Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 21:45 Mike Thompson, wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mark Wagner wrote: > >> >> * Two adjacent sections of track being tagged as "grade 2" and "grade >> 4" not because of any difference in road surface, but because one has >> a line of grass between the ruts and the other doesn't. >> > In rural areas where I have spent time people often only put gravel where > the wheels contract the ground, and leave the middle part of the road/track > as is (which is often grass/short native vegetation). This is done to save > money. The result is that from overhead imagery, it may appear not to be > gravel, and thus may be incorrectly tagged at a lower tracktype. > >> >> _ This is why we need dedicated tagging for two rut vs single surface ways. It can often be determined on aerial imagery and in many cases is probably an indicator of how easy it would be to pull a U-turn. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
Hi, I like your idea. Just a week ago, the user Gassol also edited tracks in Hamburg, Germany, and he used bad, old and blurry imagery (Bing). A lot of his edited tracks aren't even visible there, because of trees or just bad image quality. I talked to him and he isn't a local person, just makes edits in quite random places and thinks that obviously (see below) wrong data is better than no data. I am a local mapper and our latest local imagery already shows, that most of his edits are false (example: He added "tracktype=grade4" on a way with "surface=paved" which looks on the latest imagery also very grade1-like). I checked about ten of his edits from home and only 3 looked plausible as far as the imagery showed. I probably will revert his Hamburg-specific changes but maybe you want to check and revert his other edits too? Those bad armchair-tags, which are mostly wrong, are as good as random values [0]: Those tags are completely useless. Removing those obviously wrong tags is a good idea IMHO. Hauke [0] 3/10 are plausible and maybe 2/10 are actually correct, which is mathematically exactly as good as a random tracktype-tag On 18.07.20 12:53, Michael Reichert wrote: > Hi, > > while reviewing changes in my local area, I discovered that user Modest7 > has been adding tracktype=* tags to lots of highway=track at various > locations. I asked him what sources he used apart from the satellite > imagery mentioned in the imagery_used=* tag of his changesets. See > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896 for a discussion with him. > > I do not believe that one can add reliable tracktype=* information from > satellite imagery without having some ground truth knowledge in order to > know how to interpret the imagery in that region. Adding estimated > tracktype=* does not help OSM on the long term. People how rely on the > information (e.g. some wanting to drive or cycle on that track) are > disappointed about this low-quality OSM data. Mappers who decide where > to map assume these roads to be mapped properly. IMHO, adding > fixme=resurvey tracktype will not improve it. Data consumers usually do > not use tags like fixme=* In the case of imports (another type of mass > editing), we say that an import must not add fixme=* to cover > shortcomings of the data to be imported because they usually do not get > fixed in a reasonable time. Therefore, I plan to revert these changes. > > Modest7 does not seem to realise that estimating tracktype from > satellite imagery is not doing a service to OSM. I am currently > preparing a revert of all additions of surface=* and tracktype=* by him > he uploaded since 1 January 2020 [1]. The revert will only edit tags, > geometry will stay unchanged. I revert changes on surface as well > because that's not very different to tracktype except that it applies to > other types of roads as well. > > The countries which will be affected are: > Germany > Denmark > Turkey > United States > Poland > Ukraine > Morocco > Czech Republic > Lithuania > Sweden > Norway > eSwatini > > A changeset discussion with him can be found at > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896 > > Best regards > > Michael > > > [1] This date is not fixed yet. > > > ___ > 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] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
Hi Joseph, Am 18/07/2020 um 21.51 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg: > Do you have evidence that most of the surface tags added by this user are > unreliable? Review results by westnordost (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=795002#p795002, translated with DeepL): > Here are some bad examples from Hamburg: > * https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/206273110 is paved according to my aerial > photo. grade5? > * https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/771306038 is railway ballast. > * https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/682991344 looks like grade2 to me. > * https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/615485384 looks more like