact (although they have fixed at least one of the problems that they created) so I've tried again via direct message, comment on the firm's OSM wiki page and an OSM message to the company's main OSM account. What concerns me is that they're still editing (with various accounts). It's relatively easy to trace straight lines from Bing, but it needs experience and interpretation (and a local survey!) to see how everything on the ground relates to everything else. Based on their error rate so far I'd definitely still suggest that local mappers check their edits. Cheers, Andy On 08/11/2014 22:51, SomeoneElse wrote: An anonymous note adder (http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/267719) and someone on IRC noticed some problematical railway edits near Sutton-in-Ashfield: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311380489#map=15/53.1247/-1.2346layers=N It looks like an attempt to dual the Robin Hood line went a bit wrong and ended up slicing through an industrial estate and some areas of housing (though I'm sure it was cock-up rather than conspiracy as Sir Bernard Ingham would have said). Looking at some other edits in the same changeset, there are some other, less obvious, issues too, which I've added to the changeset discussion: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26590071 The most obvious problem seems to be tracing the railway in but not joining properly to other features (such as crossings). Some information (e.g. cutting=yes) has also been lost. Another local changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26587435 has some similar issues. There have been a number of other edits, some with rather a lot of deletions in them, including: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26613977 All of these changesets could probably also benefit from a review from local mappers to identify potential issues. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of checking.
On 12/11/2014 10:59, Stuart Reynolds wrote: Please pass the details back to me, and I will discuss it with them and also with the community if things need reverting. Thanks Stuart. All of my detailed comments so far have been on changesets. I went through http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26590071 in some detail (since I'm very familiar with the area), and also http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26587435 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26588170?way_page=2 . The user concerned has tried to fix some but not all of the issues raised, but the biggest issue so far I think is the lack of communication with the UK community (I've not had any reply to messages to that user)* Meaningful changeset comments (i.e. not just modified railway like on http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26597441 ) would also help. If these really are just source=bing (as that last changeset suggests then there are going to be some major issues with Bing offset). Cheers, Andy * though I have just now had a reply from a message to the main OSM MDV account ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of checking.
For completeness, I've also added a changeset discussion comment to: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26688781 Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-us] Anyone from New York State around?
I happened to notice https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24646348 while looking at something else. It looks a bit odd - doesn't seem to match the underlying imagery. The previous changeset by this user https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24646289 is a similar bunch of deletions, some former railway, but http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20661001/history looks like it was a plausible road before it was deleted. I'm happy to revert if that's what people think's best, but didn't want to do so if anyone said why yes, that area is all woodland now. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Anyone from New York State around?
On 12/11/2014 19:43, Richard Welty wrote: On 11/12/14 2:36 PM, Richard Welty wrote: i'm taking a look at them now. i see tags deleted, and then restored by pnorman_mechanical. so there was a problem, but it seems that it's long since fixed (thanks paul) richard Some of them were reverted but not https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24646348 I think? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of checking.
An anonymous note adder (http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/267719) and someone on IRC noticed some problematical railway edits near Sutton-in-Ashfield: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311380489#map=15/53.1247/-1.2346layers=N It looks like an attempt to dual the Robin Hood line went a bit wrong and ended up slicing through an industrial estate and some areas of housing (though I'm sure it was cock-up rather than conspiracy as Sir Bernard Ingham would have said). Looking at some other edits in the same changeset, there are some other, less obvious, issues too, which I've added to the changeset discussion: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26590071 The most obvious problem seems to be tracing the railway in but not joining properly to other features (such as crossings). Some information (e.g. cutting=yes) has also been lost. Another local changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26587435 has some similar issues. There have been a number of other edits, some with rather a lot of deletions in them, including: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26613977 All of these changesets could probably also benefit from a review from local mappers to identify potential issues. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Mapping turn lanes on major roads
