Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
On 20/03/2020 19:00, Mikel Maron wrote: But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step imports. No they're not. It's a couple sections in a blog post that is being wildly misinterpreted. It's perhaps worth remembering how we got here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17856687 describes Facebook's initial engagement with OpenStreetMap. Apparently " It ended up not being so bad however. The entirety of the bad edits were reverted in a few minutes with oversight from the head of the OSM data working group". I was part of the "bucket and shovel" reaction to the pile of excrement that Facebook dropped on Egypt there, and those evenings are ones that I won't get back. It appears to be only because their previous undocumented import attempts were reverted, and they received pushback from OSM mappers after other edits elsewhere such as https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=63456 that they are trying this new strategy. That's not to say that using "many eyes" to sanity-check "AI"-detected stuff and to prompt human mappers to add things that they can see but otherwise might not is necessarily a bad thing - it isn't, provided the human mappers are in control and familiar with the process* and likely quality of the data** that it is suggested that they add, and familiar with the area into which they are adding stuff so that they can avoid adding (e.g.) walls as roads (in the Egypt example) or crop tramlines as roads (via Rapid). However it _is_ true that Facebook have a history of trying to "side step imports" (actually, worse than that). Best Regards, Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group, but writing here in a personal capacity) * I've not seen it documented how anyone can understand "why xyz was detected here" - what source data was used, what alorithm, etc. ** we've seen examples in the US where Rapid-added stuff has been voluntarily deleted by the mappers who added it because the quality was rubbish. Issues include offsets in the source data, poor quality of MS building footprints in some areas in addition to the "misdetections" already mentioned. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
> Today's blog posts are the press releases of past years. It would have been >quite possible to run it past the responsible organs of the organisation they >were writing about, as it would have been customary in earlier days. Good enough idea, but I have seen very few or even no examples of someone asking OSMF about a PR/blog beforehand, nor the OSMF asking for that. Not a bad idea to change expectations around this. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, March 20, 2020, 04:43:28 PM EDT, Simon Poole wrote: Am 20.03.2020 um 20:00 schrieb Mikel Maron: >> But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step >> imports. > No they're not. It's a couple sections in a blog post that is being wildly > misinterpreted. Today's blog posts are the press releases of past years. It would have been quite possible to run it past the responsible organs of the organisation they were writing about, as it would have been customary in earlier days. Simon > > * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron > > > > > > > On Friday, March 20, 2020, 02:18:54 PM EDT, Rory McCann > wrote: > > > > > > On 19/03/2020 20:15, Mikel Maron wrote: > >> This whole thread is blown out of proportion, and rehashing old >> theoretical debates about imports that are more or less resolved in >> practice. > > Yes, we have an import guideline. But this thread is from Facebook > trying to change that. To side step imports. > > BTW the Etiqutte guidelines require you to assume all people here are > operating in good faith > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
Am 20.03.2020 um 20:00 schrieb Mikel Maron: >> But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step >> imports. > No they're not. It's a couple sections in a blog post that is being wildly > misinterpreted. Today's blog posts are the press releases of past years. It would have been quite possible to run it past the responsible organs of the organisation they were writing about, as it would have been customary in earlier days. Simon > > * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron > > > > > > > On Friday, March 20, 2020, 02:18:54 PM EDT, Rory McCann > wrote: > > > > > > On 19/03/2020 20:15, Mikel Maron wrote: > >> This whole thread is blown out of proportion, and rehashing old >> theoretical debates about imports that are more or less resolved in >> practice. > > Yes, we have an import guideline. But this thread is from Facebook > trying to change that. To side step imports. > > BTW the Etiqutte guidelines require you to assume all people here are > operating in good faith > > > ___ > 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] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
> But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step imports. No they're not. It's a couple sections in a blog post that is being wildly misinterpreted. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, March 20, 2020, 02:18:54 PM EDT, Rory McCann wrote: On 19/03/2020 20:15, Mikel Maron wrote: > This whole thread is blown out of proportion, and rehashing old > theoretical debates about imports that are more or less resolved in > practice. Yes, we have an import guideline. But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step imports. BTW the Etiqutte guidelines require you to assume all people here are operating in good faith ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