grade3. > * https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/191452732 is grade one or grade two. > > But other changes are ok. > > But since so much is obviously totally wrong, I'm in favour of a > revert. Review results by EinKonstanzer (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=795025#p795025, translated with DeepL): > Please do not reverse on principle and also no dogmatism of the kind. > > I have picked out random edits from the last 2 months and looked closely at > them. > - He has put in a "tracktype". > - No position correction, and no other improvements. > - And he uses the ID editor... > > Norway: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/608668696 - grade3 could be there > > Czech Republic: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/308938930 - with Bing there is nothing to > see, grade5 is no added value > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/758054333 - with Bing, Esri is absolutely > not to be recognized, with Maxar can guess the lower part of the way > > Poland: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/178772018 - Aerial photos are good, but in > this case it is clairvoyance to the ground is probably sand. > > Germany: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/207182973 - a track nearby that looks > almost identical has a different tracktype. Why? > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/102969056 - a track in the forest. Even > with the better Esri pictures there is no track to see! > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370198123 - split the track, because > sections are definitely different. For one part grade4 might be OK. For the > other, grade5 at most. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/134726358 - a big field. In the current > aerial photos (Bing, Esri, Maxar) there is no track at all! > > Denmark: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/332757646 - the edge of a big meadow, where > a tractor once drove along. No current track, and certainly not grade4 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/290360323 - On parts of the pictures a > track is partially recognizable, on others there is no/hardly any way. grade5 > is no added value there > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/826303189 - A large meadow where the > tractor has cleared a path. If then grade5 but not grade4 > > Turkey: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203478714 - another track next door that > looks like the same or bigger parts is grade3, this grade4. But they could > all be grade2 as well... > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/294278418 - grade4. In my opinion rather > grade2 or grade3. Position correction urgently needed. Well... > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203478238 - See previous > > Conclusion: Revert and he should please stop that. Mind that Modest7 used Bing imagery despite better imagery is available in parts of Germany but not used by iD by default. Best regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
sent from a phone > On 18. Jul 2020, at 21:11, Michael Reichert wrote: > > I am reaching out to the community in > advance because different people might have a different opinion on how > reliable tracktype=* needs to be It will hardly be more reliable than its definition can be universally applied? We are discussing accuracy of tracktype tagging when the whole tracktype tagging scheme differs from region to region and even mapper to mapper. Maybe in Germany it is sorted out now whether this is commonly regarded to be about surface quality, Ausbauzustand (construction standard) or Erhaltungszustand (state of conservation/maintenance), or maybe a mix of different factors, but I would question whether such local conventions can be internationally expected to be the same. This is of course also a point against performing such classification in areas where you do not know the on the ground situation, both physically and the local mapping conventions. Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
A wide scale revert without assessing closely the quality and particulars in specific countries is not a good idea. Just an opinion that a method is flawed is not enough to demonstrate that such a wide scale revert is justified. Much more detailed analysis is needed before it should even be considered, and even then recommend that discussions should be opened up with local mapping communities in each place. It’s just not soemthing to do lightly. Additionally, there may have been subsequent edits that would be lost in a revert. I think if you look at your local area and determine that the mapping was not accurate in a large number of samples, you’d be justified reverting in that place. But you should still look carefully and make sure other good work is not undone in the process. Mikel On Saturday, July 18, 2020, 6:53 AM, Michael Reichert wrote: Hi, while reviewing changes in my local area, I discovered that user Modest7 has been adding tracktype=* tags to lots of highway=track at various locations. I asked him what sources he used apart from the satellite imagery mentioned in the imagery_used=* tag of his changesets. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896 for a discussion with him. I do not believe that one can add reliable tracktype=* information from satellite imagery without having some ground truth knowledge in order to know how to interpret the imagery in that region. Adding estimated tracktype=* does not help OSM on the long term. People how rely on the information (e.g. some wanting to drive or cycle on that track) are disappointed about this low-quality OSM data. Mappers who decide where to map assume these roads to be mapped properly. IMHO, adding fixme=resurvey tracktype will not improve it. Data consumers usually do not use tags like fixme=* In the case of imports (another type of mass editing), we say that an import must not add fixme=* to cover shortcomings of the data to be imported because they usually do not get fixed in a reasonable time. Therefore, I plan to revert these changes. Modest7 does not seem to realise that estimating tracktype from satellite imagery is not doing a service to OSM. I am currently preparing a revert of all additions of surface=* and tracktype=* by him he uploaded since 1 January 2020 [1]. The revert will only edit tags, geometry will stay unchanged. I revert changes on surface as well because that's not very different to tracktype except that it applies to other types of roads as well. The countries which will be affected are: Germany Denmark Turkey United States Poland Ukraine Morocco Czech Republic Lithuania Sweden Norway eSwatini A changeset discussion with him can be found at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896 Best regards Michael [1] This date is not fixed yet. ___ 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] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
in the united states the hole thing starts out as gravel , >Saturday, July 18, 2020 3:44 PM -05:00 from Mike Thompson >: > > >On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mark Wagner < mark+...@carnildo.com > wrote: > >>* Two adjacent sections of track being tagged as "grade 2" and "grade >> 4" not because of any difference in road surface, but because one has >> a line of grass between the ruts and the other doesn't. >In rural areas where I have spent time people often only put gravel where the >wheels contract the ground, and leave the middle part of the road/track as is >(which is often grass/short native vegetation). This is done to save money. >The result is that from overhead imagery, it may appear not to be gravel, and >thus may be incorrectly tagged at a lower tracktype. >___ >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] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 2:23 PM Mark Wagner wrote: > > * Two adjacent sections of track being tagged as "grade 2" and "grade > 4" not because of any difference in road surface, but because one has > a line of grass between the ruts and the other doesn't. > In rural areas where I have spent time people often only put gravel where the wheels contract the ground, and leave the middle part of the road/track as is (which is often grass/short native vegetation). This is done to save money. The result is that from overhead imagery, it may appear not to be gravel, and thus may be incorrectly tagged at a lower tracktype. > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
On 18/07/2020 20:51, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: It's perfectly reasonable to add surface=unpaved or similar based on aerial imagery alone, if you have some experience in distinguishing different surfaces of roads and tracks from aerial imagery. I'd agree that most of the time telling "surface=unpaved" from a paved road or track is certainly possible. However, beyond that might be tricky. As an example, here's one that I updated in OSM this morning. Have a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169902637 and follow that to the southwest. The surface changes a few times before it meets the next road. Do you believe that you would be able to infer those surface tags from imagery? I haven't added a tracktype there yet (lots of stuff in that area needs a resurvey!) and I'm sure you could say "it's definitely not tracktype=4 or 5" but I'd be reluctant to "overclaim" based on less-than-ideal sources. Best Regards, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