I'd always assumed that the correct way to map turn lanes is via: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes . However, some mappers in the UK* have started mapping each individual lane as a separate parallel road. Here's an example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/267402#map=19/53.03296/-0.52524layers=N That note was obviously written from the point of view that mapping a single carriageway road as one way with appropriate turn lanes tags is correct; whether it is or not is the question that I'm asking here. So - should we map a dual carriageway as two parallel roads and a single carriageway as one (with appropriate turn lanes) or is it equally valid (or even perhaps better) to map each turn lane as a separate parallel road, even if there's nothing but a broken line of paint between them? I'm trying to get some idea of concensus here because obviously it'd be wrong for me to go back to another mapper and say you're not doing it correctly if there isn't a concensus about the best way to do it, or the concensus is that what they're doing is at least equally valid. Cheers, Andy * and this isn't a question about just one mapper - I've seen a few people do it. The example junction on the A17 just happens to be one that I spotted today (and a junction that I'm familiar with from walking that section of the Viking Way). ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-2 mechanical edit: UK shop names
On 05/11/2014 17:24, Matthijs Melissen wrote: Could you please have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Math1985/UK_Shop_Names if there are any other changes that need removing or changing? Wilkinson we know are in a process of rebranding to Wilko; so I might be tempted there to add notes to ask if a particular shop has been rebranded yet. Just changing Wilkinsons to Wilkinson might suggest that you know that a particular shop was Wilkinson on a certain date, which isn't the case. Thompson is also a very common name; I'd be wary of changing those without a local survey. Phones 4u shops I'd expect would need resurvey due to the administration. I'd be very careful with Majestic to avoid e.g. curry houses. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] Changeset dicsussion function (was: Changeset comment function)
On 02/11/2014 10:36, Simon Poole wrote: I would like to personally thank ukasiu, emacsen, woodpeck and TomH for developing and deploying this. A much wanted and needed feature. Thanks from me too. I think that it'll be really, really useful. Currently meta discussions happen elsewhere (on mailing lists, in IRC via exchange of pastebin messages, probably on Facebook etc. too for some OSM communities) and this is a great opportunity to bring those discussions out into the open. One thought though - can we call it Changeset Discussions here (like it actually is on osm.org)? Changeset comments (the comment that you supply when you save a changeset) are something else instead :-) Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Consolidated views of notes, fixmes, musical chairs, etc.
On 01/11/2014 12:04, David Woolley wrote: A very recent, topical, case is that Matthijs has added map notes for a lot of premises that he assumes are shops of a particular brand suggesting that they may need tagging in a particular way. This has completely negated the purpose of using the map notes, which was to avoid making changes to the actual map based on unverified assumptions. In significant parts of the country it is now as though Matthijs had actually made those changes. One, random, example, from one of the main armchair mappers involved is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1693488257. This is a change of shop type but they have also added shop=* when there was none there before. In these cases a real survey may actually find that the shop has gone or been re-branded, as well as the possibility it isn't the well known brand, isn't a shop, or is an unusual shop for the brand. To be fair to Matthijs, I suspect that he added a nap note rather than just armchairing the change himself so that someone who was familiar with the area could edit based on local knowledge, or that someone local could survey. It's not his fault if an armchair mapper appears to engage editor before brain and applies changes suggested by notes. In order to try and avoid people being overcome by temptation, I very often** say needs survey in the text of the note. To be fair to armchair mappers, they may be new to the project and may not even be familar with the _concept_ of surveying, and until someone tells them that actually going out to have a look at something is the best way of finding out what's actually there now, they won't necessarily be aware of the issues (redevelopment, misleading and offset imagery, etc.) that people who've been mapping for years take for granted. Cheers, Andy ** http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/notes ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Notes (was Consolidated views of notes, fixmes, musical chairs, etc.)
