Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
On 2014-10-16 18:04, Yves wrote: Because its the purpose of this particular software. Not wanting to diminish this search, but why would you show an error roads not connected when they are connected? What is the rationale behind flagging this as a possible error? Regards, Maarten On 16 octobre 2014 17:10:03 UTC+02:00, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-10-16 15:43, SomeoneElse wrote: 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. But he would not have been led there if it wasn't pointed out as an error. It's not a software problem so much as a human one I beg to differ. The roads were connected. Why show an error two roads are not connected when there is a connection. Regards, Maarten - talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1] -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
For users to check if it's an error or not, and to correct if needed. QA softwares look at possible error according to automatic rules in this exact purpose. Yves Le 18 octobre 2014 20:37:21 CEST, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl a écrit : On 2014-10-16 18:04, Yves wrote: Because its the purpose of this particular software. Not wanting to diminish this search, but why would you show an error roads not connected when they are connected? What is the rationale behind flagging this as a possible error? Regards, Maarten On 16 octobre 2014 17:10:03 UTC+02:00, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-10-16 15:43, SomeoneElse wrote: 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. But he would not have been led there if it wasn't pointed out as an error. It's not a software problem so much as a human one I beg to differ. The roads were connected. Why show an error two roads are not connected when there is a connection. Regards, Maarten - talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1] -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Yves From my phone___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
On 2014-10-18 21:28, Yves wrote: For users to check if it's an error or not, and to correct if needed. QA softwares look at possible error according to automatic rules in this exact purpose. Yes, obviously. But why flag this as a possible error? Regards, Maarten Le 18 octobre 2014 20:37:21 CEST, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl a écrit : On 2014-10-16 18:04, Yves wrote: Because its the purpose of this particular software. Not wanting to diminish this search, but why would you show an error roads not connected when they are connected? What is the rationale behind flagging this as a possible error? Regards, Maarten On 16 octobre 2014 17:10:03 UTC+02:00, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-10-16 15:43, SomeoneElse wrote: 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. But he would not have been led there if it wasn't pointed out as an error. It's not a software problem so much as a human one I beg to differ. The roads were connected. Why show an error two roads are not connected when there is a connection. Regards, Maarten - talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1] [1] -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1] - talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1] -- Yves From my phone Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
So, your software could potentially mark every connection between two roads as roads not connected, leading to having to verify every intersection in the world? Sounds like a very bad design. On October 18, 2014 2:28:01 PM CDT, Yves yve...@gmail.com wrote: For users to check if it's an error or not, and to correct if needed. QA softwares look at possible error according to automatic rules in this exact purpose. Yves Le 18 octobre 2014 20:37:21 CEST, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl a écrit : On 2014-10-16 18:04, Yves wrote: Because its the purpose of this particular software. Not wanting to diminish this search, but why would you show an error roads not connected when they are connected? What is the rationale behind flagging this as a possible error? Regards, Maarten On 16 octobre 2014 17:10:03 UTC+02:00, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-10-16 15:43, SomeoneElse wrote: 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. But he would not have been led there if it wasn't pointed out as an error. It's not a software problem so much as a human one I beg to differ. The roads were connected. Why show an error two roads are not connected when there is a connection. Regards, Maarten - talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1] -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Yves From my phone ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Dave, IMHO the best way to avoid problems in that spot is to do what other suggested: add the footpath between the 2 street (thereby fixing the navigation for pedestrians) and/or adding the small piece of landuse=grass + the tree. I assume nobody will remove that just to fix a problem reported by an QA-site. The site might not even report the problem (as there is a footpath between the two and not an empty space) I don't know what is worse, a local mapper that does not add the footpath between the two streets or a armchair mapper that connects the two. The map is incorrect in both cases... The best way to document why 2 streets are not connected is by mapping the obstacle between them or the other type of road between them. That should exclude the spot from detection algorithms. just my .5 cent regards m On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Ian I will make reinforce