Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Dave Sutter sut...@intransix.com wrote: Creating another instance of the OSM database and server is a very good idea. I would propose we make the purpose of this database to allow people post ANY geo data that is NOT part of the base map. It would be an open database for general GIS data. Some examples of random things people could do with this database: - The high resolution imagery outlines discussed in this thread - Migratory patterns of birds (I can't find the post where someone was requesting where to do this...) - GPS tracking for running, hiking, cycling and other recreation, similar to Strava or MapMyRun (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSportMap) - GIS Management for operations like Haiti OSM team There are very many use cases for GIS data that is useful to OSM but doesn't meet the current OSM criteria. Perhaps so many that one database wouldn't be enough. Some that come to mind: - everything that fails the on the ground test (flight paths, boundaries, designations, etc) - statistical/population/demographic data - project metadata like the zzz team is working within this boundary area - subjective data (preferred cycle routes) - historical data (explorers' routes, defunct bus routes, demolished buildings...) Probably some of these already have good homes (OpenAviatianMap?). Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
Am 09/apr/2013 um 16:17 schrieb Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Dave Sutter sut...@intransix.com wrote: Creating another instance of the OSM database and server is a very good idea. I would propose we make the purpose of this database to allow people post ANY geo data that is NOT part of the base map. It would be an open database for general GIS data. Some examples of random things people could do with this database: - The high resolution imagery outlines discussed in this thread - Migratory patterns of birds (I can't find the post where someone was requesting where to do this...) - GPS tracking for running, hiking, cycling and other recreation, similar to Strava or MapMyRun (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSportMap) - GIS Management for operations like Haiti OSM team There are very many use cases for GIS data that is useful to OSM but doesn't meet the current OSM criteria. Perhaps so many that one database wouldn't be enough. Some that come to mind: - everything that fails the on the ground test (flight paths, boundaries, designations, etc) - statistical/population/demographic data - project metadata like the zzz team is working within this boundary area - subjective data (preferred cycle routes) - historical data (explorers' routes, defunct bus routes, demolished buildings...) Probably some of these already have good homes (OpenAviatianMap?). there is also historic OSM (right now mainly ML). Still, some of what you exclude is already in OSM: boundaries, designations, population data, demolished buildings...), and IMHO there is also room for this, like for start_dates, Wikipedia links, ancient cultures, place names etc., The on the ground rule shouldn't mean to exclude information that is publicly available but maybe isn't visible staring on the ground itself. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
would some kind of meta OSM database be appropriate? +1 on this, I guess the challenge would be finding resources to host it. On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I think this boundaries can be useful, but should be in some other database. Are there any other appropriate databases? That is, something with the same form (an OSM database) for stuff related to the OSM project, but not containing actual OSM content. I'm thinking Wikipedia has talk pages, project pages, and meta.wikimedia.org; Stack Overflow has meta - would some kind of meta OSM database be appropriate? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
Creating another instance of the OSM database and server is a very good idea. I would propose we make the purpose of this database to allow people post ANY geo data that is NOT part of the base map. It would be an open database for general GIS data. Some examples of random things people could do with this database: - The high resolution imagery outlines discussed in this thread - Migratory patterns of birds (I can't find the post where someone was requesting where to do this...) - GPS tracking for running, hiking, cycling and other recreation, similar to Strava or MapMyRun (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSportMap) - GIS Management for operations like Haiti OSM team The official OpenStreetMap database is for the basemap and this new instance would be for operational data. Of course there could be many different operational layer databases, and different layers have been discussed many times. For starters, we could just make one database and let people use it for any such purpose. Also, when there is talk of alternate databases there is talk of linking between databases. For starters we would not have any provision for this. This would just be a separate GEO database. How do we do this? I'd like to reference a post by Jason Remillard, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-February/066301.html We apparently have a lots extra bandwidth and disk space on our US OSM servers. Requests have gone out asking for ideas... So perhaps it could be hosted on US OSM servers. Dave On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I think this boundaries can be useful, but should be in some other database. Are there any other appropriate databases? That is, something with the same form (an OSM database) for stuff related to the OSM project, but not containing actual OSM content. I'm thinking Wikipedia has talk pages, project pages, and meta.wikimedia.org; Stack Overflow has meta - would some kind of meta OSM database be appropriate? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
