Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[Andreas Labres]

On 25.02.15 08:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>I think in many cases the proper action to perform on an object with
> a FIXME tag that has "a low chance of ever getting addressed" is deletion.

-1

You can't really tell if the problem wasn't fixed of if it was fixed and the
user fixing it forgot to delete the fixme tag.

Only if you can determine that the fixme tag definitively was from an import and
this importing user has created (maybe last edited) that object, then it could
eventually be deleted. But I'd prefer a visual confirmation by a human on any
instance. This confirmation of course could be automated: show the user the
object with the tags on some areal imagery background and she/he can decide (in
most cases, I'd say).

/al

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 26/02/2015 08:43, Andreas Labres wrote:
> This confirmation of course could be automated: show the user the
> object with the tags on some areal imagery background and she/he can decide 
> (in
> most cases, I'd say).

No -- the aerial imagery could be out of date, and it may not be
possible to tell if the problem has been fixed (or even existed in the
first place) *only* from aerial images. Confirmation by survey would
reliable.

If the "problem" is in an area where there's no-one to survey, then so
what? Fixmes don't show up on any end-user (as opposed to mapping QA)
rendering, they don't mess up routing, they don't affect geocoding or
have any other negative consequences for consumers of the data. So just
leave them be until someone can get to the area to survey.

J.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 25/02/2015, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> fixme=yes is an interesting one socially.  It's a bit like
> tiger:reviewed=no

Yes. I'm also willing to bet that in manny cases fixme=yes was added
by mistake, without the mapper understanding what it "means".

> If there's an obvious problem, I might feel confident to fix the issue and
> clear the tag out.

Sure.

> But for most nodes I might be unsure what's wrong, or
> not be confident I know 100% about the object. Thus the fixme=yes sits
> there forever, for future generations of mappers to look at, make the same
> conclusion, and leave the tag for the next next generation of mapper.

IMHO if you're an experienced mapper in this area and you couldn't
make head or tails of a fixme, nobody will. So shamelessly remove the
distracting tag. It's no worse than the "aging" process you suggest in
another mail.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 26/02/2015, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> *One)* We have a "fixme" system where human mappers are encouraged to pay
> extra attention to particular areas or objects.
>
> *Two) *There is an issue of mapper fatigue: each mapper will look at only
> so many such tags in a lifetime of mapping.
>
> *Three)* The fixme system is not self-cleaning.  Certain conditions result
> in fixme tags that are unlikely to be acted on.  There are some 1.3 million
> open fixme tagged items, more than half from mechanical tagging.
>
> *Four)* In some cases the fixme tags happen to be associated with poor
> quality imports. But this is not universal: some poor data has fixme tags,
> other poor data does not.

+1 on all that, except that 4) is barely relevant. If an import is so
bad that it needs to be undone, I really hope that the presence of a
fixme tag is not the only way to detect said import.

> -
> How about a two step process:
>
> *Step One ) * People who wish to delete a particular import look through
> the FIXME tagged items, and  propose specific deletions.  For example
> there's a bus stop import that looks to be of bad quality.  If that data is
> removed, the fixme tag will go with it. Problem solved.  *Make a specific
> proposal showing why the fixme tag is needed in order to clean the data.*

Fair enough, but note that the problem being solved is the bad import,
not the distracting fixme tags.

> *Step Two )  *Remaining fixme values with a count above 1 are
> reviewed.  If they are deemed to add value, or if they come from
> many hand mapping efforts, they stay.  The rest are mechanically trimmed.

The usual "find a frequently-used tag that ought to be deleted an
maybe its associated data fixed" process then. Not really specific to
fixme tags, until you point out a particular fixme value that deserves
the treatment.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 26/02/2015, Andreas Labres  wrote:
> On 25.02.15 08:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>I think in many cases the proper action to perform on an object with
>> a FIXME tag that has "a low chance of ever getting addressed" is deletion.

highway=service
access=private
surface=asphalt
fixme=the surface type changes here according to imagery

Clearly that fixme is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon (survey
needed but impossible). And your suggested action is to delete the
actual way object ?? I wouldn't even remove the fixme.