On 19/03/2020 20:15, Mikel Maron wrote: This whole thread is blown out of proportion, and rehashing old theoretical debates about imports that are more or less resolved in practice. Yes, we have an import guideline. But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step imports. BTW the Etiqutte guidelines require you to assume all people here are operating in good faith ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
On 19/03/2020 17:28, Christoph Hormann wrote: I think I have said that in the past already: "Assume good faith" as a general principle can on OSM only work w.r.t. individuals taking full and permanant responsibility for their own actions. There cannot be an assumption of good faith for inherently amoral corporate entities or individuals making decisions on behalf of such entities. Yep. In addition, an assumption of good faith is a starting point that can be disproven by later conduct; it is not a perpetual mandate to be upheld even in the face of contrary evidence. Facebook has been around for 15+ years. The same people are running it. We can look at their behaviour, at what they do, and predict what they're likely to do in the future. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
On 3/19/2020 3:17 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: > How would a mapper performing imports via RapiD comply with the import guidelines? By complying with the guidelines before setting up an import process that leveraged RapiD for conflation. That doesn't sound so bad to me, pending further details. But it's not the first thing that leaps to mind when reading the blog post, which claims that RapiD will allow imports by normal users who find the traditional import process "too onerous." Current RapiD workflow (in my experience) is "AI thinks a road/building is here and looks like this. If you agree, click to add it." Changing the source from AI-enhanced satellite imagery to "authoritative dataset" and I picture a similar process: "Data Authority X thinks Y is here. If you agree, click to add it." You can see how this sounds like an end-run around the import guidelines, because it's performing an import without a dedicated import account. A good conflation tool would process a prospective dataset pre-import, comparing OSM data against one or more external data sources and assisting with other forms of data cleanup. If RapiD had a mode like this, which allowed crowdsourced conflation instead of live map editing, that could be useful. The resulting (hopefully improved) dataset could then be considered as a candidate for an import according to the standard import guidelines. But offhand I imagine casual users would be confused if the same piece of software is sometimes a live map editor, and sometimes a pre-import conflation tool. Jason ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
On 19.03.20 20:02, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: > But (at least to me) "dissemination of authoritative data sets" sounds like > "overwriting OSM data with external dataset" or "importing just because > it is official". > > Just yesterday I was explaining to one of mappers that it is OK to map > roads > that are not existing according to the official data. we had sort of precedence with the official ALKIS land register data and the JOSM Tracer2 plugin in the state of Northrhine-Westphalia in Germany, where we were allowed to use the official land register layer to trace building outlines. (Permission to use that data was removed a while ago, but has just recently been restored again) Tracer2 wasn't really anything that I would call an AI, but it most of the times did a good job in copying building outlines from the ALKIS layer by doing simple image tracing. You just had to click inside the building outline in the ALKIS layer, and Tracer2 would add the building outline to the OSM data layer. So this was sort of an automated import with human filter on an object by object basis, too. But we also learned from that: * do not blindly trust the official data * compare it to a second source, to the most recent aerial pictures at least, but on the ground always wins With the current topic at hand, aerial images would not really be a true 2nd source, as the AI would also extract its suggestions from these to begin with ... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
The fundamental point of this discussion is that the AI, the Artificial Intelligence, does not exist yet. It is kind of a marketing gimmick. Sure, there are good computer programs, there are sophisticated automatons, but there is no AI, except in movies and serials. Let me give you an example. There are machines in restaurants, which wash the dishes. But the dishes must be cleaned manually from the food leftovers, before putting them into the dish-washing machine. The army of humans worldwide, millions of workers do this hard debilitating work every day and night, because there is no AI good enough to pick up the dish and clean it without breaking it. Certainly, this problem could be solved by standardizing the dishes, making them suitable for the automation, but my point is that there is no AI smart enough to to do such a simple task, which even a child could do easily. And we want to give the "AI" of this sort the task of drawing the map of this complicated world. Best regards, Oleksiy On 3/19/20 12:28, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, a