my point of view vehemently, especially when misuse of Google is implied, definitely when repeated amendments are to the detriment of the database. Regards Dave F. On 14/10/2014 17:22, Ian Dees wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 13/10/2014 17:18, Aaron Lidman wrote: Looking at the imagery I can see how it might be thought they connect, especially when none of us are using google maps for verification, right? Wrong. I was using Streetview to confirm to the forum what I already knew - that the roads don't join. I don't need Google as I went there did a proper visual survey, whereas your employee just thought they might join. This armchair guesswork is bad for the OSM database: If you're unsure if an edit will improve the quality of the map - please don't make it. I use the validation software you mention, but only to correct data that I have first hand knowledge of never to amend something in another time zone where I've never been. Even when I do use them, I stop to think whether it is an accurate error report not blindly fix it assuming it must be true. A reminder to watch our language on the list. Like Frederik said, assume good intentions and don't use hyperbole or loud words to force your point. Thanks, Your friendly list moderator -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus http://www.avast.com/ protection is active. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
2014-10-16 8:28 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com: IMHO the best way to avoid problems in that spot is to do what other suggested: add the footpath between the 2 street (thereby fixing the navigation for pedestrians) and/or adding the small piece of landuse=grass + the tree. +0.95 (because grass is really not a landuse but a landcover), or a fence, or guard rail or retaining wall or wall, or waterway, or bollard, or As soon as you micromap the stuff between the unconnected roads it should become clear that they aren't connected. In some rare cases there might be something that is hard to map, e.g. a sidewalk separating the two roads (in my area often with parked cars preventing also physically the connection for cars), which still could be abstracted as a footway connection. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yes, in a case like the sidewalk separating them as a barrier though, you can simply add a noexit=yes on the road end. All major error checkers override the warning when this is present. I think this is the obvious solution and am surprised this thread has gone on this long. A simple mistake was made, it was found and corrected, and people will be more careful in the future. This is how OSM works, why are we still discussing this? - -AndrewBuck +0.95 (because grass is really not a landuse but a landcover), or a fence, or guard rail or retaining wall or wall, or waterway, or bollard, or As soon as you micromap the stuff between the unconnected roads it should become clear that they aren't connected. In some rare cases there might be something that is hard to map, e.g. a sidewalk separating the two roads (in my area often with parked cars preventing also physically the connection for cars), which still could be abstracted as a footway connection. cheers, Martin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUP8JfAAoJEK7RwIfxHSXbLygP/jiaOKx1KQA7UWv333WuvARG O9rIT13rW0I9+AAOypqKrgWT5o3sWr2FYaK+r1d+KIFuqXJGIUDa2QNZlmagBtKp K4Kjh3J1unhM7jy/GNxhI2bw8iualuUbtEtG4ntLvffSNd1aPPA0jFn0SR9fmwIY ACG1jH36JCukFTY/TG9FZcKWVYFIbPhEtLVWLw8tMi+LVEOPFCgm6zu81ApktUtM WoO47rqOTmiJcVHoc/6738vJ2XjC+90NtQz0dkg/1F8ETzy9om+zFqhetns22yWx BQbnuDwoRP0qmBdwjM/E6PNSd3bOFv0pkxpIdOeuMXeMslY7RuHKCe1byvRR5uMc 5BHva7lxM0s6AkAGRgKQU/tkRKG/CCuYx3g1J1jugwcWAXKogSkWiPFA8uW9UM8b xnaP5zjF8jMQZQU57ih+yF2OMd86DAnkuTMWer55V7xmz3TGD7hUSw3OsUnVoKiF /Sk8sU+zx8MI+l/NUDcHjgEZa3ffdcBIu8Y/TQUfdH/fdzFV2Wy/SROwY0b7sNAM r6bg5sV5H8lzmTGdaPNXztz6BQBavk5iIe89WBTsK+TkChJh/hfDK89hZ7pk4YCV 22IxdrXtJUfZONtM3uQLRIDQItClxbsUOyWpWNdQBuoIh77U2+/XY9ClG/SHqP/P MZ0Mav0GTugXV8ghbXqW =I9PK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Hi Marc I had a footpath between them. IMO users should be responsible for their own actions. Users should map what they believe to be useful or important objects with little benefit just to prevent others adding errors. Especially when those errors aren't mistakes, but guesses made with aforethought. I had another such edit from the same user yesterday. I asked him to review he's reverted which I'm grateful for, but it can't continue like this. OSM users/editors can't be expected to be a validator's validator. I completely disagree that not adding a footpath makes the map incorrect. Have you mapped every single physical object in your area? To make the first edit even worse, a user from Iceland, presumably using the Streetview image, has added grass, other entities! Cheers Dave F. On 16/10/2014 07:28, Marc Gemis wrote: Dave, IMHO the best way to avoid problems in that spot is to do what other suggested: add the footpath between the 2 street (thereby fixing the navigation for pedestrians) and/or adding the small piece of landuse=grass + the tree. I assume nobody will remove that just to fix a problem reported by an QA-site. The site might not even report the problem (as there is a footpath between the two and not an empty space) I don't know what is worse, a local mapper that does not add the footpath between the two streets or a armchair mapper that connects the two. The map is incorrect in both cases... The best way to document why 2 streets are not connected is by mapping the obstacle between them or the other type of road between them. That should exclude the spot from detection algorithms. just