Almost all of the tracktype mapping around me has been done by armchair mappers working from from aerial images. Tracks in my area are usually produced in one of two ways: * A bulldozer is used to scrape vegetation and topsoil off. * A given route is driven repeatedly, eroding any vegetation or topsoil. Either way, the track surface is composed of whatever's underneath the top layer. If I understand tracktype tagging correctly, this should be grade 4 or 5, depending on how much gravel and/or clay is present in the soil. Actual tagging is almost uniformly divided between grades 2, 3, 4, and 5, with a few spots of grade 1. Some of the more interesting inconsistencies: * A road being "grade 2" north of an intersection and "grade 3" south of it, despite being the same dirt surface on both sides. * An abandoned railroad being a mix of "grade 3" and "grade 4", despite the track ballast (grade 2) still being present and visible in aerial imagery. * Two adjacent sections of track being tagged as "grade 2" and "grade 4" not because of any difference in road surface, but because one has a line of grass between the ruts and the other doesn't. -- Mark On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 18:51:57 +0200 Florimond Berthoux wrote: > I see no big issue of using only aerial images to set track_type or > surface. You can get a fairly good result with such sources. > So no, you should not blindly revert its modifications. > If the estimation was really bad almost all the time why not, but > here the example given is ok. > > Le sam. 18 juil. 2020 à 12:56, Michael Reichert > a écrit : > > > Hi, > > > > while reviewing changes in my local area, I discovered that user > > Modest7 has been adding tracktype=* tags to lots of highway=track > > at various locations. I asked him what sources he used apart from > > the satellite imagery mentioned in the imagery_used=* tag of his > > changesets. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896 > > for a discussion with him. > > > > I do not believe that one can add reliable tracktype=* information > > from satellite imagery without having some ground truth knowledge > > in order to know how to interpret the imagery in that region. > > Adding estimated tracktype=* does not help OSM on the long term. > > People how rely on the information (e.g. some wanting to drive or > > cycle on that track) are disappointed about this low-quality OSM > > data. Mappers who decide where to map assume these roads to be > > mapped properly. IMHO, adding fixme=resurvey tracktype will not > > improve it. Data consumers usually do not use tags like fixme=* In > > the case of imports (another type of mass editing), we say that an > > import must not add fixme=* to cover shortcomings of the data to be > > imported because they usually do not get fixed in a reasonable > > time. Therefore, I plan to revert these changes. > > > > Modest7 does not seem to realise that estimating tracktype from > > satellite imagery is not doing a service to OSM. I am currently > > preparing a revert of all additions of surface=* and tracktype=* by > > him he uploaded since 1 January 2020 [1]. The revert will only edit > > tags, geometry will stay unchanged. I revert changes on surface as > > well because that's not very different to tracktype except that it > > applies to other types of roads as well. > > > > The countries which will be affected are: > > Germany > > Denmark > > Turkey > > United States > > Poland > > Ukraine > > Morocco > > Czech Republic > > Lithuania > > Sweden > > Norway > > eSwatini > > > > A changeset discussion with him can be found at > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896 > > > > Best regards > > > > Michael > > > > > > [1] This date is not fixed yet. > > > > ___ > > 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] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
It's perfectly reasonable to add surface=unpaved or similar based on aerial imagery alone, if you have some experience in distinguishing different surfaces of roads and tracks from aerial imagery. Do you have evidence that most of the surface tags added by this user are unreliable? – Joseph Eisenberg On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 12:34 PM Michael Reichert wrote: > Hi, > > Am 18/07/2020 um 21.19 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > > Are you sure that just satellite imagery was used? I suspect that also > > aerial imagery was used in edits. > > In Hamburg, Germany, where aerial imagery of the city is available, Bing > was used. > > >> I think that the description "all objects modified by Modest7 since 1 > >> January 2020" is sufficient. > >> > > I thought that revert was supposed to cover tracktype edits only? > > That was my plan initially. However, after scrolling back his edit > history, I found edits adding surface in the US. There is some overlap > in the meaning of surface and tracktype, therefore I think that it makes > more sense revert changes to both tracktype and surface, not tracktype > only. The revert is limited to these two tags because some changes by > Modest7 are indeed helpful, e.g. adding intersection nodes to > intersecting roads. > > Best regards > > Michael > > ___ > 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] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
Hi, Am 18/07/2020 um 21.19 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk: > Are you sure that just satellite imagery was used? I suspect that also > aerial imagery was used in edits. In Hamburg, Germany, where aerial imagery of the city is available, Bing was used. >> I think that the description "all objects modified by Modest7 since 1 >> January 2020" is sufficient. >> > I thought that revert was supposed to cover tracktype edits only? That was my plan initially. However, after scrolling back his edit history, I found edits adding surface in the US. There is some overlap in the meaning of surface and tracktype, therefore I think that it makes more sense revert changes to both tracktype and surface, not tracktype only. The revert is limited to these two tags because some changes by Modest7 are indeed helpful, e.g. adding intersection nodes to intersecting roads. Best regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
Jul 18, 2020, 21:09 by osm...@michreichert.de: > Hi Mateusz, > > Am 18/07/2020 um 19.29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > >> Can you link affected data in Poland? >> >> In Poland you actually can reliably estimate real tracktype based solely >> on high quality aerial images (not satellite imagery that is unlikely to be >> sufficient), typically Geoportal 2 aerial and LIDAR data available in ISOK >> Cień dataset. >> >> Note that your planned automatic revert likely counts as automatic >> edits and needs to fullfill >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct >> requirements, including support from other editors. >> > > I do not think that my revert is an automated edit as intended by the > Automated Edits Code of Conduct.I am reaching out to the community in > advance because different people might have a different opinion on how > reliable tracktype=* needs to be and how reliable surveying from > satellite imagery is. > Are you sure that just satellite imagery was used? I suspect that also aerial imagery was used in edits. > > I think that the description "all objects modified by Modest7 since 1 > January 2020" is sufficient. > I thought that revert was supposed to cover tracktype edits only? > You can use OSMcha, can't you? > I am unfamiliar with OSMcha. > Or would you > like to have a large .osc files of his changes? > I would prefer list of OSM objects that would be affected within boundaries of Poland. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
Hi Mateusz, Am 18/07/2020 um 19.29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > Can you link affected data in Poland? > > In Poland you actually can reliably estimate real tracktype based solely > on high quality aerial images (not satellite imagery that is unlikely to be > sufficient), typically Geoportal 2 aerial and LIDAR data available in ISOK > Cień dataset. > > Note that your planned automatic revert likely counts as automatic > edits and needs to fullfill > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct > requirements, including support from other editors. I do not think that my revert is an automated edit as intended by the Automated Edits Code of Conduct. I am reaching out to the community in advance because different people might have a different opinion on how reliable tracktype=* needs to be and how reliable surveying from satellite imagery is. I think that the description "all objects modified by Modest7 since 1 January 2020" is sufficient. You can use OSMcha, can't you? Or would you like to have a large .osc files of his changes? Currently, the revert is disputed. That's not a condition I would like to have for a mass edit. If people in favour of a revert will not voice their opinion in this discussion, it is very likely that I will not do the revert on international level. The Polish community is free to object as it is their data (quality), not mine. I asked the German community today because I suspect that Germans are quite sensible when it comes to one of our key assets of OSM in Germany: surveyed highway=track. If people on the German forum agree with a revert, the revert will be limited to Germany. If other local communities ask me to perform the revert in their country, I will do it there. https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=70056 Best regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
Jul 18, 2020, 20:07 by osm...@michreichert.de: > Am 18/07/2020 um 19.29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > >> Can you link affected data in Poland? >> >> In Poland you actually can reliably estimate real tracktype based solely >> on high quality aerial images (not satellite imagery that is unlikely to be >> sufficient), typically Geoportal 2 aerial and LIDAR data available in ISOK >> Cień dataset. >> > > I don't have a list of the affected OSM objects at hand but you can > filter his changesets in Poland using OSMCha. Note that I do not > guarantee that Poland is affected at all. It might be that his changes > in Poland are limited to other kinds of contributions like adding nodes > to intersecting roads. > In case of anyone planning such automatic revert next step should include full list of OSM objects that will be affected, to allow checking of what is actually planned. Without such overwiew I oppose such edit and I strongly oppose doing such automatic edit in Poland. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
On 18/07/2020 17:51, Florimond Berthoux wrote: If the estimation was really bad almost all the time why not, but here the example given is ok. How do you know - have you visited that area and done a ground survey? Best Regards, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