propos a recent statement from our friends at Facebook in which they make plans for the future of our project, https://tech.fb.com/map-with-ai-updates/ Beyond AI-based data sets, one of the biggest challenges for OSM is importing even readily available authoritative data sets ... our hope is that RapiD can become a tool that’s simple enough for anyone to import and verify new data sets and to make use of these powerful tools I would like to reiterate that the "challenge" is not that it is difficult to import "authoritative data sets"; the problem is that authoritative data sets are fundamentally incompatible with the way we operate in OpenStreetMap. To quote just an obvious example, the government of India certainly has an authoritative data set about where their boundaries are, it's just that this does not align with facts on the ground and hence our data is different. The past has shown that petrol station chains also have "authoritative" data sets about their stations but they are riddled with bugs, and not suitable for wholesale import. I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software that interacts with our database. I think we should disallow any contributions made with RapID/map-with-ai and friends. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
> What's your guess, who will care more for the map, people who have copied AI >generated data or those who have created it, or doesn't it matter and it's the >same? Germany is awesome but not the only way things can develop. People who already care about OSM and have for years think rapid can help. They also recognize it has limitations. And btw, this thread started on the theoretical possibility of rapid being used for general purpose conflation, not AI proposed data. Mikel On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 11:12 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Do., 19. März 2020 um 13:01 Uhr schrieb Mikel Maron : Martin, have you actually tried RapiD? It doesnt resemble what you describe and does not disempower anyone. it changes the way we add things, or at least has potential to significantly shift the relation of individual people creating geodata (bottom up) towards big players providing geodata (top down) which at best gets looked at and "confirmed" by the contributor who actually copies it in, at worst it is a click-through mechanical operation without any effective review. From talking to mappers in places with less developed maps than Germany, there is enthusiasm about a tool that will help their mapping processes, and a thorough understanding of the limits of the approach. as always, you can find both, people applauding and people opposing. If Germany had started with a process like this, they would not be where they are now (a vital community of active mappers). To keep the data useful, permanent maintenance is required. What's your guess, who will care more for the map, people who have copied AI generated data or those who have created it, or doesn't it matter and it's the same? CheersMartin ___ 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] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
> How would a mapper performing imports via RapiD comply with the import >guidelines? By complying with the guidelines before setting up an import process that leveraged RapiD for conflation. Mikel On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 11:28 AM, Jmapb wrote: On 3/19/2020 7:57 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: There is nothing here about circumventing our well defined import guidelines, or disrespecting our basic tenets. The blog post says "The process of creating an import is too onerous for many users" and "Our hope is that RapiD can become a tool that’s simple enough for anyone to import and verify new data sets." How would a mapper performing imports via RapiD comply with the import guidelines? Jason ___ 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] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
Some imports are good, some are bad. We have ways to asses them with guidelines. There are tools to help the technical process. Maybe there’s more possibilities with rapid on tooling, maybe not. Seems pretty simple. This whole thread is blown out of proportion, and rehashing old theoretical debates about imports that are more or less resolved in practice. Mikel On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 2:44 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 19.03.20 17:54, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > So - why are authoritative data sets an unwelcome addition? At its core, OSM is a platform for collaboratively editing geodata. So the following would be strong reasons not to import a dataset: - other mappers should not edit it (because the dataset is the official source and changing it would just make it wrong) - other mappers cannot meaningfully edit it (because we cannot see the object in the real world and don't have access to useful sources). The way you describe it, collaborative editing doesn't seem to be a net benefit to your scenario, and in fact makes it harder to sync updates with the authoritative source. So as a thought experiment: Why not just convert your dataset to the OSM format to make it compatible with the OSM ecosystem, but skip the import into the main OSM database? In practice, I guess part of the answer for that is discoverability: Who wants to hunt down datasets scattered across various servers and portals? So it's tempting to put it all into a single big database. And I guess that's ok as long as it doesn't get in the way of the main purpose of that database too much – which is collaborative editing, not data distribution. But surely, with a decent implementation of compatible data layers tracked in some central repository, authoritative data could be used *with* OSM without being *in* OSM. Tobias ___ 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] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