my .5 cent regards m On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Ian I will make reinforce my point of view vehemently, especially when misuse of Google is implied, definitely when repeated amendments are to the detriment of the database. Regards Dave F. On 14/10/2014 17:22, Ian Dees wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 13/10/2014 17:18, Aaron Lidman wrote: Looking at the imagery I can see how it might be thought they connect, especially when none of us are using google maps for verification, right? Wrong. I was using Streetview to confirm to the forum what I already knew - that the roads don't join. I don't need Google as I went there did a proper visual survey, whereas your employee just thought they might join. This armchair guesswork is bad for the OSM database: If you're unsure if an edit will improve the quality of the map - please don't make it. I use the validation software you mention, but only to correct data that I have first hand knowledge of never to amend something in another time zone where I've never been. Even when I do use them, I stop to think whether it is an accurate error report not blindly fix it assuming it must be true. A reminder to watch our language on the list. Like Frederik said, assume good intentions and don't use hyperbole or loud words to force your point. Thanks, Your friendly list moderator http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus http://www.avast.com/ protection is active. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
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. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
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
2014-10-16 15:43 GMT+02:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: 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* I think the fact that the mapper was paid to edit does make a difference. People/Companies that pay other people for mapping must ensure that the quality of those paid mappers is at least as good as that of the volunteer mappers (i.e. the normal mappers). I'd actually expect it to be better than average, because when you spend a lot of time mapping you will become more experienced and normally you will therefor do better mapping. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
On 16/10/2014 14:43, SomeoneElse wrote: 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. It's not a software problem so much as a human one It's a bit of both. The software is leading the decision process. Users are making ill inform judgements from it with no local knowledge: 'Computer says Yes' type of thing. (punchline on a UK comedy sketch show for those unaware) Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
On 2014-10-16 15:43, SomeoneElse wrote: 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. But he would not have been led there if it wasn't pointed out as an error. It's not a software problem so much as a human one I beg to differ. The roads were connected. Why show an error two roads are not connected when there is a connection. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Because its the purpose of this particular software. On 16 octobre 2014 17:10:03 UTC+02:00, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 2014-10-16 15:43, SomeoneElse wrote: 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. But he would not have been led there if it wasn't pointed out as an error. It's not a software problem so much as a human one I beg to differ. The roads were connected. Why show an error two roads are not connected when there is a connection. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Please, no. noexit=yes is wrong as there is an exit at least for foot. Adding a short connecting path in between is the right solution. The QA software should not report the case if there is a connection and even if it is reported you would not change the situation if unsure but rather get in touch with the last editor. cu colliar Am 16.10.2014 15:04, schrieb Andrew Buck: Yes, in a case like the sidewalk separating them as a barrier though, you can simply add a noexit=yes on the road end. All major error checkers override the warning when this is present. I think this is the obvious solution and am surprised this thread has gone on this long. A simple mistake was made, it was found and corrected, and people will be more careful in the future. This is how OSM works, why are we still discussing this? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Ian I will make reinforce my point of view vehemently, especially when misuse of Google is implied, definitely when repeated amendments are to the detriment of the database. Regards Dave F. On 14/10/2014 17:22, Ian Dees wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 13/10/2014 17:18, Aaron Lidman wrote: Looking at the imagery I can see how it might be thought they connect, especially when none of us are using google maps for verification, right? Wrong. I was using Streetview to confirm to the forum what I already knew - that the roads don't join. I don't need Google as I went there did a proper visual survey, whereas your employee just thought they might join. This armchair guesswork is bad for the OSM database: If you're unsure if an edit will improve the quality of the map - please don't make it. I use the validation software you mention, but only to correct data that I have first hand knowledge of never to amend something in another time zone where I've never been. Even when I do use them, I stop to think whether it is an accurate error report not blindly fix it assuming it must be true. A reminder to watch our language on the list. Like Frederik said, assume good intentions and don't use hyperbole or loud words to force your point. Thanks, Your friendly list moderator --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:32:44 -0400, Aaron Lidman aaronlid...@gmail.com wrote: The software is not being misused to insert errors into the OSM database, it was a mistake. Just like Keepright, Osmose, and JOSM, to-fix has false positives. It's unfortunate and we're actively working to reduce them in number but they happen. Looking at the imagery I can see how it might be thought they connect, especially when none of us are using google maps for verification, right? in addition to the fact that we do not have permission to use google maps in this manner, keep in mind that google maps also contains errors and is nowhere near as reliable as a proper ground survey. so there are two excellent reasons not to use google maps. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
On 13/10/2014 14:35, Simon Poole wrote: Hi Serge I believe Alex Barth has identified himself as responsible for MapBox's data team and I would suggest to Dave discussing with Alex if there are issues. The mapper in question has identified himself as a MapBox employee, the correct and good thing to do, it probably simply needs a further pointer to MapBox itself. We can't assume that everybody knows the background etc. Simon I was unaware RichRico was an MapBox employee. That makes me even more surprised the data was being edited: You'd have thought the developers of the software would be aware of it's limitations. The reason I wrote to RichRico is because the software, in itself, isn't destructive. It's the misuse by end users that's causing vandalism. If it can be proved that vandalism is systematic (and I think it can), then the use of this software should be discouraged. Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Hi, On 10/14/2014 05:20 PM, Dave F. wrote: It's the misuse by end users that's causing vandalism. The term vandalism should be reserved for situations in which people break things on purpose, or at best by grossly reckless behaviour. If someone is over-eager in using software that purports to show bugs, or if the software is over-eager in classifying things as actionable to-fix items, then these things can be all sorts of things - perhaps not-well-thought-out, or naive, or maybe occasionally even stupid, but they're never vandalism. Personally I think there's a world of a difference between someone wanting to help but getting it wrong, and someone wanting to cause damage. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Am 14.10.2014 15:18, schrieb Richard Welty: On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:32:44 -0400, Aaron Lidman aaronlid...@gmail.com wrote: The software is not being misused to insert errors into the OSM database, it was a mistake. Just like Keepright, Osmose, and JOSM, to-fix has false positives. It's unfortunate and we're actively working to reduce them in number but they happen. Looking at the imagery I can see how it might be thought they connect, especially when none of us are using google maps for verification, right? in addition to the fact that we do not have permission to use google maps in this manner, keep in mind that google maps also contains errors and is nowhere near as reliable as a proper ground survey. so there are two excellent reasons not to use google maps. +1 Just, last month I revisited a spot where I had official raster data to use plus several good to superb aerials and was still not able to judge the situation. Importing and armchair mapping might work but you always have to recheck ground truth. Especially, QA problems are often not simply fixable without survey and I often have delete layer=-1 from waterways or noexit=yes which where added to silence the QA software and now hide the real problems (missing bridge/tunnel, respective missing connection). Please, make it mis-understandably clear that if unsure, you should change anything, and that silencing the QA software like adding layer=-1 to all waterways is vandalism. Thanks and cheers colliar signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
On 14/10/2014 16:37, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 10/14/2014 05:20 PM, Dave F. wrote: It's the misuse by end users that's causing vandalism. The term vandalism should be reserved for situations in which people break things on purpose, or at best by grossly reckless behaviour. If someone is over-eager in using software that purports to show bugs, or if the software is over-eager in classifying things as actionable to-fix items, then these things can be all sorts of things - perhaps not-well-thought-out, or naive, or maybe occasionally even stupid, but they're never vandalism. Personally I think there's a world of a difference between someone wanting to help but getting it wrong, and someone wanting to cause damage. Good point, well made. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