That idea seems good to me: reasonably simple - not a new database for each usecase, but giving place to all that potentially useful data that is seen as unworthy for the main database. Some categories (category=sport/birds/metadata/...) would likely have to be created to allow filtering only some features in JOSM, otherwise it would be unusable. Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) 2013/4/7 Dave Sutter sut...@intransix.com Creating another instance of the OSM database and server is a very good idea. I would propose we make the purpose of this database to allow people post ANY geo data that is NOT part of the base map. It would be an open database for general GIS data. Some examples of random things people could do with this database: - The high resolution imagery outlines discussed in this thread - Migratory patterns of birds (I can't find the post where someone was requesting where to do this...) - GPS tracking for running, hiking, cycling and other recreation, similar to Strava or MapMyRun (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSportMap) - GIS Management for operations like Haiti OSM team The official OpenStreetMap database is for the basemap and this new instance would be for operational data. Of course there could be many different operational layer databases, and different layers have been discussed many times. For starters, we could just make one database and let people use it for any such purpose. Also, when there is talk of alternate databases there is talk of linking between databases. For starters we would not have any provision for this. This would just be a separate GEO database. How do we do this? I'd like to reference a post by Jason Remillard, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-February/066301.html We apparently have a lots extra bandwidth and disk space on our US OSM servers. Requests have gone out asking for ideas... So perhaps it could be hosted on US OSM servers. Dave On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I think this boundaries can be useful, but should be in some other database. Are there any other appropriate databases? That is, something with the same form (an OSM database) for stuff related to the OSM project, but not containing actual OSM content. I'm thinking Wikipedia has talk pages, project pages, and meta.wikimedia.org; Stack Overflow has meta - would some kind of meta OSM database be appropriate? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
Yes, we would need tagging conventions like this so users can identify the data that is of interest to them. And relations would be useful to group geometry that goes together, such as the features associated with a particular bird migration study. On the technical side, I suppose access to the data would best be served by the Overpass API since a bounding box or ID search from the Editting API would not be particularly useful. Dave On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:01 AM, LM_1 flukas.robot+...@gmail.com wrote: That idea seems good to me: reasonably simple - not a new database for each usecase, but giving place to all that potentially useful data that is seen as unworthy for the main database. Some categories (category=sport/birds/metadata/...) would likely have to be created to allow filtering only some features in JOSM, otherwise it would be unusable. Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) 2013/4/7 Dave Sutter sut...@intransix.com Creating another instance of the OSM database and server is a very good idea. I would propose we make the purpose of this database to allow people post ANY geo data that is NOT part of the base map. It would be an open database for general GIS data. Some examples of random things people could do with this database: - The high resolution imagery outlines discussed in this thread - Migratory patterns of birds (I can't find the post where someone was requesting where to do this...) - GPS tracking for running, hiking, cycling and other recreation, similar to Strava or MapMyRun (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSportMap) - GIS Management for operations like Haiti OSM team The official OpenStreetMap database is for the basemap and this new instance would be for operational data. Of course there could be many different operational layer databases, and different layers have been discussed many times. For starters, we could just make one database and let people use it for any such purpose. Also, when there is talk of alternate databases there is talk of linking between databases. For starters we would not have any provision for this. This would just be a separate GEO database. How do we do this? I'd like to reference a post by Jason Remillard, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-February/066301.html We apparently have a lots extra bandwidth and disk space on our US OSM servers. Requests have gone out asking for ideas... So perhaps it could be hosted on US OSM servers. Dave On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I think this boundaries can be useful, but should be in some other database. Are there any other appropriate databases? That is, something with the same form (an OSM database) for stuff related to the OSM project, but not containing actual OSM content. I'm thinking Wikipedia has talk pages, project pages, and meta.wikimedia.org; Stack Overflow has meta - would some kind of meta OSM database be appropriate? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: It's not only for outdated outlines. As said, it is not a map feature, it's just for some comfort during edition (would consider the same for mapping party cakes). What was the easiest and most pratical solution can be tolerated if it is temporary or until editors provide other means like the plugin mentioned earlier. Hi Pieren, For our information, would you mind explaining how it helps to have these boundaries in the database? I just don't get it - if I'm editing, and I see one of these boundaries, either: a) it lines up with the edge of the imagery, in which case it tells me nothing new (ie: I can already see there's no imagery!), or b) it's wrong. I usually delete it if b :) I'm sure I'm missing something though - what's the use case where it's helpful? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
We had a deployment of OSM Tasking Manager, and it gives you a possibility to make a task with boundaries taken from a OSM way. We used one of this imagery boundaries. It could be used for aligning imagery offset, for analysis of data frequency based on imagery availability, etc. I think this boundaries can be useful, but should be in some other database. Janko 2013/4/6 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: It's not only for outdated outlines. As said, it is not a map feature, it's just for some comfort during edition (would consider the same for mapping party cakes). What was the easiest and most pratical solution can be tolerated if it is temporary or until editors provide other means like the plugin mentioned earlier. Hi Pieren, For our information, would you mind explaining how it helps to have these boundaries in the database? I just don't get it - if I'm editing, and I see one of these boundaries, either: a) it lines up with the edge of the imagery, in which case it tells me nothing new (ie: I can already see there's no imagery!), or b) it's wrong. I usually delete it if b :) I'm sure I'm missing something though - what's the use case where it's helpful? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I think this boundaries can be useful, but should be in some other database. Are there any other appropriate databases? That is, something with the same form (an OSM database) for stuff related to the OSM project, but not containing actual OSM content. I'm thinking Wikipedia has talk pages, project pages, and meta.wikimedia.org; Stack Overflow has meta - would some kind of meta OSM database be appropriate? Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: So storing a few hundred extra ways in the database had been the easiest and most practical solution. The way do no harm to anybody. So just keep them for a while until all functionality has been migrated to different tools. +1, that's what I wrote. I thought the only question we're still discussing is how to deal with outdated outlines (better keep/ignore them when outdated so maybe someone can update them, or simply delete them). It's not only for outdated outlines. As said, it is not a map feature, it's just for some comfort during edition (would consider the same for mapping party cakes). What was the easiest and most pratical solution can be tolerated if it is temporary or until editors provide other means like the plugin mentioned earlier. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 03:56:16PM -0300, ingalls wrote: I'm with everyone who is against adding this to the database although I agree that a mass edit is not the way to get rid of these. I'll go through I didnt mass-edit. I came past 2-3 boundarys which were all broken for a long time. So i deleted 12 nodes or something ... Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 11:37:59AM +0200, Stephan Knauss wrote: Florian Lohoff writes: As they were wrong and nobody cared i deleted them. A better way of dealing with updated data in OSM is usually to fix and not to delete data. Had you considered mailing the users who created the original data before removing their work? In contrast to eg. underground power lines (seen them mapped in Munich) or TMC data or obscure boundaries, this is data which is easy to verify and used in the more remote areas of the world. Completely different issue - I removed data which a) Was wrong for b) Multiple months and c) nobody cared d) The information was easily observable without having those lines e) Is not on ground data we typically map f) Was invisible on the map for observers. So where is the problem? If you care take the 5 minutes to find those HiRes images which now spans most of the populated area in North China and put correct image boundarys somewhere. Remember how much work it was - Sitting there zooming into sat Imagery in 4 corners - putting 4 nodes and a single way into the OSM db. This was probably a couple years back and wrong for 3-24 Months. Whats the point in this data anyway? This thread took more time to write than to finde those newer, bigger areas and put a line around. I map stuff i care about - Stuff which is obviously inconsistent or broken, i fix, mark as such or remove. Doing so made this thread start so it was a good thing to do because suddenly somebody (You?) woke up and might now care about the broken data. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