Mar 19, 2020, 12:57 by mikel.ma...@gmail.com: > Frederik, you’re crying out against phantoms, and getting stuck on one > interpretation of the word “authoritative”, and using that misinterpretation > as an excuse to beat on one of your favorite punching bags, and try to exact > radical unrational restrictions on a piece of software. > > What Facebook is saying here is that RapiD can make the technical part of the > import process easier. It’s a well done conflation process that has every > single new feature individually examined by a mapper. > > There is nothing here about circumventing our well defined import guidelines, > or disrespecting our basic tenets. It’s just your imagination. > Sorry but no. They are clearly trying to get around how import process currently works. It is not just conflation tool. Can you link me to the OSM Wiki page documenting Facebook import of automatically detected buildings? >From what I remember they circumvented our well defined import guidelines. First by making edits without going through a proposal process (importing walls in Egypt as roads etc). Later by making editor and asking other to make edits on their behalf (what could be acceptable if this people are actually reviewing data, not clicking "add all" without proper checks). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
Mar 19, 2020, 12:28 by frede...@remote.org: > Hi, > > a propos a recent statement from our friends at Facebook in which they > make plans for the future of our project, > > https://tech.fb.com/map-with-ai-updates/ > >> Beyond AI-based data sets, one of the biggest challenges for OSM is >> importing even readily available authoritative data sets >> ... >> our hope is that RapiD can become a tool that’s simple enough for anyone to >> import and verify new data sets and to make use of these powerful tools >> I agree that it sounds like "we are building tool that will let us ignore import guidelines" > I would like to reiterate that the "challenge" is not that it is > difficult to import "authoritative data sets"; the problem is that > authoritative data sets are fundamentally incompatible with the way we > operate in OpenStreetMap. > I would not say so strongly, some datasets can be imported and were very useful (for example address data in Poland - where are imported settlement by settlement, with significant effort to review and to not import low quality areas ). > To quote just an obvious example, the > government of India certainly has an authoritative data set about where > their boundaries are, it's just that this does not align with facts on > the ground and hence our data is different. The past has shown that > petrol station chains also have "authoritative" data sets about their > stations but they are riddled with bugs, and not suitable for wholesale > import. > Yes, not everything is importable. > I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of > OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what > gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software > that interacts with our database. I think we should disallow any > contributions made with RapID/map-with-ai and friends. > Is there any case of actually misusing RapiD to make imports in violation of import guidelines? Is there case where RapiD developers refused to modify/fix features that encourage mindless importing without review? I dislike FB (and their ongoing refusal to properly attribute OSM on maps that they are displaying is not improving my opinion), but I would not ban them based on just that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
Mar 19, 2020, 17:54 by j...@betra.is: > However I believe including them is beneficial for OSM and its users and so > have been doing updates as I can. However it is not an easy process for large > areas, having to chop the huge Vatnajökulsþjóðgarður (over 15% of Iceland) up > due to max nodes is not an easy feat - and now I have to update it due to > expanded boundaries and quite honestly it is a daunting task (it will be > easier to delete it and re-import it in a very time consuming manner). > > So - why are authoritative data sets an unwelcome addition? I have many data > sets that I need to disseminate but only some are useful for OSM (in my > view). Also keeping them in sync can get harder as the key-cleanup crew was > roaming around recently. > In some cases importing official datasets is helpful. But (at least to me) "dissemination of authoritative data sets" sounds like "overwriting OSM data with external dataset" or "importing just because it is official". Just yesterday I was explaining to one of mappers that it is OK to map roads that are not existing according to the official data. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