On 01/11/2014 20:08, Matthijs Melissen wrote: I in fact even proposed incorporating a system that makes this explicit in the notes API: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-August/070423.html Unfortunately, my suggestion in that thread didn't gain traction. It's great to have an idea, but it still needs the magic development pixies to do something to turn it into reality :-) Until such point as that happens, I think that it's definitely worth overdoing the contents of notes rather than underdoing it. It might feel boring writing the same text every time (but cut-and-paste is cheap, of course), but someone coming across just one note won't be aware of the context. Hyperlinks from notes work, so I'd: o hyperlink the OSM item that is in question o hyperlink the analysis that showed that this value might be an outlier (either on this list, or on a wiki page, or somewhere else) o hyperlink the current state of usage of a particular name or tag in taginfo (which may change before the note is actioned, of course) o make it clear that the correct value for the item is what is found from survey, and that you've added a note because a previous survey may have made a mistake (or a company has changed its branding nationally). Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
On 29/10/2014 09:05, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: It therefore surprised me when I read the White Paper ... What I read was MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin to write a paper supporting their commercial point of view re the licensing of OpenStreetMap data. Does it really deserve any more attention than that? Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Notes vs Fixme
On 24/10/2014 14:06, Dave F. wrote: On 23/10/2014 13:04, SomeoneElse wrote: They maybe more visible, but that doesn't mean they get updated or offer more relevant data. If Fixmes had a front end overlay they'd, obviously, be just as noticeable. You could argue that they do: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/5BR but I don't see people trying to resolve fixmes the way that they resolve notes. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Notes vs Fixme
On 24/10/2014 14:06, Dave F. wrote: Specific Q lots of these notes in my area are 'Incorrect speed limit. Reported speed limit is 40 mph' from 'anonymous'. Where is it 'reported' from. Is it being compared with another database? That was mentioned on talk: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-September/070829.html Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC Mechanical edit: shop=betting to shop=bookmaker for selected names
On 22/10/2014 23:04, Matthijs Melissen wrote: Dear all, For all objects tagged with shop=betting and name Betfred, Coral, Ladbrokes, Paddy Power or William Hill, I am planning to change the tag shop=betting into shop=bookmaker. I'm usually the first to stand up for a diversity of tags in OSM and moan when fine detail is lost when they're merged, but even I can't se a problem here :-) Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC Mechanical edit: shop=betting to shop=bookmaker for selected names
On 23/10/2014 12:57, Dave F. wrote: I'm not convinced Notes are cleared up any more than Fixmes They certainly are more visible to me - they're available for a simple overlay on the main map and get announced in IRC channels. In order to clear them up I wrote something* to create a Garmin waypoints file from the (different) XML format from the API and use it whenever I go anywhere. I've not yet done anything similar for fixmes (though it wouldn't be any harder to do that via e.g. Overpass). Cheers, Andy * https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/Notes01 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
On 16/10/2014 14:28, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2014-10-16 15:15, Dave F. wrote: I had a footpath between them. So the problem is also that the check is wrong. Apperantly it looks at major roads that are apart, but doesn't see that they are connected by another road. IMHO these cases should not be shown at all. Quite possibly, but as (Andrew Buck has already said) what really happened here is that a mapper made a mistake. It's not a software problem so much as a human one - and the way to fix that is to bring all mappers (paid or otherwise) into the community, so that they can learn from the mistakes that we've _all_ made in the past*, which according to the Mapbox page in the wiki, is exactly what they're doing. Cheers, Andy * Let he who is without sin etc.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_hlMK7tCks ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
On 13/10/2014 11:48, Dave F. wrote: Hi Once again I've had user Richrico use this website: http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/?error=unconnected_major5 to inaccurately amend data in OSM. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65398595#map=19/51.32464/-2.22817 Way: 65398595 This way is /not/ joined. I messaged them (in what I believe was a friendly and polite manner) about a similar situation in Derbyshire in September and have not (yet) had a reply. On their OSM user page they identify themselves as improving OpenStreetMap data for Mapbox - maybe that would provide another route for attempting to make contact? If that doesn't work, perhaps send a we've tried contacting them, had no reply, and they're still doing it message to the DWG (d...@osmfoundation.org) requesting a temporary block until the user logs in, so at least we can be sure that they're actually seeing the message (I've certainly not always noticed the you have X messages message, and if their workflow goes directly to iD from something on github, they may not see it at all). I haven't chased up my original message - I'll do so today. Without local knowledge there is no way users can be sure of the accuracy of there edits. They should stick to what they know. I believe this type of validation software should be discouraged, if not banned completely. There are places where this sort of armchairing makes sense (such as untouched areas in the US, memorably referred to as TIGER barf by someone on IRC earlier today), but places with active local mappers aren't one of them Oh, on Maproulette I'm getting a virus warning: hxxp://198.58.115.35/piwik.js Sounds like that should be raised at https://github.com/osmlab/maproulette/issues (with details - though I suspect it might be something detecting piwik as an attempt to track, which it sort of is FSVO track). Obviously maproulette != osmlab.gitub.io of course. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