Sorry for only offering an anecdote against your "in many cases", but
it reflects my general feeling. Deleting an unfixable fixme tag can
make sense; deleting the underlying object doesn't. The fixme tag may
be a hint that the underlying object is so bad that it needs to be
deleted, but the tag itself is no reason to delete. An interesting
version of "don't shoot the messenger" :p

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I think that it may be a good idea to considering deleting fixmes that:
- were added by mechanical mass edit
- were added to existing objects
- are completely useless
- are not indicating low quality of data/tags

For example set␣better␣denotation is not fitting - it seems that in this
case
also denotation tag should be removed, together with fixme.

Obviously these restrictions apply only to an automatic edit.


2015-02-25 2:58 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :

>
> I'm opening a discussion about a potential mechanical edit to FIXME tags:
>
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fixme#values
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/FIXME#values
>
> It is apparent that a number of imports have left tens of thousands of
> fixme notes that have a low chance of ever getting addressed.  Pick your
> favorite from the lists above: set␣better␣denotation is my mine.
>
> The goal would be to reduce the pain felt by anyone with "fixme warnings"
> turned on in their editing tool.
>
> ___
> 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] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I think that it may be a good idea to considering automated deleting fixmes
that:
- were added by mechanical mass edit
- were added to existing objects
- are completely useless
- are not indicating low quality of data/tags

For example set␣better␣denotation is not fitting - it seems that in this
case
also denotation tag should be removed, together with fixme.


2015-02-25 2:58 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :

>
> I'm opening a discussion about a potential mechanical edit to FIXME tags:
>
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fixme#values
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/FIXME#values
>
> It is apparent that a number of imports have left tens of thousands of
> fixme notes that have a low chance of ever getting addressed.  Pick your
> favorite from the lists above: set␣better␣denotation is my mine.
>
> The goal would be to reduce the pain felt by anyone with "fixme warnings"
> turned on in their editing tool.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Standard rendering totally fuzzy for countries boundaries

[Severin Menard]

Hi,

I would like to know where is the good door to knock on to report an issue
with the OSM standard rendering. For a few months, it became totally fuzzy
regarding the countries boundaries, almost preventing to distinguish the
countries from each other. Eg in Westerm Africa from zoom 4, then zoom in
on Senegal and Gambia down to zoom 9:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=4/15.88/-6.37
I suggest to use the great improvements made on the osmfr rendering
.


Sincerely,

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Standard rendering totally fuzzy for countries boundaries

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 26/02/2015, Severin Menard  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know where is the good door to knock on to report an issue
> with the OSM standard rendering. For a few months, it became totally fuzzy
> regarding the countries boundaries, almost preventing to distinguish the
> countries from each other. Eg in Westerm Africa from zoom 4, then zoom in
> on Senegal and Gambia down to zoom 9:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=4/15.88/-6.37
> I suggest to use the great improvements made on the osmfr rendering
> .

There's already quite a lot of discussion on github on this subect:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+boundaries
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+admin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Standard rendering totally fuzzy for countries boundaries

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 26 February 2015 at 12:39, Severin Menard  wrote:
> I would like to know where is the good door to knock on to report an issue
> with the OSM standard rendering. For a few months, it became totally fuzzy
> regarding the countries boundaries, almost preventing to distinguish the
> countries from each other. Eg in Westerm Africa from zoom 4, then zoom in on
> Senegal and Gambia down to zoom 9:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=4/15.88/-6.37
> I suggest to use the great improvements made on the osmfr rendering.


This is a known problem, see the following issue:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/907

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Standard rendering totally fuzzy for countries boundaries

[Severin Menard]

Thanks for the link to the good github repo.
I did not expect to be the first one to point this out. Same issues and
suggestions have been made at least on June 10, 2014:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/622
Do the people in charge of the rendering plan to solve this? The UI is
improving more and more, would be great if the standard map becomes fully
understandable.