Florian Lohoff writes: As they were wrong and nobody cared i deleted them. A better way of dealing with updated data in OSM is usually to fix and not to delete data. Had you considered mailing the users who created the original data before removing their work? In contrast to eg. underground power lines (seen them mapped in Munich) or TMC data or obscure boundaries, this is data which is easy to verify and used in the more remote areas of the world. You might not believe it, but there are areas which still have only the low-resolution landsat images. Quite often it's the same areas that lack mapping of major highways. As China was mentioned: Did you know it's illegal to use a GPS there to map data for an international project? Google yourself for more detials: http://www.telecomasia.net/content/foreigners-using-gps-face-arrest-china-0 Having aerial imagery allows to add most road geometry already to the database. Adding names to existing features is a lot less risky. The imagery boundaries are used to give oversea mappers a hint where areas are that can benefit from remote mapping, to complete at least major highways and water features. For South-East-Asia I'm running a service to highlight unmapped data and regions with aerial coverage. I believe in these areas the boundaries are quite well maintained. In case there is full coverage they will be immediately removed. But until then they are useful for the community and created/maintained with a lot of time invested. Deleting them is vandalism! http://compare.osm-tools.org/?zoom=10lat=19.69827lon=104.71222layers=BTT Stephan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On 2013-04-01 04:57, Clay Smalley wrote: This seems silly and useless. The imagery is subject to change and the way will become obsolete. I dont see a point in mapping this, and Im all data in the database is subject to change and will become obsolete, there is nothing unusual in that happening here -- robin http://universitywithoutconditions.ac.nz - Auckland's Free University ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote: A better way of dealing with updated data in OSM is usually to fix and not to delete data. Mapping aerial imagery boundaries into OSM has always been controversial. And today, we have an alternative solution with this josm plugin : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Imagery-XML-Bounds Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
2013/4/1 Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de Florian Lohoff writes: As they were wrong and nobody cared i deleted them. A better way of dealing with updated data in OSM is usually to fix and not to delete data. Had you considered mailing the users who created the original data before removing their work? please take a step back: imagery coverage of external providers is not geographic data. I am not saying it is completely useless in cases it actually describes the boundaries of imagery coverage in areas with few local mappers (because local mappers usually know the boundaries and don't need coverage polygons), but when the coverage changes (e.g. gaps get filled, coverage gets completed) these polygons really become useless. In contrast to eg. underground power lines (seen them mapped in Munich) or TMC data or obscure boundaries, this is data which is easy to verify and used in the more remote areas of the world. used for what? The only purpose I can imagine is find areas in the editor with few data where good imagery enables you to trace more stuff out of this imagery. A scope that can be achieved also with external tools like http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ and http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/bing/ You might not believe it, but there are areas which still have only the low-resolution landsat images. Quite often it's the same areas that lack mapping of major highways. sure, but how do coverage boundaries that show that there is no good imagery to refine the data help in these cases? The imagery boundaries are used to give oversea mappers a hint where areas are that can benefit from remote mapping, to complete at least major highways and water features. +1, and that's all these boundaries can achieve, and to achieve this it is essential that the coverage is reflecting the actual state. Btw.: how many boundaries shall we tolerate? For every imagery provider and every zoom level? I often encountered boundaries that were more or less detailed in lower zoom levels but didn't perfectly reflect the situation for high zoom levels. When tracing in a remote country it is usually automatic that you discover the bounds of the good imagery, personally I never needed a meta data polygon for this ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