Hi Mateusz, Am 18/07/2020 um 19.29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > Can you link affected data in Poland? > > In Poland you actually can reliably estimate real tracktype based solely > on high quality aerial images (not satellite imagery that is unlikely to be > sufficient), typically Geoportal 2 aerial and LIDAR data available in ISOK > Cień dataset. I don't have a list of the affected OSM objects at hand but you can filter his changesets in Poland using OSMCha. Note that I do not guarantee that Poland is affected at all. It might be that his changes in Poland are limited to other kinds of contributions like adding nodes to intersecting roads. Best regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
I modestly (on occasion) set tracktype=* based on imagery, but only using higher-quality imagery where I have high confidence I can quite accurately do so. On those few occasions where I later visit the site / track and am able to glean how accurate my tagging was, I've either never had to change it to a different value or it was such a long time between setting and visiting that it was one value different (higher based on increased use, lower based on decreased use and falling into reverting to the landscape). So, done with skill, this sort of armchair mapping can be and is done accurately quite frequently, in my experience of both doing this and observing others doing this (and reading the confirmation of that here and now). That is me, your mileage may vary, though as others have said similar (that they do this), I, too, would refrain from performing a revert. If, on the other hand, you are certain that _individual_ tracks are clearly wrong, I'd say go ahead and change those one-at-a-time, but a wholesale revert, no, that seems like overkill. SteveA ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
Can you link affected data in Poland? In Poland you actually can reliably estimate real tracktype based solely on high quality aerial images (not satellite imagery that is unlikely to be sufficient), typically Geoportal 2 aerial and LIDAR data available in ISOK Cień dataset. Note that your planned automatic revert likely counts as automatic edits and needs to fullfill https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct requirements, including support from other editors. Jul 18, 2020, 12:53 by osm...@michreichert.de: > Hi, > > while reviewing changes in my local area, I discovered that user Modest7 > has been adding tracktype=* tags to lots of highway=track at various > locations. I asked him what sources he used apart from the satellite > imagery mentioned in the imagery_used=* tag of his changesets. See > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896 for a discussion with him. > > I do not believe that one can add reliable tracktype=* information from > satellite imagery without having some ground truth knowledge in order to > know how to interpret the imagery in that region. Adding estimated > tracktype=* does not help OSM on the long term. People how rely on the > information (e.g. some wanting to drive or cycle on that track) are > disappointed about this low-quality OSM data. Mappers who decide where > to map assume these roads to be mapped properly. IMHO, adding > fixme=resurvey tracktype will not improve it. Data consumers usually do > not use tags like fixme=* In the case of imports (another type of mass > editing), we say that an import must not add fixme=* to cover > shortcomings of the data to be imported because they usually do not get > fixed in a reasonable time. Therefore, I plan to revert these changes. > > Modest7 does not seem to realise that estimating tracktype from > satellite imagery is not doing a service to OSM. I am currently > preparing a revert of all additions of surface=* and tracktype=* by him > he uploaded since 1 January 2020 [1]. The revert will only edit tags, > geometry will stay unchanged. I revert changes on surface as well > because that's not very different to tracktype except that it applies to > other types of roads as well. > > The countries which will be affected are: > Germany > Denmark > Turkey > United States > Poland > Ukraine > Morocco > Czech Republic > Lithuania > Sweden > Norway > eSwatini > > A changeset discussion with him can be found at > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896 > > Best regards > > Michael > > > [1] This date is not fixed yet. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
I see no big issue of using only aerial images to set track_type or surface. You can get a fairly good result with such sources. So no, you should not blindly revert its modifications. If the estimation was really bad almost all the time why not, but here the example given is ok. Le sam. 18 juil. 2020 à 12:56, Michael Reichert a écrit : > Hi, > > while reviewing changes in my local area, I discovered that user Modest7 > has been adding tracktype=* tags to lots of highway=track at various > locations. I asked him what sources he used apart from the satellite > imagery mentioned in the imagery_used=* tag of his changesets. See > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896 for a discussion with > him. > > I do not believe that one can add reliable tracktype=* information from > satellite imagery without having some ground truth knowledge in order to > know how to interpret the imagery in that region. Adding estimated > tracktype=* does not help OSM on the long term. People how rely on the > information (e.g. some wanting to drive or cycle on that track) are > disappointed about this low-quality OSM data. Mappers who decide where > to map assume these roads to be mapped properly. IMHO, adding > fixme=resurvey tracktype will not improve it. Data consumers usually do > not use tags like fixme=* In the case of imports (another type of mass > editing), we say that an import must not add fixme=* to cover > shortcomings of the data to be imported because they usually do not get > fixed in a reasonable time. Therefore, I plan to revert these changes. > > Modest7 does not seem to realise that estimating tracktype from > satellite imagery is not doing a service to OSM. I am currently > preparing a revert of all additions of surface=* and tracktype=* by him > he uploaded since 1 January 2020 [1]. The revert will only edit tags, > geometry will stay unchanged. I revert changes on surface as well > because that's not very different to tracktype except that it applies to > other types of roads as well. > > The countries which will be affected are: > Germany > Denmark > Turkey > United States > Poland > Ukraine > Morocco > Czech Republic > Lithuania > Sweden > Norway > eSwatini > > A changeset discussion with him can be found at > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896 > > Best regards > > Michael > > > [1] This date is not fixed yet. > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Florimond Berthoux ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
On Jul 18, 2020, at 7:09 AM, Rory McCann wrote: > In addition (I can't find the link now but) I recall reading about the death > of a hiker or climber who used some app which used OSM data, and the app > didn't distinguish between track_types (or there was no track_type data for > that route), so the hiker presumed it was OK to go on, and subsequently died. Let us be clear as crystal as we pause to realize the key part of this: "so the hiker presumed it was OK." The hiker made that choice. Any assumption that OSM has ANYthing to do with a subsequent death is specious and only that: an assumption. No, maps don't "make people" do foolish things. Yes, people do foolish things, by their own volition. Not because "the GPS made me do it" or "the map is responsible" (somehow). OSM makes no warranties as to fitness or merchantability for any particular purpose. Do I (we) really need to say this? It's sad if we do. I recently had someone from my local Land Trust imply that because I entered trails under development from their public map (and tagged access=no) that somehow OSM was responsible for increased trespassing. Ridiculous. Maps don't make people choose to break the law, people do. I set him straight and we get along fine. SteveA California ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
In addition (I can't find the link now but) I recall reading about the death of a hiker or climber who used some app which used OSM data, and the app didn't distinguish between track_types (or there was no track_type data for that route), so the hiker presumed it was OK to go on, and subsequently died. On 18.07.20 16:01, Andy Townsend wrote: On 18/07/2020 11:53, Michael Reichert wrote: I do not believe that one can add reliable tracktype=* information from satellite imagery without having some ground truth knowledge in order to know how to interpret the imagery in that region. I think that "without having some ground truth knowledge" is the key part there. I know from personal experience that if I was to try and add tracktype or detailed surface information based purely on imagery I'd get it wrong lots of the time. Very often when I'm updating OSM I'll add the details that I recorded while I was there, and look at what they say and what it looks like on the available imagery and the two can be very different. Best Regards, Andy ___ 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] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
On 18/07/2020 11:53, Michael Reichert wrote: I do not believe that one can add reliable tracktype=* information from satellite imagery without having some ground truth knowledge in order to know how to interpret the imagery in that region. I think that "without having some ground truth knowledge" is the key part there. I know from personal experience that if I was to try and add tracktype or detailed surface information based purely on imagery I'd get it wrong lots of the time. Very often when I'm updating OSM I'll add the details that I recorded while I was there, and look at what they say and what it looks like on the available imagery and the two can be very different. Best Regards, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