On 19.03.20 17:54, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > So - why are authoritative data sets an unwelcome addition? At its core, OSM is a platform for collaboratively editing geodata. So the following would be strong reasons not to import a dataset: - other mappers should not edit it (because the dataset is the official source and changing it would just make it wrong) - other mappers cannot meaningfully edit it (because we cannot see the object in the real world and don't have access to useful sources). The way you describe it, collaborative editing doesn't seem to be a net benefit to your scenario, and in fact makes it harder to sync updates with the authoritative source. So as a thought experiment: Why not just convert your dataset to the OSM format to make it compatible with the OSM ecosystem, but skip the import into the main OSM database? In practice, I guess part of the answer for that is discoverability: Who wants to hunt down datasets scattered across various servers and portals? So it's tempting to put it all into a single big database. And I guess that's ok as long as it doesn't get in the way of the main purpose of that database too much – which is collaborative editing, not data distribution. But surely, with a decent implementation of compatible data layers tracked in some central repository, authoritative data could be used *with* OSM without being *in* OSM. Tobias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
I second Jóhannes -- every dataset, including OSM itself (hehe) has errors. Consuming each additional dataset is a complex task -- each dataset has its own structure and conventions, thus the fewer datasets one has to work with, the better. The fundamental problem with 99.9% of the datasets excluding OSM is a very slow and complex feedback loop - it takes a lot of efforts to fix an error in the upstream data source. Should we blindly import everything into OSM? No. Should we import relevant authoritative sources, tagging them as such, and using them especially for cases like disputed borders? Certainly, especially because in OSM we can fix the issues we notice with them. On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:56 PM Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > As someone who started as a foot mapper but who is now also in an > "authoritative position" I'd like to answer Frederik here. > > Amongst my professional responsibilities is the dissemination of the > authoritative data set for protected areas in Iceland. Many of these are > huge, do not have lines drawn on the ground (or water or sea) and can only > partially be mapped on foot. > > However I believe including them is beneficial for OSM and its users and > so have been doing updates as I can. However it is not an easy process for > large areas, having to chop the huge Vatnajökulsþjóðgarður (over 15% of > Iceland) up due to max nodes is not an easy feat - and now I have to update > it due to expanded boundaries and quite honestly it is a daunting task (it > will be easier to delete it and re-import it in a very time consuming > manner). > > So - why are authoritative data sets an unwelcome addition? I have many > data sets that I need to disseminate but only some are useful for OSM (in > my view). Also keeping them in sync can get harder as the key-cleanup crew > was roaming around recently. > > Do we just want things we can see, not things that are real, have a basis > in law, and you can get arrested for doing the wrong things in the wrong > areas? > > Things are not black and white, data sets are of different qualities and > such a sweeping statement is not helpful. > > -- > Jóhannes / Stalfur > > 19. mars 2020 kl. 11:35, skrifaði "Frederik Ramm" : > > > difficult to import "authoritative data sets"; the problem is that > > authoritative data sets are fundamentally incompatible with the way we > > operate in OpenStreetMap. To quote just an obvious example, the > > government of India certainly has an authoritative data set about where > > their boundaries are, it's just that this does not align with facts on > > the ground and hence our data is different. The past has shown that > > petrol station chains also have "authoritative" data sets about their > > stations but they are riddled with bugs, and not suitable for wholesale > > import. > > ___ > 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] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
As someone who started as a foot mapper but who is now also in an "authoritative position" I'd like to answer Frederik here. Amongst my professional responsibilities is the dissemination of the authoritative data set for protected areas in Iceland. Many of these are huge, do not have lines drawn on the ground (or water or sea) and can only partially be mapped on foot. However I believe including them is beneficial for OSM and its users and so have been doing updates as I can. However it is not an easy process for large areas, having to chop the huge Vatnajökulsþjóðgarður (over 15% of Iceland) up due to max nodes is not an easy feat - and now I have to update it due to expanded boundaries and quite honestly it is a daunting task (it will be easier to delete it and re-import it in a very time consuming manner). So - why are authoritative data sets an unwelcome addition? I have many data sets that I need to disseminate but only some are useful for OSM (in my view). Also keeping them in sync can get harder as the key-cleanup crew was roaming around recently. Do we just want things we can see, not things that are real, have a basis in law, and you can get arrested for doing the wrong things in the wrong areas? Things are not black and white, data sets are of different qualities and such a sweeping statement is not helpful. -- Jóhannes / Stalfur 19. mars 2020 kl. 11:35, skrifaði "Frederik Ramm" : > difficult to import "authoritative data sets"; the problem is that > authoritative data sets are fundamentally incompatible with the way we > operate in OpenStreetMap. To quote just an obvious example, the > government of India certainly has an authoritative data set about where > their boundaries are, it's just that this does not align with facts on > the ground and hence our data is different. The past has shown that > petrol station chains also have "authoritative" data sets about their > stations but they are riddled with bugs, and not suitable for wholesale > import. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
On Thursday 19 March 2020, Mikel Maron wrote: > Frederik, you’re crying out against phantoms, and getting stuck on > one interpretation of the word “authoritative”, and using that > misinterpretation as an excuse to beat on one of your favorite > punching bags, and try to exact radical unrational restrictions on a > piece of software. What Facebook is saying here is that RapiD can > make the technical part of the import process easier. It’s a well > done conflation process that has every single new feature > individually examined by a mapper. There is nothing here about > circumventing our well defined import guidelines, or disrespecting > our basic tenets. It’s just your imagination. I am not quite sure if you actually believe that or if this is a cold blooded (though obviously rather crude) attempt to gaslight Frederik. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
On Thursday 19 March 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of > OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what > gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software > that interacts with our database. I think we should disallow any > contributions made with RapID/map-with-ai and friends. > > [...] While i agree on the conclusion (although i would phrase it in a different way: Such tools should be banned unless their operators/developers can demonstrate that they are predominantly used in compliance with the values of OSM) i find the idea that a coporation like Facebook would voluntarily respect the basic tenets of OpenStreetMap naive. Why should they? A company like Facebook will only value OSM in so far as it seems to promise to be profitable for them. I think I have said that in the past already: "Assume good faith" as a general principle can on OSM only work w.r.t. individuals taking full and permanant responsibility for their own actions. There cannot be an assumption of good faith for inherently amoral corporate entities or individuals making decisions on behalf of such entities. Don't be so naive to think that a company like Facebook would be guided by anything else than by what they think is profitable for them. As everyone can see they don't even comply with the OSM license if they think (a) that it is of economic advantage for them and (b) that they can get away with it. Regarding the matter itself here - i have written about this at length already more than two years ago: http://blog.imagico.de/on-imitated-problem-solving/ W.r.t. the motivation of corporate data user to push these things into OSM (in short: "to change OSM from being a map by the people for the people into a project of crowd sourced slave work for the corporate AI overlords") nothing has changed since then. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
On 3/19/2020 7:57 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: There is nothing here about circumventing our well defined import guidelines, or disrespecting our basic tenets. The blog post says "The process of creating an import is too onerous for many users" and "Our hope is that RapiD can become a tool that’s simple enough for anyone to import and verify new data sets." How would a mapper performing imports via RapiD comply with the import guidelines? Jason ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
Am Do., 19. März 2020 um 13:01 Uhr schrieb Mikel Maron < mikel.ma...@gmail.com>: > Martin, have you actually tried RapiD? It doesnt resemble what you > describe and does not disempower anyone. > it changes the way we add things, or at least has potential to significantly shift the relation of individual people creating geodata (bottom up) towards big players providing geodata (top down) which at best gets looked at and "confirmed" by the contributor who actually copies it in, at worst it is a click-through mechanical operation without any effective review. > From talking to mappers in places with less developed maps than Germany, > there is enthusiasm about a tool that will help their mapping processes, > and a thorough understanding of the limits of the approach. > as always, you can find both, people applauding and people opposing. If Germany had started with a process like this, they would not be where they are now (a vital community of active mappers). To keep the data useful, permanent maintenance is required. What's your guess, who will care more for the map, people who have copied AI generated data or those who have created it, or doesn't it matter and it's the same? Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
Martin, have you actually tried RapiD? It doesnt resemble what you describe and does not disempower anyone. From talking to mappers in places with less developed maps than Germany, there is enthusiasm about a tool that will help their mapping processes, and a thorough understanding of the limits of the approach. Mikel On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 7:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Do., 19. März 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm : I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software that interacts with our database. I think we should disallow any contributions made with RapID/map-with-ai and friends. I support this notion. OSM should remain the project where local people add facts, not a collection of probable geo data as identified by AI (based just on remote sensing and without a clue of the "on the ground situation"). For many tasks it more important that the information is reliable (and maybe obviously incomplete) than apparently "complete". From am political point of view, OSM is a project that gave the power to the people and we have been working hard to make a success. Let's not hand the power over to big business now. Cheers Martin ___ 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] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
Frederik, you’re crying out against phantoms, and getting stuck on one interpretation of the word “authoritative”, and using that misinterpretation as an excuse to beat on one of your favorite punching bags, and try to exact radical unrational restrictions on a piece of software. What Facebook is saying here is that RapiD can make the technical part of the import process easier. It’s a well done conflation process that has every single new feature individually examined by a mapper. There is nothing here about circumventing our well defined import guidelines, or disrespecting our basic tenets. It’s just your imagination. There are totally rational ways to engage with an idea like using rapid for conflation. Let’s do that, and figure out how we can make OSM better with productive conversation. Mikel On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 7:28 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, a propos a recent statement from our friends at Facebook in which they make plans for the future of our project, https://tech.fb.com/map-with-ai-updates/ > Beyond AI-based data sets, one of the biggest challenges for OSM is importing > even readily available authoritative data sets > ... > our hope is that RapiD can become a tool that’s simple enough for anyone to > import and verify new data sets and to make use of these powerful tools I would like to reiterate that the "challenge" is not that it is difficult to import "authoritative data sets"; the problem is that authoritative data sets are fundamentally incompatible with the way we operate in OpenStreetMap. To quote just an obvious example, the government of India certainly has an authoritative data set about where their boundaries are, it's just that this does not align with facts on the ground and hence our data is different. The past has shown that petrol station chains also have "authoritative" data sets about their stations but they are riddled with bugs, and not suitable for wholesale import. I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software that interacts with our database. I think we should disallow any contributions made with RapID/map-with-ai and friends. 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
Am Do., 19. März 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm < frede...@remote.org>: > I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of > OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what > gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software > that interacts with our database. I think we should disallow any > contributions made with RapID/map-with-ai and friends. I support this notion. OSM should remain the project where local people add facts, not a collection of probable geo data as identified by AI (based just on remote sensing and without a clue of the "on the ground situation"). For many tasks it more important that the information is reliable (and maybe obviously incomplete) than apparently "complete". From am political point of view, OSM is a project that gave the power to the people and we have been working hard to make a success. Let's not hand the power over to big business now. Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
Hi, a propos a recent statement from our friends at Facebook in which they make plans for the future of our project, https://tech.fb.com/map-with-ai-updates/ > Beyond AI-based data sets, one of the biggest challenges for OSM is importing > even readily available authoritative data sets > ... > our hope is that RapiD can become a tool that’s simple enough for anyone to > import and verify new data sets and to make use of these powerful tools I would like to reiterate that the "challenge" is not that it is difficult to import "authoritative data sets"; the problem is that authoritative data sets are fundamentally incompatible with the way we operate in OpenStreetMap. To quote just an obvious example, the government of India certainly has an authoritative data set about where their boundaries are, it's just that this does not align with facts on the ground and hence our data is different. The past has shown that petrol station chains also have "authoritative" data sets about their stations but they are riddled with bugs, and not suitable for wholesale import. I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software that interacts with our database. I think we should disallow any contributions made with RapID/map-with-ai and friends. 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