Hello everyone, In response to everyone's concerns, as stated in my action plan above, the owner of each way was contacted to ask if removal was ok. As I stated in the pm I sent that, I will only delete the way if they say that I am good to do so or if they do not respond and based on their edits are obviously not contributing members to osm. For those who do own and maintain boundary=imagery ways, I have no intention of deleting them unless you give me the ok! Finally, I have spent the last few hours going over almost every example in the database, and I can say that the majority of these boundaries are woefully outdated and currently serve no purpose. In response to Robin all data in the database is subject to change and will become obsolete, there is nothing unusual in that happening here Yes that is certainly true! Couldn't agree with you more! Except in this case, Bing is constantly updating their imagery, it is not a matter of if they are going to change only when. Pieren +1 for the plugin, it is fantastic! Jaakko Helleranta The last thing I want to do is interfere with anything related to HOT or mappers in general. I have said several times, I am doing this because I love to the map and I want to remove some data that has become woefully outdated in the majority of the cases. I am mass editing nor running a bot, everything is done entirely by hand! That being said, if the boundaries still serve a useful purpose, that is your prerogative and I have no intention of removing them if told not to. I knew when I suggested this that I would get some heat so by asking the owner of each individual way, and not simply mass editing I hope to not trample on too many feet! Tl;dr I won't be removing ways without the permission of the user who last edited the way! If the last editor of the way gives me permission, I will delete the way. That being said, if you are not the last editor of the way but want the way back as it is still useful, PM me and I will certainly revert the changeset. Cheers happy mapping, ingalls On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote: Pieren writes: Mapping aerial imagery boundaries into OSM has always been controversial. And today, we have an alternative solution with this josm plugin : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Imagery-XML-**Boundshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Imagery-XML-Bounds Looks interesting, but who does maintain it for Bing? This is imagery on a different scale than a local provider. Does it support multipolygon functionality to correctly display holes/islands in the data? Stephan __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
Martin, For HOT Activations in Mali and Congo, I had this experience of detecting where Bing High Res Imagery is available. This is like a gruyere cheese. To detect areas, you have to zoom in and cover large areas. This is a tedious work and I have not find other ways then tracing polygons. The tools you list are not precise enough to do that very precisely. Some areas are colored red, and when you zoom in, this becomes green. If you want to help us and test a better way, I would be pleased. Otherwise, please do not remove these polygons. Pierre De : Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com À : Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de Cc : osm talk@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Lundi 1 avril 2013 6h20 Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary? 2013/4/1 Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de Florian Lohoff writes: As they were wrong and nobody cared i deleted them. A better way of dealing with updated data in OSM is usually to fix and not to delete data. Had you considered mailing the users who created the original data before removing their work? please take a step back: imagery coverage of external providers is not geographic data. I am not saying it is completely useless in cases it actually describes the boundaries of imagery coverage in areas with few local mappers (because local mappers usually know the boundaries and don't need coverage polygons), but when the coverage changes (e.g. gaps get filled, coverage gets completed) these polygons really become useless. In contrast to eg. underground power lines (seen them mapped in Munich) or TMC data or obscure boundaries, this is data which is easy to verify and used in the more remote areas of the world. used for what? The only purpose I can imagine is find areas in the editor with few data where good imagery enables you to trace more stuff out of this imagery. A scope that can be achieved also with external tools like http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/ and http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/bing/ You might not believe it, but there are areas which still have only the low-resolution landsat images. Quite often it's the same areas that lack mapping of major highways. sure, but how do coverage boundaries that show that there is no good imagery to refine the data help in these cases? The imagery boundaries are used to give oversea mappers a hint where areas are that can benefit from remote mapping, to complete at least major highways and water features. +1, and that's all these boundaries can achieve, and to achieve this it is essential that the coverage is reflecting the actual state. Btw.: how many boundaries shall we tolerate? For every imagery provider and every zoom level? I often encountered boundaries that were more or less detailed in lower zoom levels but didn't perfectly reflect the situation for high zoom levels. When tracing in a remote country it is usually automatic that you discover the bounds of the good imagery, personally I never needed a meta data polygon for this ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
