subject:"Re\: \[OSM\-talk\] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject"

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-19 Thread Mark Bradley



> -Original Message-
> From: moltonel 3x Combo [mailto:molto...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 6:54 PM
> To: EthnicFood IsGreat <ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com>
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject
> 
> On 14/09/2015, EthnicFood IsGreat <ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I guess we're asking that an exception to the "verifiable features
> > only" rule be made for these features.
> 
> IMHO the exception that you are asking for is not to the "verifyable only" 
> rule but to the
> "presently existing" rule. All the abandoned/dismantled railroads I've seen 
> in OSM were
> verifyably "previously existing" but also (where the conflict arrises as far 
> as I'm
> concerned) verifyably "no longer present".
> 
> This is not a rejection of your plea, just trying to make sure of what we are 
> talking about.
> 
> > Simply confining abandoned railroad
> > features to OHM is not a good solution, because without being able to
> > view them in the context of existing features, they lose a lot of
> > their value.
> 
> Agreed, OHM is currently not very usable.
> 
> 
> 
> I've suggested that early on, and again in my latest reply to Russ : I think 
> that maping the
> past in OSM would be acceptable, if done properly. Some kind of "OHM done 
> right".
> Doing things really right might require a modification of the data model, a 
> cross-db
> synbchronisation tool, or some other cool technology... But that's just too 
> far off, too
> hypothetical. The next best thing is a tagging system for the past.
> 
> If it wasn't clear already, railway=dismantled, end_date, or any system that 
> mixes past
> and present in the same namespace is IMHO not acceptable. Consumers, editors 
> and
> tools should be able to filter out historical data with a simple rule. I've 
> suggested using
> "past:" as a key prefix, with an optional " @ date - range" as a value suffix.
> Didn't see any reply, what do people think ?
> 
> As for opening the floodgates of historical mapping, I do not like it from a 
> very personal
> POV, but I can recognise that there is a need, that OSM might be the best 
> tool to fill that
> need, and that it might ultimately strengthen the poject. I just hope (and 
> believe and
> work to make it true) that it won't be too much of a nuisance to my usecase.
> And if we do open up to maping the past, I don't think that it should be 
> reserved to
> railroads.
> 
> I've argued against maping no-longer existing railroads in way too many 
> emails at this
> stage, but I suggested this escape route early on.
> Nobody picked it up but I think that's the only thing that currently stands a 
> chance of
> reaching consensus. EthnicFoodIsGreat, can you see the working compromise 
> that Russ
> cannot ?
> 


I would be for any compromise that allows the historical railroads to remain, 
including your idea.  In the meantime, I am coordinating with a mapper who 
wishes to delete selected abandoned railroads that he encounters.  He notifies 
me first when he encounters such a railroad, and then I copy it to OHM, so that 
the information will not be lost after he deletes it.


> That's it for me, bye bye railroad thread, I hope. Of course I'm only one 
> contributor, not a
> highly prolific or influential one, not an authority, just a voice. Others 
> have been less noisy
> but more dogmatic than me on the subject. The community as a whole must decide
> wether "we map the present" is still a hard OSM rule.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



sent from a phone

> Am 15.09.2015 um 00:54 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo :
> 
> If it wasn't clear already, railway=dismantled, end_date, or any
> system that mixes past and present in the same namespace is IMHO not
> acceptable.



I agree that end_date is not a desirable way to add stuff. 

railway=dismantled on the other hand is not a past feature, it is a dismantled 
railway now, in the present. In the past it was a railway=rail etc.

cheers 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-15 Thread moltonel 3x Combo

On 15/09/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> thing is, a dismantled railway has no end_date, it only has a start_date and
> will continue to be a dismantled railway, till the end of time

Yes.

On 15/09/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> railway=dismantled on the other hand is not a past feature, it is a
> dismantled railway now, in the present. In the past it was a railway=rail
> etc.

I don't understand how a feature can be both "dismantled till the end
of time" and "in the present". The only state that you can keep
forever is the state of not being. To me, "dismantled" as used in OSM
rails is a much stronger definition than "dismantled legos", it is a
synonym for "fully gone". Saying that something is "fully gone in the
present" is a roundabout way of saying that it is in the past.

The start_date of the railway=dismantled is the end_date of the
railway=abandoned/rail. So why not tag the railway=rail/abandoned with
the date of its demise (not with a trolltag like end_date, but with
something that doesn't trip up presentfans) instead of
railway=dismantled ?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-15 Thread Lester Caine

On 15/09/15 08:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> If it wasn't clear already, railway=dismantled, end_date, or any
>> > system that mixes past and present in the same namespace is IMHO not
>> > acceptable.
> 
> I agree that end_date is not a desirable way to add stuff. 
> 
> railway=dismantled on the other hand is not a past feature, it is a 
> dismantled railway now, in the present. In the past it was a railway=rail etc.

The crux of the problem here is 'end_date' and if it is to be supported
or not. I'm perfectly happy that features which exist on the ground need
to be documented, and even having removed the tracks, a rail bed is
still a substantial structure which can be reused or robbed out. The use
of the name 'Abandoned Railway' on a cycle track is an alternate
compromise, so it is just breaks which we are discussion here.

If OHM WAS usable as an alternate source of data in parallel with the
main database I would not have a problem, but the discussions there are
at a tangent to the main problem of retaining material that has been
accurately mapped already and for which 'end_date' is the perfect tag.
The difficulty here is distinguishing data that has been deleted or
changed because it was simply wrong and changes that result from
re-tasking or redeveloping areas.

I've already given a good practical example in the case of Tollbar
improvements which are still work in progress, but the current data is
not as accurate as it could be because elements are mapped that do not
yet exist and elements which have been realigned do not actually follow
the current state on the ground. The full scheme started life back in
1998 and the various phases were well documented showing what was to be
added and deleted at each stage, so careful mapping taking note of both
start and end dates COULD have done a better job, and this IS about
mapping the present! It shows what is planned so drivers know of the
disruption and while dates will change updating them builds the very
history *I* am talking about, so ALL we are discussing is what happens
to the bits as the forthcoming end_date is reached? And what is shown
for sections for which a 'start_date' is still to be achieved.

ARCHIVING material is the question here while keeping it available to
view in conjunction with the current state on the ground along with the
future planned state. History is an inherent part of the current
'namespace'!

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



sent from a phone

> Am 15.09.2015 um 10:18 schrieb Lester Caine :
> 
> The crux of the problem here is 'end_date' and if it is to be supported
> or not. I'm perfectly happy that features which exist on the ground need
> to be documented, and even having removed the tracks, a rail bed is
> still a substantial structure which can be reused or robbed out.


thing is, a dismantled railway has no end_date, it only has a start_date and 
will continue to be a dismantled railway, till the end of time 

Anyway, end_date is just as broken as disused=yes, abandoned=yes, ruins=yes or 
any other qualifier that says that something is not any more what the other 
tags say.

cheers 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-15 Thread Dave F.


On 14/09/2015 18:40, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:

Russ is a railfan.  I am a railfan.  We are a group of people for whom
railroads hold a lot of interest and nostalgia.  Being able to see
locations of abandoned railways in OSM is very desirable for us.
I'll guess there a lots of OSMers who are interested in defunct railways 
& would love to see an OSM rendering of them. I include myself in that 
number. However the OSM database is not the place to store the info.





  (Not
to mention that some of them will eventually be converted to rail
trails, and so their location is important from that aspect.)  I guess
we're asking that an exception to the "verifiable features only" rule
be made for these features.


The rule is whether it exists or not. OSM is for current entities.



   Simply confining abandoned railroad
features to OHM is not a good solution, because without being able to
view them in the context of existing features, they lose a lot of
their value.