On 13/10/2014 17:18, Aaron Lidman wrote: Hi Dave, 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 The software is not being misused to insert errors into the OSM database, it was a mistake. For whatever reason, mistake or intentional, the software was still being misused - those roads do not join he wouldn't have made that amendment without it. Looking at the imagery I can see how it might be thought they connect, especially when none of us are using google maps for verification, right? Wrong. I was using Streetview to confirm to the forum what I already knew - that the roads don't join. I don't need Google as I went there did a proper visual survey, whereas your employee just thought they might join. This armchair guesswork is bad for the OSM database: If you're unsure if an edit will improve the quality of the map - please don't make it. I use the validation software you mention, but only to correct data that I have first hand knowledge of never to amend something in another time zone where I've never been. Even when I do use them, I stop to think whether it is an accurate error report not blindly fix it assuming it must be true. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 13/10/2014 17:18, Aaron Lidman wrote: Looking at the imagery I can see how it might be thought they connect, especially when none of us are using google maps for verification, right? Wrong. I was using Streetview to confirm to the forum what I already knew - that the roads don't join. I don't need Google as I went there did a proper visual survey, whereas your employee just thought they might join. This armchair guesswork is bad for the OSM database: If you're unsure if an edit will improve the quality of the map - please don't make it. I use the validation software you mention, but only to correct data that I have first hand knowledge of never to amend something in another time zone where I've never been. Even when I do use them, I stop to think whether it is an accurate error report not blindly fix it assuming it must be true. A reminder to watch our language on the list. Like Frederik said, assume good intentions and don't use hyperbole or loud words to force your point. Thanks, Your friendly list moderator ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
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. For clarification: http://goo.gl/maps/FHp4z I've tried to contact him previously, but he failed to respond. I've just sent him a second message. This, other similar types of software is being misused to insert errors into the OSM database. 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. I'm getting bored of my OSM time being taken up chasing after users who are semi-deliberately adding errors. Oh, on Maproulette I'm getting a virus warning: hxxp://198.58.115.35/piwik.js Regards Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
On 2014-10-13 12:48, Dave F. wrote: Once again I've had user Richrico use this website: http://osmlab.github.io/to-fix/?error=unconnected_major5 [1] to inaccurately amend data in OSM. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65398595#map=19/51.32464/-2.22817 [2] Way: 65398595 This way is _not_ joined. Well, it is. Only not as a road accessible to cars. If I saw that with local knowledge, I'd put a piece of footway inbetween. That's also good for navigation purposes. For clarification: http://goo.gl/maps/FHp4z [3] I've tried to contact him previously, but he failed to respond. I've just sent him a second message. This, other similar types of software is being misused to insert errors into the OSM database. 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. True, these kinds of validation services should be used with due care. And seeing that there is google streetview and a not so bad aerial view, this is a bad fix. I'm getting bored of my OSM time being taken up chasing after users who are semi-deliberately adding errors. There are good fixes from these kinds of services. There are very obvious mistakes that prevent navigation services to be used properly. Maybe the fix of roads 5m apart should be removed if it generates too many errors. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
On 10/13/2014 6:48 AM, Dave F. wrote: This, other similar types of software is being misused to insert errors into the OSM database. 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. This could be a valid use of noexit=yes so that it won't be back on the QA tool? https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-April/017367.html ___ 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
2014-10-13 14:06 GMT+02:00 Mike N nice...@att.net: This could be a valid use of noexit=yes so that it won't be back on the QA tool? https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-April/017367.html I agree, noexit=yes is the best solution, but you could also draw a little rectangle with landuse=grass (or surface=grass, or whatever is the best tag for this is) and two nodes with natural=tree, and a footway around both sides of the grass. If you want people to take an area seriously, you micromap the hell out of it, and people will think twice before deleting something someone has put effort in. Janko ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Dave IMHO you should be talking to MapBox directly. If your local neighbour accidentally starts messing around in your garden you take it up with your neighbour. If a gardening company starts work in your area and mistakenly starts work in your garden, and the employee doesn't react to you telling him to stop, whom to you talk to then? Simon Am 13.10.2014 12:48, schrieb Dave F.: 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. For clarification: http://goo.gl/maps/FHp4z I've tried to contact him previously, but he failed to respond. I've just sent him a second message. This, other similar types of software is being misused to insert errors into the OSM database. 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. I'm getting bored of my OSM time being taken up chasing after users who are semi-deliberately adding errors. Oh, on Maproulette I'm getting a virus warning: hxxp://198.58.115.35/piwik.js Regards Dave F. http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus http://www.avast.com/ protection is active. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Simon, That's a great point you make, about talking directly with your neighbor. But speaking as someone who had some negative experiences in a similar situation dealing with digitizers (offsite mappers) working for a company- how does one engage a company vs an account? If you are seeing multiple accounts making edits that are problematic, which may or may not identify themselves as working on behalf of a single entity- how are we to engage them? - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Hi Serge I believe Alex Barth has identified himself as responsible for MapBox's data team and I would suggest to Dave discussing with Alex if there are issues. The mapper in question has identified himself as a MapBox employee, the correct and good thing to do, it probably simply needs a further pointer to MapBox itself. We can't assume that everybody knows the background etc. Simon Am 13.10.2014 15:12, schrieb Serge Wroclawski: Simon, That's a great point you make, about talking directly with your neighbor. But speaking as someone who had some negative experiences in a similar situation dealing with digitizers (offsite mappers) working for a company- how does one engage a company vs an account? If you are seeing multiple accounts making edits that are problematic, which may or may not identify themselves as working on behalf of a single entity- how are we to engage them? - Serge signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Simon, So if i understand you right, the answer for a mapper is to find a company representative and work with them? Do we have a list of such representatives and their contact, along with the accounts that work on their behalf? - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Dave - Alex here, I work with Richman (user account RichRico). Thanks for reporting. Looking into these issues now. Let me get back to you. The thread you opened here on talk exposed a weakness in our data team policy - you had no way to actually find from Richman's profile to my contact to properly escalate an issue. I'l make sure we properly link from user profiles to this policy so it's clear for people on how to get in touch if unexpected things are happening. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/23801 On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com 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. For clarification: http://goo.gl/maps/FHp4z I've tried to contact him previously, but he failed to respond. I've just sent him a second message. This, other similar types of software is being misused to insert errors into the OSM database. 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. I'm getting bored of my OSM time being taken up chasing after users who are semi-deliberately adding errors. Oh, on Maproulette I'm getting a virus warning: hxxp:// 198.58.115.35/piwik.js Regards Dave F. -- http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus http://www.avast.com/ protection is active. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Hi Dave, 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 The software is not being misused to insert errors into the OSM database, it was a mistake. Just like Keepright, Osmose, and JOSM, to-fix has false positives. It's unfortunate and we're actively working to reduce them in number but they happen. Looking at the imagery I can see how it might be thought they connect, especially when none of us are using google maps for verification, right? If there are large scale issues with the things to-fix is highlighting we should have a discussion about that and I'm open to suggestions. You can submit issues here:https://github.com/osmlab/to-fix/issues The discussion about local knowledge vs remote or armchair mapping and your stance on detrimental software is another one entirely. On Monday, October 13, 2014 at 6:48 AM, 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. For clarification: http://goo.gl/maps/FHp4z I've tried to contact him previously, but he failed to respond. I've just sent him a second message. This, other similar types of software is being misused to insert errors into the OSM database. 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. I'm getting bored of my OSM time being taken up chasing after users who are semi-deliberately adding errors. Oh, on Maproulette I'm getting a virus warning: hxxp://198.58.115.35/piwik.js Regards Dave F. This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus (http://www.avast.com/) protection is active. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org (mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org) https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software
Well we don't, which is clearly a weakness of the system as is. It is clearly is asking too much of the individual mapper to actually know whom to talk to. I'm fairly sure that simply adding the necessary information in some form to the employed users page is the best solution, anything else requires the mapper to know where to look, which again is really asking too much. Engaging with the company in question is naturally not guaranteed to end with a satisfactory resolution and there is a whole range of possible places such a dispute could be escalated to (LC, LWG, OSMF board). However I am counting on the enlightened self interest of the organisations employing mappers that in general escalation will not be necessary. Simon Am 13.10.2014 16:42, schrieb Serge Wroclawski: Simon, So if i understand you right, the answer for a mapper is to find a company representative and work with them? Do we have a list of such representatives and their contact, along with the accounts that work on their behalf? - Serge signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