Sincerely,

Severin

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:57 PM, moltonel 3x Combo 
wrote:

> On 26/02/2015, Severin Menard  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to know where is the good door to knock on to report an
> issue
> > with the OSM standard rendering. For a few months, it became totally
> fuzzy
> > regarding the countries boundaries, almost preventing to distinguish the
> > countries from each other. Eg in Westerm Africa from zoom 4, then zoom in
> > on Senegal and Gambia down to zoom 9:
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=4/15.88/-6.37
> > I suggest to use the great improvements made on the osmfr rendering
> > <
> http://layers.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=5&lat=15.73535&lon=-7.30745&layers=BFF
> >.
>
> There's already quite a lot of discussion on github on this subect:
>
>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+boundaries
>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+admin
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[John F. Eldredge]

I agree. In most cases, a FIXME should be left until someone on-site can 
verify what is correct.


--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot 
drive out hate; only love can do that." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.




On February 26, 2015 3:49:58 AM Jonathan Bennett  wrote:


On 26/02/2015 08:43, Andreas Labres wrote:
> This confirmation of course could be automated: show the user the
> object with the tags on some areal imagery background and she/he can 
decide (in

> most cases, I'd say).

No -- the aerial imagery could be out of date, and it may not be
possible to tell if the problem has been fixed (or even existed in the
first place) *only* from aerial images. Confirmation by survey would
reliable.

If the "problem" is in an area where there's no-one to survey, then so
what? Fixmes don't show up on any end-user (as opposed to mapping QA)
rendering, they don't mess up routing, they don't affect geocoding or
have any other negative consequences for consumers of the data. So just
leave them be until someone can get to the area to survey.

J.

___
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] Standard rendering totally fuzzy for countries boundaries

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 26 February 2015 at 13:56, Severin Menard  wrote:
> Do the people in charge of the rendering plan to solve this? The UI is
> improving more and more, would be great if the standard map becomes fully
> understandable.

Yes, we're planning to solve this (it is bothering me too). However,
there are still 333 other open issues, and the people in charge are
volunteers with a limited amount of time. If you would like to speed
things up, you're more than welcome to join us and write a pull
request on Github.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[Paul Johnson]

Now that we have an "anointed" notes system, how about an automated move to
notes, with the owner of the note being the person who originated the FIXME?

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:38 AM, John F. Eldredge 
wrote:

> I agree. In most cases, a FIXME should be left until someone on-site can
> verify what is correct.
>
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
> drive out hate; only love can do that." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>
>
>
>
> On February 26, 2015 3:49:58 AM Jonathan Bennett 
> wrote:
>
>  On 26/02/2015 08:43, Andreas Labres wrote:
>> > This confirmation of course could be automated: show the user the
>> > object with the tags on some areal imagery background and she/he can
>> decide (in
>> > most cases, I'd say).
>>
>> No -- the aerial imagery could be out of date, and it may not be
>> possible to tell if the problem has been fixed (or even existed in the
>> first place) *only* from aerial images. Confirmation by survey would
>> reliable.
>>
>> If the "problem" is in an area where there's no-one to survey, then so
>> what? Fixmes don't show up on any end-user (as opposed to mapping QA)
>> rendering, they don't mess up routing, they don't affect geocoding or
>> have any other negative consequences for consumers of the data. So just
>> leave them be until someone can get to the area to survey.
>>
>> J.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[Bryce Nesbitt]

Here's an example semi-bulk FIXME cleanup just done.  This was manual, not
script based:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/29107328

Clearly this was a simple mistake (a JOSM user doing "select all" and
getting nodes in addition to the ways they wanted to target).  The original
changeset was:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26696654




When it comes to cleanup, I don't view a "fixme" object as inherently more
important than any other needed cleanup.
If a fixme note adds information I don't already have, great.  Else the
fixme note is just eating time and mapping energy
that could be better spent.