It needs to be transferred (not deleted, as some have stated) to a 
separate database & mashup techniques used to create a render with the 
current OSM database.



A long time ago someone decided that administrative boundaries would
be granted an exception.


As boundaries exist *&* verifiable no exception was needed.


We are also mapping cycle routes.


Yes, as they *exist* on *current* cycle ways.


Is it too much to ask for abandoned railroads to be granted an exception too?


Yes. They don't exist any more.


Iknow the classic argument against this is that it would open the
floodgates for all kinds of other historic objects to be mapped,
thereby cluttering the map.  But are there really that many people
that would clamor for feature type "x" to also be included?


As you & others won't let it lie, I'm going to answer: Yes.


I've not heard anything on this mailing list from anyone advocating
passionately for any other type of historic feature.


There are some against removing *any* entity, which is how OHM came about.


We cater to cyclists (of which I am one as well), why not railway enthusiasts?


If a cycleway is destroyed in the real world, then it would get deleted 
in OSM.



Cheers
Dave F.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

2015-09-15 12:02 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo :

> I don't understand how a feature can be both "dismantled till the end
> of time" and "in the present".
>


this depends on the tags you use to describe it. If you say it is a not
being any more thing, it will likely remain like this. If you say it used
to be a thing until date, then it is the a=foo, end_date=date tagging style.




> The only state that you can keep
> forever is the state of not being. To me, "dismantled" as used in OSM
> rails is a much stronger definition than "dismantled legos", it is a
> synonym for "fully gone".
>


I agree.



> Saying that something is "fully gone in the
> present" is a roundabout way of saying that it is in the past.
>


yes, but still that's two different ways of saying it, the same as with
tagging.

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-15 Thread Dave F.


On 15/09/2015 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

thing is, a dismantled railway has no end_date, it only has a start_date and 
will continue to be a dismantled railway, till the end of time


To check, did you mean abandoned railway? Dismantled railways *could* 
return to full usage  (I'm not advocating the use of end_date)



Anyway, end_date is just as broken as disused=yes, abandoned=yes, ruins=yes or 
any other qualifier that says that something is not any more what the other 
tags say.


Again to check, how would you tag this:
https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/35511/175632/f/1296319-Hill-of-Slane-church-ruins-2-1.jpg
Is this not acceptable?:
historic=castle
ruins=yes


Cheers
Dave F.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

2015-09-15 13:42 GMT+02:00 Dave F. :

> On 15/09/2015 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> thing is, a dismantled railway has no end_date, it only has a start_date
>> and will continue to be a dismantled railway, till the end of time
>>
>
> To check, did you mean abandoned railway? Dismantled railways *could*
> return to full usage  (I'm not advocating the use of end_date)

everything _could_ return to full usage (maybe almost everything), but
rebuilding something is not the same as renovating it. I'd see dismantled
railways as a further step away from an active railway compared to
abandoned railways (in OSM).

Yes, we do not have good tags to model the history of things that come, go
(or are modified) and come again. E.g. what start_date should a railway
line get, that was built in 1880, closed and dismantled in 1926 and rebuilt
and reopened in 1998, with the same name, same location of the tracks, etc.?

I agree we should map present things, not the past, but should leave a way
open to cater for past things that have lasted into present time (also
partially or hidden) in some form or the other. An abandoned railway
clearly is something of the presence, dismantled railways are something
I've personally never mapped so far, and where I can understand the
reluctance of fellow mappers to tolerate them (in cases where literally
nothing has endured). Still, if you look careful you will find something
(traces) from a lot of past things, especially true for relatively recent
(compared to human history) and "high impact" stuff like railways.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

2015-09-15 13:42 GMT+02:00 Dave F. :

> Again to check, how would you tag this:
>
> https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/35511/175632/f/1296319-Hill-of-Slane-church-ruins-2-1.jpg
> Is this not acceptable?:
> historic=castle
> ruins=yes
>


I would prefer tagging like

historic=ruins
ruins=castle

(according to taginfo, this style is currently used 1849 times)
http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/historic=ruins#combinations


or ruins:historic=castle
(there are currently less than 100 tags in this way, most are
ruins:building=yes)

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-14 Thread moltonel 3x Combo

On 14/09/2015, EthnicFood IsGreat  wrote:
> I guess we're asking that an exception to the "verifiable features only" rule
> be made for these features.

IMHO the exception that you are asking for is not to the "verifyable
only" rule but to the "presently existing" rule. All the
abandoned/dismantled railroads I've seen in OSM were verifyably
"previously existing" but also (where the conflict arrises as far as
I'm concerned) verifyably "no longer present".

This is not a rejection of your plea, just trying to make sure of what
we are talking about.

> Simply confining abandoned railroad
> features to OHM is not a good solution, because without being able to
> view them in the context of existing features, they lose a lot of
> their value.

Agreed, OHM is currently not very usable.

I've suggested that early on, and again in my latest reply to Russ : I
think that maping the past in OSM would be acceptable, if done
properly. Some kind of "OHM done right". Doing things really right
might require a modification of the data model, a cross-db
synbchronisation tool, or some other cool technology... But that's
just too far off, too hypothetical. The next best thing is a tagging
system for the past.

If it wasn't clear already, railway=dismantled, end_date, or any
system that mixes past and present in the same namespace is IMHO not
acceptable. Consumers, editors and tools should be able to filter out
historical data with a simple rule. I've suggested using "past:" as a
key prefix, with an optional " @ date - range" as a value suffix.
Didn't see any reply, what do people think ?

As for opening the floodgates of historical mapping, I do not like it
from a very personal POV, but I can recognise that there is a need,
that OSM might be the best tool to fill that need, and that it might
ultimately strengthen the poject. I just hope (and believe and work to
make it true) that it won't be too much of a nuisance to my usecase.
And if we do open up to maping the past, I don't think that it should
be reserved to railroads.

I've argued against maping no-longer existing railroads in way too
many emails at this stage, but I suggested this escape route early on.
Nobody picked it up but I think that's the only thing that currently
stands a chance of reaching consensus. EthnicFoodIsGreat, can you see
the working compromise that Russ cannot ?

That's it for me, bye bye railroad thread, I hope. Of course I'm only
one contributor, not a highly prolific or influential one, not an
authority, just a voice. Others have been less noisy but more dogmatic
than me on the subject. The community as a whole must decide wether
"we map the present" is still a hard OSM rule.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-13 Thread Mateusz Konieczny

I will not continue to discuss other issues as at this point everybody
exchanged opinions and repeating the same makes no sense.

But...

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 17:55:07 -0400 Russ Nelson
wrote:

> and they aren't making more abandoned railroads anymore (Beeching is
> dead, and the US has railbanking).

is simply untrue. For example just days ago I
mapped a new railway track, deleted section of spur that was
recently dismantled* and updated geometry of railway track that was
dismantled and constructed again (it was moved to make place for the
new track)**.

Just because something is true in UK and USA does not mean that it is
true worldwide - for example in Poland abandoning and dismantling of
railways happened relatively recently and it still continues. There are
many abandoned railway spurs leading to military areas or factories
that will be almost certainly removed in the near future.

*yes, I surveyed it. Yes, it is gone (section that was not destroyed
was obviously not removed).

**yes, I surveyed it. Yes, new track is mapped and old, removed track is
gone so the old geometry was removed from OSM

BTW, position that everything that is gone but left findable traces is
mappable would lead to interesting consequences - see
http://www.deepseanews.com/2012/06/how-presidential-elections-are-impacted-by-a-100-million-year-old-coastline/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_A_and_B#/media/File:Poland_2007_election_results.jpg
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00795231/document (pdf)
for an interesting examples.

99 matches

Mail list logo