2013/4/1 Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de Martin Koppenhoefer writes: Btw.: how many boundaries shall we tolerate? How much of your mapping shall I tolerate? It's always the same answer. Pay respect to other mappers. If the data is of use to other mappers, respect it. Even if you would not map it this way. You have to distinguish between mapping features for which our database is suitable and which are geodata and on the other hand metadata, raster data and encrypted data (like unique IDs of nondisclosed external databases). Coverage of a proprietary imagery provider IMHO isn't really suitable to be mapped in OSM, but could be tolerated for practical reasons. I personally thing that mapping of underground power lines doe snot belong into OSM. But I do not delete them. And i don't maintain them. that's really not comparable IMHO. The underground power lines are there in the real world, the imagery boundaries aren't. Using imagery to support mapping has gained a lot of importance over the last few years. That much that we changed our OSM flyer to highlight it as a foundation for data along with GPS tracks. no doubt, the question was whether mapped boundaries of these data belong to OSM, not the derived features. Years back when Bing allowed us to use their imagery we did not have any of this available. not completely true, it is true for big parts of Germany, but in many countries there had already been alternative sources available, often better than what Bing offers (e.g. in Italy, Spain, US, Canada, ...) So storing a few hundred extra ways in the database had been the easiest and most practical solution. The way do no harm to anybody. So just keep them for a while until all functionality has been migrated to different tools. +1, that's what I wrote. I thought the only question we're still discussing is how to deal with outdated outlines (better keep/ignore them when outdated so maybe someone can update them, or simply delete them). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote: How much of your mapping shall I tolerate? It's always the same answer. Pay respect to other mappers. If the data is of use to other mappers, respect it. Even if you would not map it this way. I personally thing that mapping of underground power lines doe snot belong into OSM. But I do not delete them. And i don't maintain them. Using imagery to support mapping has gained a lot of importance over the last few years. That much that we changed our OSM flyer to highlight it as a foundation for data along with GPS tracks. If the need for more sophisticated tool support rises maybe different solutions will come up. recently there are projects providing offset details, editors might display boundaries by default soon. This is all work in progress. +1 -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
I'd like to reaffirm the following statement: +1, that's what I wrote. I thought the only question we're still discussing is how to deal with outdated outlines (better keep/ignore them when outdated so maybe someone can update them, or simply delete them). As I've said several times, I am looking at removing ways that clearly do not serve a purpose. I am not looking at destroying others work, and if they ways are still useful and are used, I'm not going to be the one to mass edit them out of the database. I think that the question of what should we remove and what should we leave has been completely lost. If you check out my original posts, I have no desire to remove useful tools (imagery ways) for mappers. My concern is figuring out an effective way of removing outdated ways. No one has suggested a different approach than what I suggested in the beginning (mainly contacting the ways creator to find out whether they are still useful/correct) If the user still uses the ways, than obviously I am not going to remove them! On the other hand, most of the people I have contacted about the ways have thanked me for taking this on and the ways were left in the database only as an oversight after a previous mapping project! Updating the database is clearly a big problem OSM faces, look at the recent posts on stale data. This is the same thing! To use a metaphor, I'm not wiping out a whole town here! I'm trying to ask locals what roads are no longer around so I can remove them! That being said, I am looking for constructive feedback on removing outdated features not a mass response of deleting anything is BAD! I hope that clears up my point of view and my aims for this endeavor. Cheers, ingalls On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.uswrote: On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote: How much of your mapping shall I tolerate? It's always the same answer. Pay respect to other mappers. If the data is of use to other mappers, respect it. Even if you would not map it this way. I personally thing that mapping of underground power lines doe snot belong into OSM. But I do not delete them. And i don't maintain them. Using imagery to support mapping has gained a lot of importance over the last few years. That much that we changed our OSM flyer to highlight it as a foundation for data along with GPS tracks. If the need for more sophisticated tool support rises maybe different solutions will come up. recently there are projects providing offset details, editors might display boundaries by default soon. This is all work in progress. +1 -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
Hey guys came across a really weird way. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/104974280 Not sure exactly what it is supposed to represent? Is it showing where bing has high quality imagery? And secondly can I remove it! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
It doesn't look like this is an isolated example, there are over a hundred of these http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/boundary=imagery#overview On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:35 PM, ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.comwrote: Hey guys came across a really weird way. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/104974280 Not sure exactly what it is supposed to represent? Is it showing where bing has high quality imagery? And secondly can I remove it! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
I'd first asked the person that created the polygon before deleting. BTW - We don't have complete hi-res coverage from Bing. While many areas it may not matter, I've mapped in areas where better imagery would have been very helpful. Maybe we need to explore other avenues to obtain imagery in needed areas. At least problem areas identified is a start. On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:35 AM, ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.com wrote: Hey guys came across a really weird way. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/104974280 Not sure exactly what it is supposed to represent? Is it showing where bing has high quality imagery? And secondly can I remove it! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
This seems silly and useless. The imagery is subject to change and the way will become obsolete. I don't see a point in mapping this, and I'm okay with deleting these ways. But I'd rather hear from someone with more experience before anything happens. On Mar 31, 2013 10:39 AM, ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't look like this is an isolated example, there are over a hundred of these http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/boundary=imagery#overview On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:35 PM, ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.comwrote: Hey guys came across a really weird way. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/104974280 Not sure exactly what it is supposed to represent? Is it showing where bing has high quality imagery? And secondly can I remove it! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
People use this geometry and get offended if you delete it. There is this page http://ant.dev.openstreetmap.org/bingimageanalyzer/, but vectors can be useful for some scenarios. I think a separate database would be the best solution. Janko ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On 2013-03-31 17:57, Clay Smalley wrote: This seems silly and useless. The imagery is subject to change and the way will become obsolete. I don't see a point in mapping this, and I'm okay with deleting these ways. But I'd rather hear from someone with more experience before anything happens. It is a common and often-used method to indicate regions that have high-resolution Bing imagery in an area where the rest is only low-resolution. I would not delete them. They serve a purpose. If you have a better working suggestion (i.e. a low-hi-res overlay to use in the editors) then you might have a point. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:35 PM, ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.comwrote: Hey guys came across a really weird way. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/104974280 Not sure exactly what it is supposed to represent? Is it showing where bing has high quality imagery? And secondly can I remove it! In my community, we used to trace such outlines and add them to the OSM database but as you noticed, it really doesn't belong in OSM. So we deleted the ways from the OSM database and instead came up with a separate tool: https://github.com/OSMPH/Imagery_Coverage_Map ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:57:41AM -0500, Clay Smalley wrote: This seems silly and useless. The imagery is subject to change and the way will become obsolete. I don't see a point in mapping this, and I'm okay with deleting these ways. But I'd rather hear from someone with more experience before anything happens. I was mapping in North-East china and removed them where i came past. All of them were broken. They become outdated and nobody seems to be brave enough to simply delete them. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 07:01:19PM +0200, Maarten Deen wrote: It is a common and often-used method to indicate regions that have high-resolution Bing imagery in an area where the rest is only low-resolution. I would not delete them. They serve a purpose. If you have a better working suggestion (i.e. a low-hi-res overlay to use in the editors) then you might have a point. They are put into the database at a certain point where they might really show the area of HiRes Sat imagery. Nobody cares about them afterwards and bing regularly updates their imagary. So after a year you would need to correct them which in my cases nobody did over a span of more then 2 months. As they were wrong and nobody cared i deleted them. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
I'm with everyone who is against adding this to the database although I agree that a mass edit is not the way to get rid of these. I'll go through them and contact the individual owners and see about getting as many as possible removed. If they don't respond after a reasonable time (a month or two) I'll check if they actually represent areas of high-res imagery, if they don't, I'll remove them. If they still represent areas of high res imagery I'll grandfather them until they become outdated. Sound reasonable to everyone? On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote: On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 07:01:19PM +0200, Maarten Deen wrote: It is a common and often-used method to indicate regions that have high-resolution Bing imagery in an area where the rest is only low-resolution. I would not delete them. They serve a purpose. If you have a better working suggestion (i.e. a low-hi-res overlay to use in the editors) then you might have a point. They are put into the database at a certain point where they might really show the area of HiRes Sat imagery. Nobody cares about them afterwards and bing regularly updates their imagary. So after a year you would need to correct them which in my cases nobody did over a span of more then 2 months. As they were wrong and nobody cared i deleted them. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBUVhwzpDdQSDLCfIvAQjGMQ//TKEtxuf8fSdwV5FEDEw6FJFZMc5KHP3V lyWQ6hKHqmUEUZiCkhqI5zXSPNnyyFVlgBopEQwykdDYWtvcFAaHYnR5o/h5AJC3 1nZvQPeMvuqbthK1py40Kjb/pJB2NSZgLv3oWXmy4D5D3fW86Ovuuh2/+oQJ5tsB evXPAiFM4cRQw0JF7TWTigbUkcDHzBdtHw7tYVOjBqQ5Qq0lntHiVM1MZt1tegiV tCZABHPV2amxIbnFat+2ZnK5ajXC0Ne1Vn7Qr09aQRxn3p3Alr8UcjRpbDm3bDwW 4gy7O301L04cPr3uvEwLtnD1QO9UEbf0OIG4/4QQZjD5ZFjMSJA9slIi1B+rMI8F RDv+CGG4s7dWjo05AiEuQiDbLZtjk7+R0KOUzY+5hFEZgGVCzouXOO+6kR/SjDrr zZ215VN2HIuD9Yb9givxuyCYsAp9ZuQeN7T/zYOPLtaTVnLb4nTRhsBoWylO19Oh CRMwyToNeWMAFeM4AzuoOryfwz24Jp+JrPOcOpN30RKbSbge3B9vZ4gG7LlTN9WM PIlnsPyOw4qrVfUqOUSEeU7wsRQGDr/ovtTrcna//7LPayKnVCqwkPRtjX1I/Sye urETbur3grV1zOavdzGcCVD/wQwF7UMQmyzpIIiSzn9iy3n2WlDR7r5IfrMsGq// 4oWPgZzNyYc= =Rq7f -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
On 2013-03-31 19:22, Florian Lohoff wrote: On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 07:01:19PM +0200, Maarten Deen wrote: It is a common and often-used method to indicate regions that have high-resolution Bing imagery in an area where the rest is only low-resolution. I would not delete them. They serve a purpose. If you have a better working suggestion (i.e. a low-hi-res overlay to use in the editors) then you might have a point. They are put into the database at a certain point where they might really show the area of HiRes Sat imagery. Nobody cares about them afterwards and bing regularly updates their imagary. So after a year you would need to correct them which in my cases nobody did over a span of more then 2 months. As they were wrong and nobody cared i deleted them. Obviously, when somtheing is wrong you either correct or delete it. But that is stating the obvious. I think there is no debate about that. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
Am 31/mar/2013 um 20:56 schrieb ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.com: I'll check if they actually represent areas of high-res imagery, if they don't, I'll remove them. If they still represent areas of high res imagery I'll grandfather them until they become outdated. Sound reasonable to everyone? +1 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?
Re: the topic in general: People against the boundaries: Please understand that they are considered highly useful in some areas and situations. For Hispanola (Haiti + Dominican Republic) the boundaries are maintained and used; pls don't mess around with them. I've also maintained the boundaries for some of the Central American countries and they are very helpful in mapping in the area. The above noted, deletions to the above noted boundaries will directly negatively impact mapping activities and piss off active contributors in the area. (I've also added imagery boundaries -- and have mapped or planned to map -- in at least Finland, Sweden, Spain, Senegal, Rwanda, and some other African countries. Messing up those boundaries may also have a negative impact to mapping.) Cheers, -Jaakko Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -- Mobile: +509-37-26 91 54, Skype/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta -Original Message- From: ingalls nicholas.inga...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:56:16 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