-

An example intentional tag I'd like to clear is:
fixme=stream␣attibutes␣missing
stream=fixme

Along with any fixme that simply indicates missing data (since the lack of
that data is obvious).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[Greg Troxel]

I think part of the objection to mechanical removal is that just because
there are a lot of particular values doesn't mean they are all junk, and
some could well have been added by hand.

Perhaps a more limited cleanup that removes fixme tags that were added
by previous mechanical edits/imports?  That would seem to be far less
controversial, and would probably still do a lot of good from the
cleanup POV.



pgpYuqOOYTY0P.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> I think part of the objection to mechanical removal is that just because
> there are a lot of particular values doesn't mean they are all junk, and
> some could well have been added by hand.
>
> Perhaps a more limited cleanup that removes fixme tags that were added
> by previous mechanical edits/imports?  That would seem to be far less
> controversial, and would probably still do a lot of good from the
> cleanup POV.


Your suggestion is exactly what's on the table: removal of select mass
added fixme tags like:
 fixme=stream␣attibutes␣missing
 stream=fixme
http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=12&lat=39.95356&lon=-75.12364
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] New statistics on volume of "note" creation and closing

[Bryce Nesbitt]

In light of the discussion the volume and quality of note and fixme items,
Pascal Neis
has whipped up some nice long term data for notes.  Hopefully corresponding
data on fixme
will be possible in the future.

http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-overview


​

--
I feel that asking note writers to do more, and to optionally leave contact
info,
will not significantly reduce note volume.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New statistics on volume of "note" creation and closing

[Ian Dees]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
>
> I feel that asking note writers to do more, and to optionally leave
> contact info,
> will not significantly reduce note volume.
>

No one's holding you back from proposing (or making) code changes, are they?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New statistics on volume of "note" creation and closing

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>
> No one's holding you back from proposing (or making) code changes, are
> they?
>

That proposal is already on the table:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/776
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[Steve Doerr]

On 26/02/2015 18:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
Now that we have an "anointed" notes system, how about an automated 
move to notes, with the owner of the note being the person who 
originated the FIXME?




Personally I'd rather keep any FIXMEs on the objects that they relate to.

--
Steve

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[Blake Girardot]

On 2/26/2015 10:49 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:

If the "problem" is in an area where there's no-one to survey, then so
what? Fixmes don't show up on any end-user (as opposed to mapping QA)
rendering, they don't mess up routing, they don't affect geocoding or
have any other negative consequences for consumers of the data. So just
leave them be until someone can get to the area to survey.

J.


I am strongly in this camp. I have not seen any actual harm or problem 
presented for 1.3 million fixme tags yet. But there is the potential for 
problems if removed.


Even fixme=yes tags convey information: Someone felt something was in 
question about that node/way/polygon. That is not insignificant information.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Blake Girardot  wrote:

> I am strongly in this camp. I have not seen any actual harm or problem
> presented for 1.3 million fixme tags yet. But there is the potential for
> problems if removed.
> Even fixme=yes tags convey information: Someone felt something was in
> question about that node/way/polygon. That is not insignificant information.


At no point has a proposal been made to remove fixme=yes.

--
As for harm, any user of a tool that shows fixme tags:
http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=12&lat=39.95356&lon=-75.12364
Is directing energy to both useful fixme tags, and fixme tags that at best
are markers
of a poorly considered import.  A bulk purge cold save a lot of time.

I do encourage people to remove fixme keys when they edit: many times the
underlying problem gets fixed, but the fixme tag stays.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mechanically Cleaning Up FIXME Tags

[Bryce Nesbitt]

To make this simpler, for now I propose to mechanically delete the tags:

fixme=stream␣attibutes␣missing
stream=fixme

>From several stream imports in the USA.   Does anyone have comment or
considerations for that proposal (beyond the usual mechanical edit policy)?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk