Re: [talk-ph] New bing imagery Batch 9
Here's a post from Bing's blog on the latest September updates and also a screenshot of the coverage. http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2012/09/18/global-ortho-amp-17-million-sqkm-of-new-satellite-imagery.aspx http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8299/8001662032_c8f5a4ceb4_b.jpg On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Just a correction: The following two places have imagery from Bing Batch 8 since June. Calayan Islands and northern islands and the rest of Cagayan: http://maning.github.com/Imagery_Coverage_Map/#19.31175,121.468749,14 Babuyan Island: http://maning.github.com/Imagery_Coverage_Map/#19.519872,121.93335,14 The rest seem to be recent. -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
[OSM-talk-be] public transport
Hello, here I found back a discussion about an app... http://activityworkshop.net/software/timetabler/index.html Of course, this guy makes interesting soft too: http://activityworkshop.net/software/gpsprune/index.html 3D view of gpx ... http://activityworkshop.net/software/osmwrangler/index.html http://activityworkshop.net/software/mkgmapgui/index.html .. Marc -- The Penguin has arrived - and he's not going away - ever. What's on Shortwave guide: choose an hour, go! http://shortwave dot tk 700+ Radio Stations on SW http://swstations dot tk 300+ languages on SW http://radiolanguages dot tk ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk] {urgent} wrong licence information!
On 18/09/12 06:26, Michael Kugelmann wrote: On 17.09.2012 23:30, wrote Ed Loach: Looks like it has been done. http://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Osm:Export.start.export_detai ls/dediff=4223004oldid=1509470rcid=curid=1065143 Short: http://is.gd/vzKO8e I still get the old attribution = I'm not sure whether the English text is correct, I get the German one. You will do, until the next sync between Translatewiki and git. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] {urgent} wrong licence information!
Only for English, not even British English... http://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special:Translationsmessage=Osm:Export.start.export_details Greets, Floris On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Looks like it has been done. http://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Osm:Export.start.export_detai ls/dediff=4223004oldid=1509470rcid=curid=1065143 Short: http://is.gd/vzKO8e Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Sept. 15, a french OSM contributor has been blocked because he was not following the dedicated account for import described in the Import Guidelines (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/238). There was nothing armful for the data, community or the whole project is these changesets. This has been a starting point for a discussion between some active french speaking contributors and a couple of DWG members. Its reaching to an important point about DWG and OSMF governance. This block decision is based on the import guidelines where the recommendation to use a separate account switched recently to a requirement in last November. I posted a couple of question on the Import guidelines talk page on the wiki regarding this dedicated account to get some clarification about this switch and some other practical questions (how many dedicated accounts, etc). I'd like to have some answers because after searching the wiki, the OSMF web site and the imports@ mailing-list archives, I could not find any (public) discussion about the newly required dedicated account. This is a major governance problem for me, some guidelines are updated by someone on a wiki page (Nov 15th 2011 by Richard Fairhurst), something that was a recommendation becomes mandatory and then some contributor get blocked based on this wiki page edit that comes from nowhere. If it works like that, it is worth updating the wiki page(s) and set/modify rules on our own. Wiki talk page is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Import/Guidelines#dedicated_account My questions are: - Who decided this change (recommendation - requirement) ? - What has been the process that lead to this major change ? - Do we need a separate account for each dataset imported ? - What is the benefit when source=* is required by the original data provider ? - What is the benefit when hundreds/thousands of contributors are upload subsets of a larger dataset after manual review/improvement of the original data ? -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France - http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr wrote: I'd like to have some answers because after searching the wiki, the OSMF web site and the imports@ mailing-list archives, I could not find any (public) discussion about the newly required dedicated account. Hi, I also had someone hold that against me on the german list, I guess it is a new requirement that was thought up in the recent past, you can check the wiki history to see when it was introduced. I was not aware about it until someone said that it was being held against me. fairness in making accusations is not something that is strong in this community, it seems that people can just make accusations at will and if it is not part of the party line then that person gets moderated and otherwise applauded. It would be nice to have some type of public voting and governance system, I am reviewing some of them for another project, I cannot recommend any right now, but liquidfeedback.org seems interesting. I supposed that my comments will get me banned from the list, so if that happens, good bye. mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012/9/18 Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr: My questions are: - Who decided this change (recommendation - requirement) ? - What has been the process that lead to this major change ? not sure about this, but I definitely support the decision, because it was a real problem in the past when imports could not easily be distinguished from individual and original contributions. - Do we need a separate account for each dataset imported ? IMHO at least, but in the case of datasets with different licenses in different countries (e.g. CORINE) it should be even a separate account for every country. - What is the benefit when hundreds/thousands of contributors are upload subsets of a larger dataset after manual review/improvement of the original data ? sort out license issues easier. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: not sure about this, but I definitely support the decision, because it was a real problem in the past when imports could not easily be distinguished from individual and original contributions. Excepted that in the mentionned case, the French cadastre building footprints import is localized (scale is a municipality, a town or a village) and the features are limited to buldings and possibly waterways. All imported elements are also sourced and uploads are limited to one or few changesets. So the problem to distinguish individual and original contribution does not exist here. The problem is that the guideline is writing for mass imports which is not always the case for all imports. Here in France, we also import administrative boundaries from the same source. It is done carefully and manually since years now. The task is so huge (36. municipality boundaries at the end) that we crowdsource it. We also have a tool to monitor such data (osmose). We cannot ask each contributor to create a special account each time he is importing something into OSM which is not coming from Bing or its GPS. And if creating a new user account would be that easy, but it requires a special, different email account each time for each new account (excepted for those who are old enough in OSM and created tens of accounts before this restriction was in place). Only this point is creating a barrier to import any thing in general into OSM (which is, I suspect, the real target of the DWG at the end). What I would like to know here is if the DWG is allowed to block one contributor just because he is not following one of the requirements writen on the wiki guidelines, a requirement which was just an option few months ago. The DWG is claiming that the import guideline is writen by the community. But how many people have been involved in the discussion deciding to change the wiki and make a separate account a must instead of a recommendation ? And where was it discussed ? If 5 people decided to make it an obligation, can 5 other people decide to change the wiki back to an option ? I agree with the concept of seperate accounts but only for large imports done by a single person in a short time. All the opposite of the small French cadastre imports done by the crowd since years on limited areas. The guideline contains other recommendations which are also requested to our importers (like integrate with the existing data). We also wrote our own guideline to avoid bad, unprepared, blind imports. Unfortunatelly, we also have some black sheeps not following it. In this case, the French community is big and mature enough to contact the persons, repair and revert them or even ask the DWG to block one person until he reads our messages. But this was not the case for the mentionned person. For all of these reasons, I would like to modify the import guidelines and make the separate account back to a recommendation which is not alsways necessary, especially in case of limited imports, in size and/or features. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012/9/18 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: not sure about this, but I definitely support the decision, because it was a real problem in the past when imports could not easily be distinguished from individual and original contributions. Excepted that in the mentionned case, the French cadastre building footprints import is localized (scale is a municipality, a town or a village) and the features are limited to buldings and possibly waterways. All imported elements are also sourced and uploads are limited to one or few changesets. So the problem to distinguish individual and original contribution does not exist here. How does it help for distinguishing imports from original contributions to have many small areas or small feature sets or many small changesets? What might help is a uniform changeset comment or component. We cannot ask each contributor to create a special account each time he is importing something into OSM which is not coming from Bing or its GPS. nobody should be importing from Bing or converted GPS-traces ;-), the distinction we do is: use different accounts for data you create yourself and for data that you take from other sources (i.e. for which you don't have the intellectual property rights). And if creating a new user account would be that easy, but it requires a special, different email account each time for each new account well, not sure where this comes from and if it makes sense: I don't see a real obstacle as email addresses are not a scarse ressource (you get as many as you like for free), but I agree that it seems to be better to allow the same email address for multiple accounts (would make it more probable that someone is monitoring the inbox = more likely you will be able to communicate with the mapper if he can use his usual email address). What I would like to know here is if the DWG is allowed to block one contributor just because he is not following one of the requirements writen on the wiki guidelines, a requirement which was just an option few months ago I'd put it like this: someone who didn't respect the import guidelines valid for almost one year was temporarily blocked. What's the problem? That's what the DWG is for. . The DWG is claiming that the import guideline is writen by the community. But how many people have been involved in the discussion deciding to change the wiki and make a separate account a must instead of a recommendation ? how many have spoken up against it? I'd expect from every mapper who wants to import something to read the current import guidelines and to act accordingly. I agree with the concept of seperate accounts but only for large imports done by a single person in a short time. All the opposite of the small French cadastre imports done by the crowd since years on limited areas. I agree that it seems not necessary in the case where the data comes with no obligations (PD/CC0) and the mappers check manually every single object they import. For all of these reasons, I would like to modify the import guidelines and make the separate account back to a recommendation which is not alsways necessary, especially in case of limited imports, in size and/or features. -1 if there are other obligations (like attribution) associated with the originals data license. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 9/18/2012 7:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: well, not sure where this comes from and if it makes sense: I don't see a real obstacle as email addresses are not a scarse ressource (you get as many as you like for free), but I agree that it seems to be better to allow the same email address for multiple accounts (would make it more probable that someone is monitoring the inbox = more likely you will be able to communicate with the mapper if he can use his usual email address). This is a very real problem - it is not helpful if the email account is unmonitored, or even allowed to be deleted due to inactivity. However there is a relatively easy solution: If your primary account is not gmail.com, get a single gmail account. Each import account would add a unique identifier to the email address with the + sign for example - http://evernotefolios.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/multiple-email-addresses-with-one-gmail-account/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: How does it help for distinguishing imports from original contributions to have many small areas or small feature sets or many small changesets? What might help is a uniform changeset comment or component. What's the reason to distinguish individual contributions from external data if it is not for copyright infridgements and/or possible reverts ? In both cases, the user account is not an issue in our case. nobody should be importing from Bing or converted GPS-traces ;-), the distinction we do is: use different accounts for data you create yourself and for data that you take from other sources (i.e. for which you don't have the intellectual property rights). But what we call cadastre import normally includes manual work where existing data are integrated (e.g. the building names, places of worship, townhall, etc). So it is rarely a pure import but more an integration. well, not sure where this comes from and if it makes sense: I don't see a real obstacle as email addresses are not a scarse ressource (you get as many as you like for free), but I agree that it seems to be better to allow the same email address for multiple accounts I guess the reason was an anti-spam and fake-accounts measure. I'd put it like this: someone who didn't respect the import guidelines valid for almost one year was temporarily blocked. What's the problem? That's what the DWG is for. valid ? I did not know that a wiki page, editable by anyone, is defining how and what the DWG (and indirectly the foundation) allows or forbid for imports once the legal points are clear. how many have spoken up against it? I'd expect from every mapper who wants to import something to read the current import guidelines and to act accordingly. And how many have spoken for it and where ? -1 if there are other obligations (like attribution) associated with the originals data license. In our case, the attribution is attached to each element. Because planet dumps or extracts do not contain attributions attached in user accounts or changesets comments. Asking a separate account does not help here. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Hi, I welcome a discussion about rules - which ones we need, who makes them, who executes them. It is clear that we need *some* rules, but until now there's no formal community process to create or amend such rules. I'm happy to hear any suggestions that people might have. How can the will of the community be caputured and distilled into a rule - and where should we work without any rules? In what areas do we have to have rules that govern all of OSM, and in what areas can we afford to defer to local communities? On 18.09.2012 11:08, Christian Quest wrote: This is a major governance problem for me, some guidelines are updated by someone on a wiki page (Nov 15th 2011 by Richard Fairhurst), something that was a recommendation becomes mandatory and then some contributor get blocked based on this wiki page edit that comes from nowhere. Just to clarify this one point: The user had been contacted by DWG beforehand because he had imported several millions of objects under his account, and asked to continue his work in accordance with the import guidelines, using a separate import account. He ignored that request and was only blocked *after* that. DWG does not usually block people without talking to them first, unless they are in the process of breaking things. DWG does also not usually require people to use a separete import account if they are doing small imports (even though the policy does not mention an exception for small imports). This, however, was orders of magnitude above small. My questions are: - Who decided this change (recommendation - requirement) ? - What has been the process that lead to this major change ? I don't think it is a major change, but anyway I think it would be wrong to make a big fuss out of hurt pride and focus on that one single requirement. Anyone who is unhappy with the current import guidelines is invited to propose and discuss a change; and anyone who is unhappy with how such guidelines are adopted and executes is invited to propose and discuss a change there as well. DWG has also been looking for someone from France to join its ranks in order to better liaise with the French community in case of problems like this but we haven't had any applications. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012/9/18 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com I'd put it like this: someone who didn't respect the import guidelines valid for almost one year was temporarily blocked. What's the problem? That's what the DWG is for. Really ? According to [1]: The *Data Working Group* (d...@osmfoundation.org) is authorised by the Foundation to deal with accusations of copyrighthttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright infringement and serious Disputes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes and Vandalism http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism. As I understand this, the French cadastre integration is not concerned by any of the DWG attributions. It is not its role to check how good or bad the integration of external data has been made, when no one complains about it, when the map has been improved by this integration, and when the local community is perfectly OK with it. What happened on 15th september looks like an abuse of authority to me, as this largely exceeds the limits of the mandate given to the DWG. I expect a clarification from the OSMF board on this point. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] issue with bike sharing preset in josm
I'm passing this onto the dev@ mailing list. I don't think translation is a topic suitable for that list, but I think those who know about the JOSM translation system are more likely to be there and not aware of what's happening in talk@ It terms of the actual tag in the OSM data... Although many people make suggestions, it's not good to change in-use tags in OpenStreetMap. You can't know who is using the data in what ways and what could break as a result. You also have to make everyone change their tagging habbits at the same time, and they may not be aware of a discussion to change the tag. If there is potential confusion(I can see how in this case) then it is down to editors (and translations of editors) to sort that out. For example, Potlatch uses pictures and you don't need to know what the actual tag text is. On 14 September 2012 19:09, Fabri erfab...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, i'm an Italian osmer on talk-it we are thinking there is an issue with amenity=bicycle_rental preset in josm the problem is about translation: we want to translate amenity=bicycle_rental preset as Stazione del Bike Sharing (bike sharing docking station) , but on the launchpad translation page [1] we see that bicycle_rental is translated in a group together with car rental and motorcycle rental, so we cannot change the translation for bicycle_rental only we want to make a different translation of amenity=bicycle_rental preset, to avoid the common situation of users mapping a shop/place renting bikes, as amenity=bicycle_rental instead of shop=bicycle + service:bicycle:rental=yes any possible solutions? thank you. ps:some people is also complaining with the tag (amenity=bicycle_rental) and want to propose to change in something like amenity=bike_sharing or something like that, that avoid misunderstanding but maybe is more complicated [1] https://translations.launchpad.net/josm/trunk/+pots/josm/it/4277/+translate ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 18/09/2012 13:42, Vincent Privat wrote: What happened on 15th september looks like an abuse of authority to me, as this largely exceeds the limits of the mandate given to the DWG. I expect a clarification from the OSMF board on this point. OK, if we're playing WikiLawyer pissing games, the statement about DWG's power says authorised, not limited to. Part of DWG's remit is to deal with disputes, and this is very clearly a dispute over data. Ergo... -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Le 18/09/2012 13:51, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : I'd put it like this: someone who didn't respect the import guidelines valid for almost one year was temporarily blocked. What's the problem? That's what the DWG is for. how many have spoken up against it? I'd expect from every mapper who wants to import something to read the current import guidelines and to act accordingly. current ? Is it a joke ? I've started integrating buildings from the French cadastre more thant one year ago. I had read the guidelines long before, when a second account was a recommandation. And talking with the French community, I agreed with the fact that it did not applyed in this case... so I starded uploading buildings... I've never heard any announce about changes, nor discussions about possible changes, nor... in the guidelines. And I'm not so skillfull in English to go often on this page and re-read it if not necessary. And I think I'm not the only one on the Earth. So I am integrating buildings from Cadastre for years... Long before the guidelines were changed... Maybe I should be bloked... Now that I (and not only me) know that the guidelines are subjects of arbitrary changes without a wide announce, I would read this page each time before i'm importing a postbox from opendata ? Tell me it's a joke ! -- FrViPofm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Huge Berlin map - OSM?
Ah they are great videos Alex. So can you confirm what source map they used? Greg. On 18 September 2012 00:52, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote: Cool! On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Alexrk alex...@yahoo.de wrote: I did a short movie clip that shows how the map makers are working on the map. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z77Z_G4iOyA There is also a time lapse video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWmVbR16D6E The map makers are actually stage designers from theatre. First the whole place had been asphalted, then they draw some kind of a reference grid on it. To transfer the geometries onto the ground, they used around 270 stencils. Regards Alex -- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Alexrk2 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: On 18/09/2012 13:42, Vincent Privat wrote: OK, if we're playing WikiLawyer pissing games, the statement about DWG's power says authorised, not limited to. Part of DWG's remit is to deal with disputes, and this is very clearly a dispute over data. Ergo... The DWG is mandated by the foundation ([1]), no ? And here ([2]), it says The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international not-for-profit organization supporting, but not controlling, the OpenStreetMap Project. The dispute is not between contributors but between the French community and the DWG... Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group The Data Working Group (d...@osmfoundation.org) is authorised by the Foundation to deal with accusations of copyright infringement and serious Disputes and Vandalism. Minor incidents of vandalism should be dealt with by the local community using counter-vandalism tools and processes. [2] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Vincent Pottier vpott...@gmail.com wrote: Now that I (and not only me) know that the guidelines are subjects of arbitrary changes without a wide announce, I would read this page each time before i'm importing a postbox from opendata ? But look, you found the notice didn't you? Yes, said Arthur, yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'. http://www.planetclaire.org/quotes/hitchhikers/ -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Slides and vids from ICA and SoC confs
There are a whole range of resources online from the ICA Neocartography workshop and the Society of Cartographers conf. A report on the ICA Neocartography Commission workshop is on the ICA website at: http://icaci.org/first-meeting-of-the-commission-on-neocartography/ Videos of all 6 presentations at the Neocartography workshop are linked from there and available directly at: http://neocartography.icaci.org/2012/09/commision-workshop-at-ucl-slide-decks-reports-videos/ - including a brilliant one on The unstoppable advance of OpenStreetMap by Richard Fairhurst. This site also has links to blog reports on the ICA workshop from contributors Ben Hennig and Gary Gale Slides and video recording from Prof Jerry Brotton's SoC keynote The cartographic rhetoric of globalism are at: http://soc2012.soc.org.uk/slides Also there are slides from 10 more of the presentations at SoC conf and two of the workshops, by Andy Alan and Harry Wood Cheers Steve Steve Chilton FSEDA, Learning Support Fellow Educational Development Manager Centre for Learning and Teaching Enhancement Middlesex University phone: 020 8411 5355 email: ste...@mdx.ac.uk Profile: http://www.middlesex.wikispaces.net/user/view/steve8 Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/ Chair of ICA Neocartography Commission: http://www.soc.org.uk/neocartography/ --- Please note that Middlesex University's preferred way of receiving all correspondence is via email in line with our Environmental Policy. All incoming post to Middlesex University is opened and scanned by our digital document handler, CDS, and then emailed to the recipient. If you do not want your correspondence to Middlesex University processed in this way please email the recipient directly. Parcels, couriered items and recorded delivery items will not be opened or scanned by CDS. There are items which are exceptions which will be opened by CDS but will not be scanned a full list of these can be obtained by contacting the University. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Huge Berlin map - OSM?
I was hoping to see a recursive map of Berlin here http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.517521lon=13.402168zoom=18layers=M :-) From: Gregory [mailto:nomoregra...@googlemail.com] Sent: 18 September 2012 14:05 To: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Huge Berlin map - OSM? Ah they are great videos Alex. So can you confirm what source map they used? Greg. On 18 September 2012 00:52, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.orgmailto:m...@rtijn.org wrote: Cool! On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Alexrk alex...@yahoo.demailto:alex...@yahoo.de wrote: I did a short movie clip that shows how the map makers are working on the map. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z77Z_G4iOyA There is also a time lapse video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWmVbR16D6E The map makers are actually stage designers from theatre. First the whole place had been asphalted, then they draw some kind of a reference grid on it. To transfer the geometries onto the ground, they used around 270 stencils. Regards Alex -- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Alexrk2 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.orgmailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.orgmailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.commailto:o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
The changes to the guidelines should be seen in the light of the original text being very OSMish, trying to leave some wiggle room and trying not to come over as an absolute law, but I believe the intention was always that seperate accounts would be the norm. In reality a large number of importers ignored (not only) the provision in question and resorted to mincing words to justify it (Mike being a good example of this). The clarification should be seen as a step to avoid that. The licence change process in particular turned up a large number of (problematic and others) imports where the importers washed their hands of their responsibility and left the clean up work to others. Simon -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: The user had been contacted by DWG beforehand because he had imported several millions of objects under his account, Sounds as a mass, uncontrolled import but is not. This user is very active and well known in the French community and nobody came to us complaining about the quality of his imports. and asked to continue his work in accordance with the import guidelines, using a separate import account. : I don't think it is a major change, but anyway I think it would be wrong to Once the change is invoked to be the single reason justifying a user account block, it is a major change. DWG does also not usually require people to use a separete import account if they are doing small imports (even though the policy does not mention an exception for small imports). This, however, was orders of magnitude above small. What is the difference between one small import well done by 100 users and 100 small imports well done by 1 user ? Excepted that this crazy man should be congratulated by all of us ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: The licence change process in particular turned up a large number of (problematic and others) imports where the importers washed their hands of their responsibility and left the clean up work to others. The imports during the redaction work was a problem, I agree. The annoucement asking to suspend imports was properly forwarded to the local mailing list and local website. But some (most of ?) contributors do not read the mailing lists and the OSM web sites. That's it. Some even don't read or reply to messages sent to them through the OSM messaging system, perhaps because the DWG is contacting them in a foreign language. A local DWG representative speaking the same language would surely help here. I'm sure the DWG will receive soon new applicants for the position. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] issue with bike sharing preset in josm
thank you for informing dev@ml :) Il 18/09/2012 14:49, Gregory ha scritto: I'm passing this onto the dev@ mailing list. I don't think translation is a topic suitable for that list, but I think those who know about the JOSM translation system are more likely to be there and not aware of what's happening in talk@ It terms of the actual tag in the OSM data... Although many people make suggestions, it's not good to change in-use tags in OpenStreetMap. You can't know who is using the data in what ways and what could break as a result. You also have to make everyone change their tagging habbits at the same time, and they may not be aware of a discussion to change the tag. If there is potential confusion(I can see how in this case) then it is down to editors (and translations of editors) to sort that out. For example, Potlatch uses pictures and you don't need to know what the actual tag text is. On 14 September 2012 19:09, Fabri erfab...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, i'm an Italian osmer on talk-it we are thinking there is an issue with amenity=bicycle_rental preset in josm the problem is about translation: we want to translate amenity=bicycle_rental preset as Stazione del Bike Sharing (bike sharing docking station) , but on the launchpad translation page [1] we see that bicycle_rental is translated in a group together with car rental and motorcycle rental, so we cannot change the translation for bicycle_rental only we want to make a different translation of amenity=bicycle_rental preset, to avoid the common situation of users mapping a shop/place renting bikes, as amenity=bicycle_rental instead of shop=bicycle + service:bicycle:rental=yes any possible solutions? thank you. ps:some people is also complaining with the tag (amenity=bicycle_rental) and want to propose to change in something like amenity=bike_sharing or something like that, that avoid misunderstanding but maybe is more complicated [1] https://translations.launchpad.net/josm/trunk/+pots/josm/it/4277/+translate ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012/9/18 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Just to clarify this one point: The user had been contacted by DWG beforehand because he had imported several millions of objects under his account, and asked to continue his work in accordance with the import guidelines, using a separate import account. He ignored that request and was only blocked *after* that. No, this user has originally been contacted because he deleted a large amount of buildings in one town and was suspected of vandalism. It has been confirmed very quickly that it was not vadalism, but an simple update of data in the town. DWG does not usually block people without talking to them first, unless they are in the process of breaking things. DWG does also not usually require people to use a separete import account if they are doing small imports (even though the policy does not mention an exception for small imports). This, however, was orders of magnitude above small. A very large part of these upload have been done BEFORE the dedicated account requirement that appeared like magic (until someone can explain the process of its appearance) on the wiki. My questions are: - Who decided this change (recommendation - requirement) ? - What has been the process that lead to this major change ? I don't think it is a major change, but anyway I think it would be wrong to make a big fuss out of hurt pride and focus on that one single requirement. Anyone who is unhappy with the current import guidelines is invited to propose and discuss a change; and anyone who is unhappy with how such guidelines are adopted and executes is invited to propose and discuss a change there as well. Can you explain how these guidelines have been adopted ? I searched and found nothing and that is my main question here, not all questions related to imports/decidated account which is another topic. DWG has also been looking for someone from France to join its ranks in order to better liaise with the French community in case of problems like this but we haven't had any applications. Really ? I've been in contact with pnorman about this and proposed myself to take care of problems happening in France. Sending a message only in english is a problem for many contributors who do not understand english so well or not all. Diplomacy which is really necessary in this area is very difficult when not writing in your mother language. I confirm you have one application, mine. -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France - http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Pieren wrote: DWG does also not usually require people to use a separete import account if they are doing small imports (even though the policy does not mention an exception for small imports). This, however, was orders of magnitude above small. What is the difference between one small import well done by 100 users and 100 small imports well done by 1 user ? Excepted that this crazy man should be congratulated by all of us ? Having to clean up some of the mess made by imports that were not as well sanitised as they should have been, personally I get irritated at any 'import' is loaded. At least though a small account that results in problem data can be managed. When we have thousands of change sets to work through it becomes a lot more difficult. The current 'import' process is not ideal and we do need some improvements. Ring fencing 'import' processes in their own accounts was one attempt but still not ideal. DWG are doing the best they can in mediating problems and do need a better 'footprint' of international coverage, but if nobody will step up to the plate, then we simply have to accept the job they are currently doing. And I find they are doing a thankless task more than acceptably. Now if there is a substantial set of data available which we are allowed to import then that data should be available ... as an overlay or some other way ... such as the OS data is available as overlays we can trace from. This way we can cross check imported data, and fix things that the original importer got wrong. Importing from third party mass data without an easy path to cross check against the original data is I think the problem here? I believe the original intention was that the 'raw data' would be identified by the separate user account, and then merges from that can easily be identified to the user actually making the changes. That perhaps is not obvious these days? We need to cooperate and agree the best way of doing things, but we do still have a way to go to get systems that work world wide. -- 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Now if there is a substantial set of data available which we are allowed to import then that data should be available ... as an overlay or some other way ... such as the OS data is available as overlays we can trace from. Seriously, if OS opens the shapefiles of all detailed building footprints, everybody in UK will continue to trace manually each building over raster images ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Pieren wrote: Now if there is a substantial set of data available which we are allowed to import then that data should be available ... as an overlay or some other way ... such as the OS data is available as overlays we can trace from. Seriously, if OS opens the shapefiles of all detailed building footprints, everybody in UK will continue to trace manually each building over raster images ? Well since those details on OS are crap we are better tracing the building from the imagery which is the main reason *I* don't want people doing mass uncontrolled imports ;) Fixing poor data takes longer than manually adding clean stuff. My point is that in the past mass imports have been from data that we had no means of reviewing. If people are 'processing' that data and then importing it then it makes things even more difficult. Personally I'd prefer we had a properly managed overlay system so this sort of raw data can be imported and then processed where we can all review it. -- 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012-09-18 Lester Caine Having to clean up some of the mess made by imports that were not as well sanitised as they should have been, personally I get irritated at any 'import' is loaded. Lester, I have often seen such arguments agains imports. In Canada also, there are contributors talking agains Canvec imports and saying we should have more fun tracing from GPS. We have to analyze the problems more seriously and find solutions to them. A great work is done in Canada importing Canvec data. And like in France, I dont think that this is creating a lot of problems. Experienced mappers are doing a great job. But we have to be carefull at new mappers, monitoring work done, contact them. Has it was seen before, many mappers do not follow the distribution list. It is not easy to follow mapping in an area, know the mappers contributing, and eventually contact them. I suggest it would be more usefull to build tools to monitor local mapping and let local mappers monitor the work done in their area. An international organization like OSM should not make the same mistakes has large organizations centralizing everything, adapting rigid rules. Pierre De : Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk À : OSM talk@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Mardi 18 septembre 2012 10h24 Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance Pieren wrote: DWG does also not usually require people to use a separete import account if they are doing small imports (even though the policy does not mention an exception for small imports). This, however, was orders of magnitude above small. What is the difference between one small import well done by 100 users and 100 small imports well done by 1 user ? Excepted that this crazy man should be congratulated by all of us ? Having to clean up some of the mess made by imports that were not as well sanitised as they should have been, personally I get irritated at any 'import' is loaded. At least though a small account that results in problem data can be managed. When we have thousands of change sets to work through it becomes a lot more difficult. The current 'import' process is not ideal and we do need some improvements. Ring fencing 'import' processes in their own accounts was one attempt but still not ideal. DWG are doing the best they can in mediating problems and do need a better 'footprint' of international coverage, but if nobody will step up to the plate, then we simply have to accept the job they are currently doing. And I find they are doing a thankless task more than acceptably. Now if there is a substantial set of data available which we are allowed to import then that data should be available ... as an overlay or some other way ... such as the OS data is available as overlays we can trace from. This way we can cross check imported data, and fix things that the original importer got wrong. Importing from third party mass data without an easy path to cross check against the original data is I think the problem here? I believe the original intention was that the 'raw data' would be identified by the separate user account, and then merges from that can easily be identified to the user actually making the changes. That perhaps is not obvious these days? We need to cooperate and agree the best way of doing things, but we do still have a way to go to get systems that work world wide. -- 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Re : Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012-09-8 Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org DWG does not usually block people without talking to them first, unless they are in the process of breaking things. Frederik, Governance and role of local communities should be looked in a context of multinational, multicultural organization. OSM has to adapt to this reality. I was surprised to see the long list of users blocked without the local community be involved in the process (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/). Spoken language and cultural aspects are important elements to consider. The local community should have the responsability to first contact a mapper. The DWG role should be reserved for more serious matters. The Québec community is not important and I would like to see it progress. There are political and linguistic tensions in many countries. If a non-english speaking contributor receives an email, with more or less agressives expressions about his mapping, that is very improductive for our organization. The role of the local community should be looked more carefully and OSMF working groups should be more transparent. How often the DWG group has communicate with the local communities to let them know what this group is doing? Pierre ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Am 18.09.2012 15:55, schrieb Pieren: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: The licence change process in particular turned up a large number of (problematic and others) imports where the importers washed their hands of their responsibility and left the clean up work to others. The imports during the redaction work was a problem, I agree. The annoucement asking to suspend imports was properly forwarded to the local mailing list and local website. But some (most of ?) contributors do not read the mailing lists and the OSM web sites. That's it. Some even don't read or reply to messages sent to them through the OSM messaging system, The question of (for example of an operational problem) communication to active mappers is a technical problem that we will have to address at one point in time. Either by assuring that the e-mail address remains valid or by other technical means. However that is not the issue in question, simply the fact that we have a large number of imports that are badly documented or not at all, should not have been imported in he first place (incompatible with CC-bs-SA or/and ODbL) and so on. The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase the usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines without addresses just don't really help with anything) and distracts beginner mappers from actually mapping (1st time mappers are recommend to immediately start importing insted of going outside). Further more, like essentially all imports, the external dataset is not about to go away, so there is no reason to prioritize this import over adding useful stuff. BUT the import guidelines do not contain a provision that the data imported actually has to be useful and if the French community wants to spend (waste?) immense amount of time on this, nobody is going to stop it as long as it doesn't severely impact operations and/or use of OSM data. However it would seem to be a very reasonable, light-weight, requirement that the imported data be separated from personal contributions, just as we require from other imports (yes I have heard all the stories about everything being manually checked etc, if you believe that, I have a couple of bridges that I would like to sell to you). Simon PS: and I didn't even complained about the 3GB of cadastre source tags that we distribute with every planet ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
We've drifted from a question about governance to a talk about usefulness of some kind of data in OSM which is something completely relative and personal. As far as I know, DWG doesn't exist to deal with usefulness of data nor quality of contributions, but copyright infringement, vandalism and disputes. Still no answer to my main original questions: - who decided the import guidelines ? - who decided to make the dedicated account mandatory ? I'm also surprised by 1st time mappers are recommend to immediately start importing instead of going outside. This is absolutely false. There is no priority put on importing cadastre building in France as you wrote it. What a twisted point of view ! 2012/9/18 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase the usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines without addresses just don't really help with anything) and distracts beginner mappers from actually mapping (1st time mappers are recommend to immediately start importing insted of going outside). Further more, like essentially all imports, the external dataset is not about to go away, so there is no reason to prioritize this import over adding useful stuff. BUT the import guidelines do not contain a provision that the data imported actually has to be useful and if the French community wants to spend (waste?) immense amount of time on this, nobody is going to stop it as long as it doesn't severely impact operations and/or use of OSM data. However it would seem to be a very reasonable, light-weight, requirement that the imported data be separated from personal contributions, just as we require from other imports (yes I have heard all the stories about everything being manually checked etc, if you believe that, I have a couple of bridges that I would like to sell to you). Simon PS: and I didn't even complained about the 3GB of cadastre source tags that we distribute with every planet -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France - http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquesthttp://openstreetmap.fr/u/christian-quest ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Pierre Béland wrote: I have often seen such arguments against imports. In Canada also, there are contributors talking agains Canvec imports and saying we should have more fun tracing from GPS. We have to analyze the problems more seriously and find solutions to them. A great work is done in Canada importing Canvec data. And like in France, I dont think that this is creating a lot of problems. Experienced mappers are doing a great job. Pierre - I'm not arguing against imports. Only unmanaged ones and ones we do not have easy access to the source data. As I understand it you can view the canvec data, but is it available as an overlay in an editor? That is the part of the jigsaw that I'd like to see handled better, so we can compare data against the existing map prior to any import, and are ABLE to analyze just what of the data can be imported directly and what needs to be merged in some way? Certainly a large section of the OS data is only useful as reference material and any import is only going to obliterate more accurate data, so having it available as an overlay works well. -- 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012-09-18 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch The question of (for example of an operational problem) communication to active mappers is a technical problem that we will have to address at one point in time. Either by assuring that the e-mail address remains valid or by other technical means. However that is not the issue in question, simply the fact that we have a large number of imports that are badly documented or not at all, should not have been imported in he first place (incompatible with CC-bs-SA or/and ODbL) and so on. The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase the usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines without addresses just don't really help with anything) and distracts beginner mappers from actually mapping (1st time mappers are recommend to immediately start importing insted of going outside). Further more, like essentially all imports, the external dataset is not about to go away, so there is no reason to prioritize this import over adding useful stuff. Simon, this discussion was started to discuss about governance. We only see examples of problematic imports. But the question we should look at is how we can better tune or multinational / multicultural organization to adress these problems. The respective roles of local communities and the DWG group have to be defined. We should also give tools to the local communities to monitor mapping, contact mappers, be able to exchange. And we should not only think of national groups. You sometime have groups at regional or municipal levels. BUT the import guidelines do not contain a provision that the data imported actually has to be useful and if the French community wants to spend (waste?) immense amount of time on this, nobody is going to stop it as long as it doesn't severely impact operations and/or use of OSM data. Lets think more positively about bout national / local communities and give them the capacity to do a better job. Large organization have this tendancy of centralizing everything and adopt simple rules. But the experience has showed that this does not work. There are more then 500,000 contributors. How many do you think know about the DWG group and follow his guidelines? Pierre ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Pierre Béland infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr wrote: There are more then 500,000 contributors. How many do you think know about the DWG group and follow his guidelines? Those who aren't aware, and are contacted by DWG, generally switch to an import account when they are asked to do so. The one account involved started this little thread was asked to use an import account three times. Then they created their import account. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase the usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines without addresses just don't really help with anything) and distracts beginner mappers from actually mapping (1st time mappers are recommend to immediately start importing insted of going outside). Further more, like essentially all imports, the external dataset is not about to go away, so there is no reason to prioritize this import over adding useful stuff. I'm sure you had a look on all major cities and towns in France. Having buildings and addresses is useful. And adding the second are much easier when the first are already present. In urban areas with all buildings and addresses, OSM is complete enough for new contributors to add POI's accurately without the need of aerial imagery or GPS devices. OSM becomes independant when it is reaching this level of details (and we are not speaking about kerbs which are also available in some places and that are usefull for e.g. wheelchair mappers). If you have to demonstrate OSM capacities, do you prefer Paris, Texas, US (http://osm.org/go/TvVR~Qa3--) or Paris, France (http://osm.org/go/0BOd0n5Q--) ? prioritizing is another point. It's a long time now that OSM is not only about streets. We are contacted for instance by people who wants to use OSM buildings data to study photocell installations or urban dispersion. For them, the road network is not their priority in geodata. However it would seem to be a very reasonable, light-weight, requirement that the imported data be separated from personal contributions, just as we require from other imports (yes I have heard all the stories about everything being manually checked etc, if you believe that, I have a couple of bridges that I would like to sell to you). But it is separated by the source tag. PS: and I didn't even complained about the 3GB of cadastre source tags that we distribute with every planet A bit off-topic since it is a requirement from the data source independtly of using a separate account or not, but surely a problem growing in time. We are also unhappy with this and would be greatful if it could be solved. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012-09-18 Lester Caine lester at lsces.co.uk Pierre - I'm not arguing against imports. Only unmanaged ones and ones we do not have easy access to the source data. As I understand it you can view the canvec data, but is it available as an overlay in an editor? That is the part of the jigsaw that I'd like to see handled better, so we can compare data against the existing map prior to any import, and are ABLE to analyze just what of the data can be imported directly and what needs to be merged in some way? Certainly a large section of the OS data is only useful as reference material and any import is only going to obliterate more accurate data, so having it available as an overlay works well. Lester - The National ressources department is collaborating and produce OSM files from his topographic data. The community has established guidelines. In general, contributors edit this file into JOSM, comparing with what already exists. It is not an easy job. But these contributors have made fantastic efforts. We see too ofteen dogmatic declarations against imports without any nuance. What we need as an organization is to establish governance practices that are efficient. I am jealous of all the tools developped by the France community. The Talk-fr is very active and they are doing a great job. If you are not convinced, just look at the map of France. And about governance, if this community cannot manage his contributors, who can? We continually have new mappers, some working more or less intensively. We should adapt or organization to this Wikipedia like structure and try to better structure local communities. Pierre ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase the usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines without addresses just don't really help with anything) and distracts beginner mappers from actually mapping (1st time mappers are recommend to immediately start importing insted of going outside). Further more, like essentially all imports, the external dataset is not about to go away, so there is no reason to prioritize this import over adding useful stuff. Simon, I dont know if you think that Canada Canvec data is controversial. Just look at the map at the border of Canada / US. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.003lon=-72.233zoom=9layers=M Up north you see the effect of canvec imports. I know this area and these imports seems to me of high quality. What do you think of mapping details in the Vermont state, just south of the border? Is it possible to discuss about governance wich is the subject of this thread? Pierre ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Hello, I don't know anything about the particular import that originated this question, and so I don't know if the following arguments specifically apply, but I do want to comment on the issue of requiring a separate account for imports. IMHO, the issue is about licensing. The contributor terms that every account has signed states You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related right over anything within the Contents. This is basically the equivalent of PD and indeed would allow OSMF to in future license the OSM data under a PD-equivalent license (subject to well defined democratic voting procedure described in clause 3 in the CT) If this applied to imported data as well, this would have excluded all non PD imports completely, which a lot of people found unacceptable. My understand is that therefor in clause 1 of the CT the following was added You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms. I.e. you are only required to check licensing compatibility to the current license (now ODbL) and not to the stricter PD requirement. My understanding is that this was interpreted as that all original content of an account falls under the PD licensing to OSMF, given the 'You hereby grant' part, but non-original content (i.e. imports) retain their original licensing and can be imported never-the-less as long as it is compatible with the current license (but might need to be removed in future should the license ever change again). So there are now data in the db with different licenses, but currently no way to distinguish between the two conditions and in the later case what license they are actually under. Requiring a separate account for original content for which OSMF has a PD-equivalent license and imported data for which the license OSMF has is not PD seems like the minimum prudent thing to do. I would go further and actually separate these things out in the CT. I.e. original content accounts (the normal mapper account) signs a different CT than import accounts. The import account CT then spells out the requirements for how to correctly do an import more clearly. Particularly that the exact license agreement of the data under which OSM(F) can use the data now and in future is correctly documented and recorded, e.g. as reference in case there are any legal disputes in future. The DWG would then have a clear mandate to block imports that don't adhere to the then well specified import guidelines Overall compared to all the effort that has to go into a prudent import, creating a new account is minimal effort. So this requirement is hardly unreasonable. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-guidelines-OSMF-DWG-governance-tp5725810p5725945.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Blocking a very respected contributor without prior discussion is a major fail in the governance of the OSMF. I assume that the thing was not really foreseen and a loose lead was put on the DWG group. Everyone understands that the Board is overbooked and it could have be seen more easy granting a real trust to DWG members. But, it does not work so simple, if the alleged bad practice is fully approved by, not only responsible members of the local chapter, but by most of the French mailing list active contributors too (with a few non-French among them). It is no use arguing on the behavior of pnorman user, except, maybe, the use of English toward a French contributor. He was sure of what he did, according the rules he knew. The fail is entirely in : - Rules published without explanations - Bringing explanations technically weak (can be easily reverted as the data are) And, most of all - no response on the governance of the OSMF, when one does not know from where and how was taken a potentially annoying decision to a whole community using its own sources and tools with a high sense of responsibility. This will be a good subject for the next Annual general Meeting. Christian Rogel OSMF member since 2011 OSM contributor since 2008 OSM-France co-founder ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Pierre Béland wrote: Pierre - I'm not arguing against imports. Only unmanaged ones and ones we do not have easy access to the source data. As I understand it you can view the canvec data, but is it available as an overlay in an editor? That is the part of the jigsaw that I'd like to see handled better, so we can compare data against the existing map prior to any import, and are ABLE to analyze just what of the data can be imported directly and what needs to be merged in some way? Certainly a large section of the OS data is only useful as reference material and any import is only going to obliterate more accurate data, so having it available as an overlay works well. Lester - The National ressources department is collaborating and produce OSM files from his topographic data. The community has established guidelines. In general, contributors edit this file into JOSM, comparing with what already exists. It is not an easy job. But these contributors have made fantastic efforts. We see too ofteen dogmatic declarations against imports without any nuance. I would certainly argument against a formal 'demand' for a raw import of some of the OS layers into OSM and we have the tools to explain why we don't want that data. Having worked through large sections of my local area cleaning the licensing issues I was remapping things with 'source=OS' which are just stylised versions of situation on the ground, I can support that statement. I totally understand the 'It is not an easy job' so if you are happy that data available IS accurate enough to use directly and have the tools to show that then I have no objections. What we need as an organization is to establish governance practices that are efficient. I am jealous of all the tools developped by the France community. The Talk-fr is very active and they are doing a great job. If you are not convinced, just look at the map of France. The areas I have looked at are as 'complete' as those around here. The next step in both countries is to more accurately map the finer details. Something which is certainly not available from OS mapping so are details such as the exact configuration of a road junction with lane detail and pedestrian pathways available from third party data in France? And about governance, if this community cannot manage his contributors, who can? We continually have new mappers, some working more or less intensively. We should adapt or organization to this Wikipedia like structure and try to better structure local communities. I certainly agree with the statement, but would strongly lobby against the 'wikipedia' approach to solving the problem. New mappers NEED to be directed to proper guidance on how to provide new data, and I have proposed in the past that new data is ring fenced until a more established mapper can review it, much like we have in hg and git code management. At the very least a 'Do you wish to save this to the main database' warning would be appropriate at times until a new account has established some 'kama' in the data submitted? Importing data from third party sources should be something that does require 'kama' in understanding what one is doing and oversight by others should be added before some automatic processes are applied to the main database. Some better involvement of local groups would be useful here I think? -- 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel christian.ro...@club-internet.fr wrote: Blocking a very respected contributor without prior discussion is a major fail in the governance of the OSMF. The user was messaged on 3 separate occasions between 22 March 2012 and 14 September 2012, asking for him to use a dedicated import account. Finally a short upload block was placed on his account.(which ended 3 days ago) The initial message on the 22 March 2012 and follow-ups pointed to the guidelines ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines ) which include that imports should be done from a dedicated account. DWG != OSMF. OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots. Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
DWG != OSMF. ??? Éric ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Hi, I'm in the same case of Vincent Pottier except I has blocked without disscusion, by a very autoritative admin my fault : I've not create a decated account for importing localized area . But I've read the french wiki ! But I've read the import guideline ( it's not a massive import) ! But I've also talked to the french community before (and after)! The chance : - I understand English ! (a little) - I don't stop mapping because OSM is an very important projet to my eyes. - I take time to alert you. How react an non speeking English contributor who was blocked by an administror with an English message ? He stop contribuing !!! This is the goal of autoritative non loaclized blocking ? Is the OSM communoty too small to have local administrator ? Local administrator : 1 - They can speek the same langage has the contributor 2 - They know particularity negociated rules ( like import of the french cadastre) 3 - They are lessarrogant My 2 cents Guillaume D. *** * Le 18/09/2012 13:51, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : /I'd put it like this: someone who didn't respect the import guidelines // valid for almost one year was temporarily blocked. What's the // problem? That's what the DWG is for. // / / how many have spoken up against it? I'd expect from every mapper who // wants to import something to read the current import guidelines and to // act accordingly. // /current ? Is it a joke ? I've started integrating buildings from the French cadastre more thant one year ago. I had read the guidelines long before, when a second account was a recommandation. And talking with the French community, I agreed with the fact that it did not applyed in this case... so I starded uploading buildings... I've never heard any announce about changes, nor discussions about possible changes, nor... in the guidelines. And I'm not so skillfull in English to go often on this page and re-read it if not necessary. And I think I'm not the only one on the Earth. So I am integrating buildings from Cadastre for years... Long before the guidelines were changed... Maybe I should be bloked... Now that I (and not only me) know that the guidelines are subjects of arbitrary changes without a wide announce, I would read this page each time before i'm importing a postbox from opendata ? Tell me it's a joke ! -- FrViPofm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel The initial message on the 22 March 2012 and follow-ups pointed to the guidelines ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines ) which include that imports should be done from a dedicated account. Okay, he was contacted. I think another one was previously blocked after an upload. And this threat was discussed on our list. But nobody accepted this requirement of the guidelines (a separate account) since we don't see any reason justifying it in this case (crowdsourced import, sourced, limited, merged, reversible, etc...). It's a question of principle, we cannot accept that all contributors uploading bulidings have this hammer on the head. Because today, it is done after 1 million uploaded objects, tomorrow it will be for a big town and later for 3 small villages and finally all imports will be blocked if it's not a separate account. DWG != OSMF. The DWG is authorized to block accounts by the OSMF. OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots. The uploads we are talking are normally done with JOSM after the integration with the existing data and validation. If it is performed with a script, then it's a bad import done by one of the black sheeps mentionned earlier. We also agree to block such bad imports. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Just guess who controls the servers and domain name ? -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Pieren [mailto:pier...@gmail.com] Verzonden: dinsdag 18 september 2012 19:56 Aan: OSM Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel The initial message on the 22 March 2012 and follow-ups pointed to the guidelines ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines ) which include that imports should be done from a dedicated account. Okay, he was contacted. I think another one was previously blocked after an upload. And this threat was discussed on our list. But nobody accepted this requirement of the guidelines (a separate account) since we don't see any reason justifying it in this case (crowdsourced import, sourced, limited, merged, reversible, etc...). It's a question of principle, we cannot accept that all contributors uploading bulidings have this hammer on the head. Because today, it is done after 1 million uploaded objects, tomorrow it will be for a big town and later for 3 small villages and finally all imports will be blocked if it's not a separate account. DWG != OSMF. The DWG is authorized to block accounts by the OSMF. OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots. The uploads we are talking are normally done with JOSM after the integration with the existing data and validation. If it is performed with a script, then it's a bad import done by one of the black sheeps mentionned earlier. We also agree to block such bad imports. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
From: Christian Quest [mailto:cqu...@openstreetmap.fr] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:11 AM To: Frederik Ramm Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance 2012/9/18 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Just to clarify this one point: The user had been contacted by DWG beforehand because he had imported several millions of objects under his account, and asked to continue his work in accordance with the import guidelines, using a separate import account. He ignored that request and was only blocked *after* that. No, this user has originally been contacted because he deleted a large amount of buildings in one town and was suspected of vandalism. It has been confirmed very quickly that it was not vadalism, but an simple update of data in the town. I'm not sure if you're aware of the previous communications with the user, but you seem to be misinformed about the nature them. Messages were sent on September 14th and 13th about the need to use a dedicated account. A previous note was sent in March reminding them in the context of a note about a broken upload of 50k nodes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 18/09/12 at 18:29 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots. I don't think calling people robots is going to contribute to improving the atmosphere. If the cadastre integration was done with scripts, it would be long done, wouldn't it? Maybe a part of problem is that you seem to assume that you are dealing with machines, and not people? Lucas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 18/09/12 at 17:42 +0200, Simon Poole wrote: (yes I have heard all the stories about everything being manually checked etc, if you believe that, I have a couple of bridges that I would like to sell to you). So you are blocking one user because other users working on similar stuff (cadastre integration) did not work correctly? Can you point to such issues caused by the user that was actually blocked? Lucas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
I have seen enough bad imports (and put significant effort into cleaning some of them up) that I like the guidelines and wish more people would follow them. Even if each individual clause may be a slight inconvenience or not entirely necessary for a particular import, I think it is worth having and following them because there seem to be a lot more bad imports than good imports. So while it may be an inconvenience, it is well worth it to have a solid guideline you can point bad importers to. Also, Not all local communities are capable of performing their own quality assurance and monitoring so I think it is ok to have some global oversight on this issue. This may not apply to France but having a dedicated import account still helps the overall process that the DWG goes through. I think Mike of all people should see the value in a dedicated account. My understanding is that he could not agree to the new CT because he imported data that was not ODbL compliant using his personal account and then couldn't easily distinguish between his own edits and the imported data. This led to more license bot damage in Kosovo than would otherwise have been required. Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Am 18.09.2012 18:04, schrieb Christian Quest: We've drifted from a question about governance to a talk about usefulness of some kind of data in OSM which is something completely relative and personal. As I pointed out, usefulness of the data is outside the scope of this discussion. As far as I know, DWG doesn't exist to deal with usefulness of data nor quality of contributions, but copyright infringement, vandalism and disputes. The DWG exists to deal with data of questionable nature, which per definition includes any mass addition of data. IMHO this includes guaranteeing that data is added in such a fashion that it can be reasonable removed if found to be not suitable (which could be for a large number of reasons). Still no answer to my main original questions: - who decided the import guidelines ? - who decided to make the dedicated account mandatory ? As pointed out previously, the more explicit wording was just a clarification of what a reasonable interpretation of the previous text would have resulted in. Wrt the general question of the import guidelines, IMHO this is simply a consequence of the underlying goal of producing a freely usable map of the world. This requires that we have control over and can vet data from third party sources. Naturally there are a number of secondary concerns that are important, like not destroying existing personal contributions, having a local community that actually wants the data and so on, but in the end assuring that the OSM dataset can be distributed with terms solely determined by the OSM community must be the overriding concern . The only other tenable position that supports the primary goal of OSM would be to not allow imports at all. Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Messages were sent on September 14th and 13th about the need to use a dedicated account. A previous note was sent in March reminding them in the context of a note about a broken upload of 50k nodes. And he didn't listen to Big Big Brother who warned him twice... Is this a crowd sourced OPEN project, or a group of sheep contributing to the instructions/commands of OSMF ? -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Verzonden: dinsdag 18 september 2012 20:25 Aan: 'Christian Quest'; 'Frederik Ramm' CC: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance From: Christian Quest [mailto:cqu...@openstreetmap.fr] Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:11 AM To: Frederik Ramm Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance 2012/9/18 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Just to clarify this one point: The user had been contacted by DWG beforehand because he had imported several millions of objects under his account, and asked to continue his work in accordance with the import guidelines, using a separate import account. He ignored that request and was only blocked *after* that. No, this user has originally been contacted because he deleted a large amount of buildings in one town and was suspected of vandalism. It has been confirmed very quickly that it was not vadalism, but an simple update of data in the town. I'm not sure if you're aware of the previous communications with the user, but you seem to be misinformed about the nature them. Messages were sent on September 14th and 13th about the need to use a dedicated account. A previous note was sent in March reminding them in the context of a note about a broken upload of 50k nodes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Pierre And about governance, if this community cannot manage his contributors, who can? We continually have new mappers, some working more or less intensively. We should adapt or organization to this Wikipedia like structure and try to better structure local communities. I certainly agree with the statement, but would strongly lobby against the 'wikipedia' approach to solving the problem. New mappers NEED to be directed to proper guidance on how to provide new data, and I have proposed in the past that new data is ring fenced until a more established mapper can review it, much like we have in hg and git code management. At the very least a 'Do you wish to save this to the main database' warning would be appropriate at times until a new account has established some 'kama' in the data submitted? Importing data from third party sources should be something that does require 'kama' in understanding what one is doing and oversight by others should be added before some automatic processes are applied to the main database. Some better involvement of local groups would be useful here I think? Lester we both agree that a Wikipedia approach is not satisfactory. In France, and I think in UK and Germany too, there are strong local chapters. The discussions on Talk-fr list and the tools such as Osmosis and Cadastre imports, the various projects of this community all show how this community is take this job seriously. To develop dynamic local communities, that monitor and correct data, contact contributors, meet more frequently, we have to empower these communities. This would move away from a Wikipedia model. The DWG group acting as a watch dog is not enough to build a better map. Pierre ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
pb == Pierre Béland infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr writes: pb Simon, this discussion was started to discuss about governance. We pb only see examples of problematic imports. But the question we pb should look at is how we can better tune or multinational / pb multicultural organization to adress these problems. The pb respective roles of local communities and the DWG group have to be pb defined. We should also give tools to the local communities to pb monitor mapping, contact mappers, be able to exchange. And we pb should not only think of national groups. You sometime have groups pb at regional or municipal levels. This issue of governance, the subsidiarity principle, and the manner in which OSMF working groups can help local mapping communities to improve the map is indeed the fundamental issue. DWG members (excepting Frederik) seem to be purposefully ignoring the issue. Please stop doing that. -- Eric Marsden ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Am 18.09.2012 18:54, schrieb Béland Pierre: Is it possible to discuss about governance wich is the subject of this thread? The reason I even touched on this subject is that each time the cadastre imports turn up it is somehow claimed that they are different from other imports and should be held to different standards, when in fact they aren't. AFAIK we do not have the same issue with canvec. Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Hi, On 18.09.2012 20:34, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: So you are blocking one user because other users working on similar stuff (cadastre integration) did not work correctly? The user was not blocked because others did not work correctly. He was blocked - for 24 hours - because he did not adhere to the import policy, was asked to comply, and chose to ignore that. Can you point to such issues caused by the user that was actually blocked? Doing this would only deviate into a discussion about whether or not certain data is good. I continuously read the argument that cadastre imports were not imports per se because it is a careful, small-scale, manual integration and not an import. I am sure there are many users in France doing exactly that - a careful, small-scale, high-quality data integration. Most of them are probably way below the OSMF radar. But if the work of one person surpasses the million-object mark then is that still a small-scale import? How much time does it take to review carefully a million objects? Is it possible that a simple JOSM did not report anything obvious takes the place of the careful review? I am pretty sure that above a certain number, a proper quality review is simply not possible, and it is there that imports start. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Pieren wrote: OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots. The uploads we are talking are normally done with JOSM after the integration with the existing data and validation. If it is performed with a script, then it's a bad import done by one of the black sheeps mentionned earlier. We also agree to block such bad imports. Pieren I think that one of the problems here is that if a large block of data is uploaded in one 'commit' it is difficult to know if it IS a manually edit, or something that has been created automatically off-line, and is being slipped in to bypass the bot rules. If a commit is too big then it is as bad as a bulk upload from one of the bots, or 'import'. Perhaps all that is needed here is that the chunks of data that are being integrated are kept down to a size that makes managing the history a little more manageable? Personally however I can see a commit that wipes out an entire town and then reloads it with new data would be somewhat irritating, and I think that this is what has been happening with the French data? Maintaining the history of the development of the data in an area, while being totally ignored by some users, is as important as simply creating a current map. *I* like to see when a change is made to information on the ground, so loosing that link to previous instances of an object is a problem. This is ONE of my gripes with imports of OS data loosing the 'history' of the previous development of an area but is totally ignored as a valid reason for not 'blanked wiping' an area to allow new data to be uploaded! Merging new imports with existing data is difficult, so tends not to happen, delete and reload is the quick fix but is destroying often valuable data :( -- 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Hi, On 18.09.2012 18:04, Christian Quest wrote: Still no answer to my main original questions: - who decided the import guidelines ? It is a policy that has grown gradually. Just like other things in OSM have - you'll not find anything about a vote for highway=motorway on the Wiki either. - who decided to make the dedicated account mandatory ? We always expected people to set up a dedicated account for large imports and just adapted the wording to make that clearer. In another post, you have complained about the fact that the information is not straightforward, or not easy to find. However, I wish to repeat that nobody went to the offending user saying you didn't read the policy, so we have blocked you and we'll revert your edits. The user was only blocked after being made aware of the policy and then continuing to ignore it. So this is not an issue of an user having difficulties in finding the applicable policy. As a DWG member, I don't expect subservience and I don't run around with guns blazing. But if I tell someone not to do something and they simply ignore me then I will block them in order to be listened to. If the user wants to discuss something with me that's fine but please discuss first, import later. How would you *like* import guidelines to be decided? Do you have any workable concept for that? Because I would really be interested. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Le 18/09/2012 19:29, Grant Slater a écrit : On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel christian.ro...@club-internet.fr wrote: Blocking a very respected contributor without prior discussion is a major fail in the governance of the OSMF. The user was messaged on 3 separate occasions between 22 March 2012 and 14 September 2012, asking for him to use a dedicated import account. Finally a short upload block was placed on his account.(which ended 3 days ago) The initial message on the 22 March 2012 and follow-ups pointed to the guidelines ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines ) which include that imports should be done from a dedicated account. DWG != OSMF. OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots. Regards Grant ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Hi, What make you thing I am a bot? -- Eliza http://nlp-addiction.com/eliza/ :-) I thing the point is not why my account was blocked, but why someone have the right to block an account and whatfor ? The road is the place between the buildings... so I need the buildings : Cadastre data are usefull (fully). All points of the guideline are wrong : no vandalism, no old work destroy, no copyright enf. : no need to revert the Cadastre data anyday, anytime. I accept, and respect all conditions with both my accounts : so what the difference using the first or the second ? In fact DWG people just don't like imports and are jalous of the opendata wind in France. Your anoying ! Regards, -- Marc Sibert mailto:m...@sibert.fr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Frederik Ramm wrote: But if the work of one person surpasses the million-object mark then is that still a small-scale import? How much time does it take to review carefully a million objects? Is it possible that a simple JOSM did not report anything obvious takes the place of the careful review? I am pretty sure that above a certain number, a proper quality review is simply not possible, and it is there that imports start. I KNOW from my own editing that once I have more than a few hundred nodes then I need to commit that change and start a new one. So perhaps what is needed here is some mechanism in the editors to keep the maximum commit down to a certain size? Any 'local import' would be restricted to what is a manageable size once committed? The time warnings should restrict things, but a 'size' limit so that one has to commit once that limit is reached? -- 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Le 18/09/2012 21:38, Frederik Ramm a écrit : Hi, ... But if the work of one person surpasses the million-object mark then is that still a small-scale import? How much time does it take to review carefully a million objects? Is it possible that a simple JOSM did not report anything obvious takes the place of the careful review? I am pretty sure that above a certain number, a proper quality review is simply not possible, and it is there that imports start. How *many* years do I need to produce million-object ? This is definitely not one homogenous import : a town, one month, 3 towns another, 2 month later another : using one account for *many* uploads during *many* years has sens ? Or should I create a new account for each upload, for some easy reverts ? I'm still not agree with this policy : I do not ignore your messages. Bye Frederik Regards, -- Marc Sibert mailto:m...@sibert.fr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Marc Sibert wrote: I thing the point is not why my account was blocked, but why someone have the right to block an account and whatfor ? The road is the place between the buildings... so I need the buildings : Cadastre data are usefull (fully). All points of the guideline are wrong : no vandalism, no old work destroy, no copyright enf. : no need to revert the Cadastre data anyday, anytime. I accept, and respect all conditions with both my accounts : so what the difference using the first or the second ? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13110932 Why was all that old work deleted? That is a good enough reason for my complaining had it been my own work deleted! If you have new more accurate data it needs to be merged with the existing contributions. In fact DWG people just don't like imports and are jalous of the opendata wind in France. Your anoying ! We are protecting other peoples work ... -- 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] JOSM - recovery from failed uploads
On 9/18/2012 1:56 PM, Pieren wrote: The uploads we are talking are normally done with JOSM after the integration with the existing data and validation. How do you recover from a failed JOSM upload when working with large datasets? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012-09-18 Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org I am sure there are many users in France doing exactly that - a careful, small-scale, high-quality data integration. Most of them are probably way below the OSMF radar. But if the work of one person surpasses the million-object mark then is that still a small-scale import? How much time does it take to review carefully a million objects? Is it possible that a simple JOSM did not report anything obvious takes the place of the careful review? I am pretty sure that above a certain number, a proper quality review is simply not possible, and it is there that imports start. Frederic, many national chapters are doing a great job and we have to count on them to organize the mapping community and let it progress.The governance question we should adress is respective responsabilities of local chapters and the DWG group. And obviously, it is quite difficult to have the OSMF groups accept adressing this problem. Pierre De : Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org À : talk@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Mardi 18 septembre 2012 15h38 Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance Hi, On 18.09.2012 20:34, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: So you are blocking one user because other users working on similar stuff (cadastre integration) did not work correctly? The user was not blocked because others did not work correctly. He was blocked - for 24 hours - because he did not adhere to the import policy, was asked to comply, and chose to ignore that. Can you point to such issues caused by the user that was actually blocked? Doing this would only deviate into a discussion about whether or not certain data is good. I continuously read the argument that cadastre imports were not imports per se because it is a careful, small-scale, manual integration and not an import. I am sure there are many users in France doing exactly that - a careful, small-scale, high-quality data integration. Most of them are probably way below the OSMF radar. But if the work of one person surpasses the million-object mark then is that still a small-scale import? How much time does it take to review carefully a million objects? Is it possible that a simple JOSM did not report anything obvious takes the place of the careful review? I am pretty sure that above a certain number, a proper quality review is simply not possible, and it is there that imports start. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: It is a policy that has grown gradually. Just like other things in OSM have - you'll not find anything about a vote for highway=motorway on the Wiki either. Perhaps this policy has reached its limits. And honnestly, you should admit that the import guidelines was set up mainly by people fundamentally against imports in general. But nobody cares about this policy until he is directly concerned. We always expected people to set up a dedicated account for large imports. ../.. The user was only blocked after being made aware of the policy and then continuing to ignore it. It's not ignoring, it's that the group importing this free dataset does not agree with your policy. You, the anti-imports camp, is defining the policy alone ! So please, the DWG, stop claiming that you apply a policy defined by the community. It's a big lie. Say clearly we are against import, we try to refrain them and increase the constraints to limit and possibly forbid imports in the future because each time the policy is modified, it's going to more constraints. But if I tell someone not to do something and they simply ignore me then I will block them in order to be listened to. obey or I block you. Sounds subservience, isn't it ? If the user wants to discuss something with me that's fine but please discuss first, import later. That's why we are coming to this list because it is something beyond Marc Sibert's individual case. We want that the policy is modified one step backward and defines the separate user account as a recommendation, nothing more. How would you *like* import guidelines to be decided? Do you have any workable concept for that? Because I would really be interested. That it is discussed in a wide and public audience like here, not after personal discussions or closed mailing lists and finally a silent change in the wiki. I'm always happy to read comments from the pro-imports camp (or the not against it if is done properly) because sometimes we read the 5 or 8 people complaining against import (always the same) believing that the whole community agrees because they don't get any feedbacks. Now, you get some. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Le 18/09/2012 22:17, Lester Caine a écrit : Marc Sibert wrote: I thing the point is not why my account was blocked, but why someone have the right to block an account and whatfor ? The road is the place between the buildings... so I need the buildings : Cadastre data are usefull (fully). All points of the guideline are wrong : no vandalism, no old work destroy, no copyright enf. : no need to revert the Cadastre data anyday, anytime. I accept, and respect all conditions with both my accounts : so what the difference using the first or the second ? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13110932 Why was all that old work deleted? That is a good enough reason for my complaining had it been my own work deleted! If you have new more accurate data it needs to be merged with the existing contributions. The data import was from 2010 and was visualy partial : many building were incomplet, so I remove *all* old building ways and replace them by the 2012 version of Cadastre (people ar building new houses or modifying them time to time). It was easier to remove all and produce a new import than testing manualy (I'm not a bot) each building. I think (hope) I succeed in that update. In fact DWG people just don't like imports and are jalous of the opendata wind in France. Your anoying ! We are protecting other peoples work ... Again, I'm not a vandal : I do not detroy any work (and nobody complains about that), I just update data (replace), that is not the point why my account was blocked ! So, what have you done in my case ? Regards, -- Marc Sibert mailto:m...@sibert.fr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Marc Sibert m...@sibert.fr wrote: I'm still not agree with this policy : I do not ignore your messages. You don't agree? You created your import account, I think? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 09/18/2012 08:36 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 18/09/12 at 18:29 +0100, Grant Slater wrote: OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots. I don't think calling people robots is going to contribute to improving the atmosphere. If the cadastre integration was done with scripts, it would be long done, wouldn't it? Maybe a part of problem is that you seem to assume that you are dealing with machines, and not people? Maybe a demo would be useful, so that non-French people can understand what sort of work is involved in working on the basis of cadastral data to produce useful OSM contributions. Indeed it is far from automated. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: You don't agree? You created your import account, I think? After a block !? Wow, what a victory ! Who is next ? Marc needed an access to the database because he is uploading surveyed data collected remotely by another person (a biker). How can you convince us in this way ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 09/18/2012 05:42 PM, Simon Poole wrote: The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase the usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines without addresses just don't really help with anything) Building outlines are an essential component of topographical maps, which have all sorts of uses. Buildings are an essential feature of flight simulator scenery that does not look dead. Building outlines help in identifying the position of localities. Even if you believe that OSM is only about roads, building outlines help in pointing to where ways may be missing. And I'm sure I have missed many other uses. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Le 18/09/2012 22:56, Richard Weait a écrit : On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Marc Sibert m...@sibert.fr wrote: I'm still not agree with this policy : I do not ignore your messages. You don't agree? You created your import account, I think? LOL ! yes I need to continue to contribute (adict ?) But we all start to discuss. Regards, -- Marc Sibert mailto:m...@sibert.fr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Marc Sibert wrote: Again, I'm not a vandal : I do not detroy any work (and nobody complains about that), I just update data (replace), that is not the point why my account was blocked ! So, what have you done in my case ? It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is one of the major complaints about this type of import process. The EXISTING data has been destroyed, and that is historic data that is now lost. When a new import comes out will you again destroy this one and upload the new one? If some one has gone through and added all the missing address and other details how will you link that to the new import? Are you sure that no one has added some extra data which has been delete this time? What is missing with this type of import is any mechanism to link to the past history and THAT is my complaint and one of the points of the guide line - you have destroyed data - just as you have with other edits you have done where you have deleted objects with several years history and replaced them with a new object. What we need in order to PROPERLY import this data is a unique ID for each element in the source data that is maintained by the originator of the data, so that when an 'update' arrives, the new data can be correctly matched to that already contained in the OSM database. OK I know there are a lot of people who thing that think that the history has no place in the database, but in 50 years time it would be nice to back to 2010 and see what buildings existed, and what buildings were added by 2012. The information WAS in the database last month and isn't now :( So with regards the 'import guidelines' do you still think you have complied with them? In some peoples eyes you probably have, but in others some useful historic data has been lost. I'm in the second camp ... -- 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Eric Marsden eric.mars...@free.fr wrote: - Openness/transparency. OSMF working groups are notoriously opaque, though some have improved over the last year by posting open minutes of meetings (which requires significant effort and which I applaud). Some of the technical measures implemented by OSMF are well designed in this regard; for example, it is possible for everyone to see the message posted by an admin justifying an account block. But historical information such as the number of blocks imposed per week are missing AFAICT (allows people to monitor for admin abuse). http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Marc, On 18.09.2012 21:53, Marc Sibert wrote: I thing the point is not why my account was blocked, but why someone have the right to block an account and whatfor ? I think that we need import guidelines, and we need people who can block those who don't follow the guidelines, otherwise having guidelines doesn't make sense. Many reasons have been given in support of the separate account rule in the guidelines already. But let me add one more thing: Others have said that you are a respected and well known mapper in France. If that's true, then I think that you should lead by example. Even if you feel that in your particular case you don't need a separate account - create one anyway, because others will follow your example, and if the message you send to new mappers in France is don't bother about those silly policies then we'll have people violating *other* aspects of the policy - even those you would agree with! - in no time. Just like a professional pilot with thousands of flying hours' experience will still execute all procedures by the book instead of taking shortcuts that his experience would allow him to, a long-time respected mapper should also play by the book and be a good example to others. In fact DWG people just don't like imports and are jalous of the opendata wind in France. Your anoying ! The amount of open geodata in the world is several orders of magnitude more than what we have in OSM. Decisions need to be made about which parts of that are worth importing; import everything and OSM comes to a grinding halt. DWG does not have an imports are bad policy but if it were for me, personally, I would require from every importer an analysis about how the import does not only make the *map* better, but also makes the *community* better. Imports to help the community would be acceptable; imports instead of community would not. Today, France has 50% more data in OSM than Germany. I am not jealous of that. I would be jealous if France had 50% more mappers and I sincerely hope that the French community can find ways to engage more people to help. But for all its data glory, the number of people who have made more than 100 edits this year in France is about 3000, and the same number in Germany is about 6000. This means - very roughly of course - that the average French OSMer must keep three times as much data current as the average German mapper. And you can't do that with imports forever - there comes a time when you'll have to switch to maintenance mode. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Le 18/09/2012 21:13, Simon Poole a écrit : Am 18.09.2012 18:54, schrieb Béland Pierre: Is it possible to discuss about governance wich is the subject of this thread? The reason I even touched on this subject is that each time the cadastre imports turn up it is somehow claimed that they are different from other imports and should be held to different standards, when in fact they aren't. I simply don't agree. Integration of building from the French cadastre is different that the work we made, for example, with Corine Land Cover data, with BMO data... http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2012-May/043349.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2012-May/043885.html (sorry, in French. If there is some body to translate...) But maybe my ominion is without importance. AFAIK we do not have the same issue with canvec. Simon Sorry also to see that to subject of the thread can't be understood by some people. Is that so impossible to say : OK, we have understood the question of the governance, and we will speak about the next time at the OSMF and we will keep you informed ? Amazing ! -- Vincent aka FrViPofm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Le 18/09/2012 23:24, Lester Caine a écrit : Marc Sibert wrote: Again, I'm not a vandal : I do not detroy any work (and nobody complains about that), I just update data (replace), that is not the point why my account was blocked ! So, what have you done in my case ? It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is one of the major complaints about this type of import process. STOP ! I do not read you after this sentence (I will do it after writing this answer). The point is MY import ! Please answer the precise point ! Please, do not digrate and generalize. Why do someone block my account : please I need a real answer ? Are you saying your radar ring an alarm and you block me without cheking ? As a robot ? Without using your brain ? This is not an opinion : I select specificaly the old buildings (untouched since the first import in 2010) using JOSM search tool, then importing a new set of data, then undouble and check using the validator ! I spent more than 2 (two) days of work in order to produce that work ! I'm not a newbe discovering JOSM OSM. Of course, like everyone I could have done errors, but I do (more than) my best. And again nobody complains about vandalism or destroying data : that's not the point ! Regards, -- Marc Sibert mailto:m...@sibert.fr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012-09-18 Toby Murray toby.murray at gmail.com - Openness/transparency. OSMF working groups are notoriously opaque, though some have improved over the last year by posting open minutes of meetings (which requires significant effort and which I applaud). Some of the technical measures implemented by OSMF are well designed in this regard; for example, it is possible for everyone to see the message posted by an admin justifying an account block. But historical information such as the number of blocks imposed per week are missing AFAICT (allows people to monitor for admin abuse). http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks Toby you have a nice list to start talking about governance, about respective role of local community. I would like the Quebec province in Canada to be better organized, to know the mappers in the province and have the possibility to contact them other then from the Talk-ca list, to know those that have problematic changesetes, to know those that are being blocked. Would this User Blocks list help me? Surely not. Any suggestion on how to better organize, to have mappers progress and have the feeling they are in an organization where their work counts? Do you suggest me that we should only let the DWG group ban some mappers and let the others do anything without an organization trying to imporve the map? Pierre De : Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com À : talk@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Mardi 18 septembre 2012 17h28 Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Eric Marsden eric.mars...@free.fr wrote: - Openness/transparency. OSMF working groups are notoriously opaque, though some have improved over the last year by posting open minutes of meetings (which requires significant effort and which I applaud). Some of the technical measures implemented by OSMF are well designed in this regard; for example, it is possible for everyone to see the message posted by an admin justifying an account block. But historical information such as the number of blocks imposed per week are missing AFAICT (allows people to monitor for admin abuse). http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Marc Sibert wrote: It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is one of the major complaints about this type of import process. STOP ! I do not read you after this sentence (I will do it after writing this answer). Now that you have read the rest of the message what is your answer? I have nothing to do with DWG but I support their action simply because this needs to be sorted properly, and as far as *I* am concerned it hasn't been. What is missing is LINKING to the existing imported data rather than unilaterally deciding it can be destroyed ... did you discuss destroying it with anybody? This is not an opinion : I select specificaly the old buildings (untouched since the first import in 2010) using JOSM search tool, then importing a new set of data, then undouble and check using the validator ! I spent more than 2 (two) days of work in order to produce that work ! I'm not a newbe discovering JOSM OSM. Of course, like everyone I could have done errors, but I do (more than) my best. And again nobody complains about vandalism or destroying data : that's not the point ! And another 'request' is that changes are committed every 30 minutes or so, not after 2 days work. The CORRECT procedure would have been to take a block of buildings at a time. If you have to delete the existing data then at least it's more easily linked to the new smaller import. -- 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Le 18/09/2012 23:24, Lester Caine a écrit : Marc Sibert wrote: Again, I'm not a vandal : I do not detroy any work (and nobody complains about that), I just update data (replace), that is not the point why my account was blocked ! So, what have you done in my case ? It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is one of the major complaints about this type of import process. The EXISTING data has been destroyed, and that is historic data that is now lost. When a new import comes out will you again destroy this one and upload the new one? If some one has gone through and added all the missing address and other details how will you link that to the new import? Are you sure that no one has added some extra data which has been delete this time? I respond the point in my previous message. What is missing with this type of import is any mechanism to link to the past history and THAT is my complaint and one of the points of the guide line - you have destroyed data - just as you have with other edits you have done where you have deleted objects with several years history and replaced them with a new object. I remember a few months before, I use to destroy way and *replace* them with brand new nodes data in order to pass thru the redaction bot, and you are saying history is important ? LOLOLOLOLOL ! What we need in order to PROPERLY import this data is a unique ID for each element in the source data that is maintained by the originator of the data, so that when an 'update' arrives, the new data can be correctly matched to that already contained in the OSM database. Uniq ID ? LOLOLOL again ! Tell me what appends when I cut a way in 2 peaces : a part keep the old ID and the other get a new one without *any* link with the previous one. In fact, do you ever contribute ? Do you realy know how OSM (and primary keys) works ? (just kidding). By the way history is still in diff files. All your arguments are sensless ! ... So with regards the 'import guidelines' do you still think you have complied with them? In some peoples eyes you probably have, but in others some useful historic data has been lost. I'm in the second camp ... Please explain me what the guidelines are protecting from : in *my* (and no other) case I have still no answer. So I still do not consider guidelines. Same player, try again... Regards, -- Marc Sibert mailto:m...@sibert.fr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM - recovery from failed uploads
Save the current data to save the id of the objects that have been sucessfully uploaded. Then you'll be able to go on without creating objets twice... I never had any problem even with gigantic uploads. 2012/9/18 Mike N nice...@att.net On 9/18/2012 1:56 PM, Pieren wrote: The uploads we are talking are normally done with JOSM after the integration with the existing data and validation. How do you recover from a failed JOSM upload when working with large datasets? __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France - http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquesthttp://openstreetmap.fr/u/christian-quest ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Le 18/09/2012 23:31, Frederik Ramm a écrit : Today, France has 50% more data in OSM than Germany. I am not jealous of that. I would be jealous if France had 50% more mappers and I sincerely hope that the French community can find ways to engage more people to help. But for all its data glory, the number of people who have made more than 100 edits this year in France is about 3000, and the same number in Germany is about 6000. This means - very roughly of course - that the average French OSMer must keep three times as much data current as the average German mapper. And you can't do that with imports forever - there comes a time when you'll have to switch to maintenance mode. Bye Frederik http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2012-September/047209.html (Sorry, in French) Modified nodes De : 47 555 Fr: 106 606 maintenance mode Maybe it is started... -- FrViPofm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Le 19/09/2012 00:01, Lester Caine a écrit : Marc Sibert wrote: It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is one of the major complaints about this type of import process. STOP ! I do not read you after this sentence (I will do it after writing this answer). Now that you have read the rest of the message what is your answer? I have nothing to do with DWG but I support their action simply because this needs to be sorted properly, and as far as *I* am concerned it hasn't been. What is missing is LINKING to the existing imported data rather than unilaterally deciding it can be destroyed ... did you discuss destroying it with anybody? This is not an opinion : I select specificaly the old buildings (untouched since the first import in 2010) using JOSM search tool, then importing a new set of data, then undouble and check using the validator ! I spent more than 2 (two) days of work in order to produce that work ! I'm not a newbe discovering JOSM OSM. Of course, like everyone I could have done errors, but I do (more than) my best. And again nobody complains about vandalism or destroying data : that's not the point ! And another 'request' is that changes are committed every 30 minutes or so, not after 2 days work. The CORRECT procedure would have been to take a block of buildings at a time. If you have to delete the existing data then at least it's more easily linked to the new smaller import. Easy : I worked 2 days with JOSM offline : have a look to thoses changsets, they belong to the same set of work (in fact I proced in the wrong order : add new data, then remove old ones) #13110932 vendredi 14 septembre 2012 22:06 Réfection du bâti de Montlouis sur Loire - DataCleanUp #13103866 vendredi 14 septembre 2012 08:55 Datacleanup - Montlouis sur Loire #13101791 jeudi 13 septembre 2012 23:19 Réfection du bâti de Montlouis sur Loire #13101128 jeudi 13 septembre 2012 23:14 Réfection du bâti de Montlouis sur Loire Later I will check http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/map/?zoom=14lat=47.38974lon=0.8164 to see if other errors apear (not a vandal, do I precise it before ?) Regards, -- Marc Sibert mailto:m...@sibert.fr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Le 19/09/2012 00:14, Vincent Pottier a écrit : Modified nodes De : ... Fr: ... @Frederic, I was not to play a match againts Germany... but I found a way to tell that French contributors don't do only importing buildings. And I hope we would have a wide community, but we already have a strong one (becoming stronger with the Cadastre story !), and increasing those last months. And I think that the import we made (CLC, BMO...) did not stop newcomers, but put them at ease to start mapping, not in a desert. -- FrViPofm ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Announcement: Voting ongoing for proposed access tagging Conditional restrictions
Dear List,
{This is a cross post - please reply to the tagging mailing list or the
proposals [2] talk page. Please forward to local mailing lists as
appropriate }
- - - Announcement - - -
Several attempts have in the past been made to develop a tagging scheme
that is capable of handling the more complex access restrictions (e.g. No
motor vehicles between 10am and 6pm except vehicles less than 5 meters
[1]). Voting has started on the latest proposal [2]. Due to the wide reach
of this proposal, I am announcing it here and encouraging users to
carefully consider the proposal and vote.
To help, I have summarised the alternate proposals (in alphabetic order and
including this one) [3]. Note that not all of these are in active
development. I have also attempted to write the case for and case against
this proposal.
As a reminder of terminology, a Tag consists of 'Key' and a 'Value' pair
(key=value). For example maxspeed=80.
- - - Case For - - -
Extract by the proposal author from the proposal's wiki page [2]:
//start quote// This proposal overcomes some objections to previous
attempts at tagging conditional restrictions.
* No variable parts in the key. This is essential as keys are used to
search for data in the OSM database. If a key comprises a variable part it
can no longer be retrieved during search unless you know the exact
condition you are looking for (database searches do not allow wildcards in
search keys). Variable parts in keys will also lead to an undesired
proliferation of unique keys.
* Avoids the requirement for problematic characters in the key such as
or
* Clear distinction between scope (transportation mode, vehicle class) and
condition.
* Possibility to combine conditions using operators.
* The conditional restriction can be defined as a single tag. Some prior
proposals required multiple tags such as hour_on and hour_off tags. For
objects having multiple restrictions this could lead to problems (which
tags belong to which restriction?)
* The syntax of the key is essentially identical to the established access
key syntax with an additional qualifier :conditional.
* Backward compatible. Doesn't break any established tagging schemes.
//end quote//
- - - Case Against - - -
Extracts from those who have currently (18/09/2012) voted against the
proposal:
//start quotes//
* Breaks a lot of tags which came natural to the mappers, e.g.
maxspeed:wet=80 becomes maxspeed:conditional=80 @ wet, access:disabled=yes
becomes access:conditional=yes @ disabled, …
* Creates arbitrary distinctions: depending on whether something is defined
to be a transportation mode or a condition, it belongs either in the key or
in the value, e.g. hgv is a transportation mode, but hazmat is a
condition
* Has bad editor support: adding a conditional restriction like speed
limited to 80 when wet to a set of ways is quite complicated if there are
already different restrictions on those ways; merging :conditional tags in
JOSM by default produces a value that is completely wrong, yet cannot be
identified as wrong.
* It's to difficult for users, not intuitive. There are too many subkeys
and subvalues. I think value with logic instruction (AND) (and maybe
special/new signs (@)) are not good tagging rules.
//end quotes//
- - - How to Vote - - -
0. Take a moment to conside the pros/cons and their relative importance /
how would you do it differently?
1. Log-in to OSM wiki (as far as I know this is not your usual OSM
username/password.
2. Navigate to the proposal page [2]
3. Click edit (to the right of the Voting heading
4. Add {{vote|yes}} -- or {{vote|no}} -- after the existing
votes.
Kind Regards,
RobJN
[1] Example Signpost:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Length_and_time_restriction_2.jpg
[2] The Proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditional_restrictions
[3] Summary of alternate proposals:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Advanced_access_tags
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012/9/18 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org Hi, On 18.09.2012 18:04, Christian Quest wrote: Still no answer to my main original questions: - who decided the import guidelines ? It is a policy that has grown gradually. Just like other things in OSM have - you'll not find anything about a vote for highway=motorway on the Wiki either. So who decided the last step to switch from a recommantation about the dedicated account to a requirement ? Just Richard who edited the wiki page ? - who decided to make the dedicated account mandatory ? We always expected people to set up a dedicated account for large imports and just adapted the wording to make that clearer. Who is we ? DWG ? In the first version of the guideline, there was nothing about a dedicated account, then it was recommended but absolutely not mandatory, then it became mandatory... it has not always been required and the wording did not make things clearer but changed something optional to something mandatory. I'm still looking for who discussed this and where ? Any minutes ? Archives ? For me a mandatory rule on which someone bases a block decision must be something decided publicly and shared with the community, and clearly published/announced... and none of these has taken place here. In another post, you have complained about the fact that the information is not straightforward, or not easy to find. However, I wish to repeat that nobody went to the offending user saying you didn't read the policy, so we have blocked you and we'll revert your edits. The user was only blocked after being made aware of the policy and then continuing to ignore it. So this is not an issue of an user having difficulties in finding the applicable policy. As a DWG member, I don't expect subservience and I don't run around with guns blazing. But if I tell someone not to do something and they simply ignore me then I will block them in order to be listened to. If the user wants to discuss something with me that's fine but please discuss first, import later. How would you *like* import guidelines to be decided? Do you have any workable concept for that? Because I would really be interested. I would definitely like them to be discussed prior to be changed on the wiki and used to block users. The talk on the wiki does not explain the change, and up to now nobody has been able to explain the process that lead to something optional becoming mandatory. I didn't know about this change until I re-read the wiki page after Marc being blocked. I would not be surprised he was not aware of the now mandatory account that was optional for so long in the guidelines. BTW, still applying to join DWG to deal with issues in France... -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France - http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquesthttp://openstreetmap.fr/u/christian-quest ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Marc Sibert wrote: Le 18/09/2012 23:24, Lester Caine a écrit : Marc Sibert wrote: Again, I'm not a vandal : I do not detroy any work (and nobody complains about that), I just update data (replace), that is not the point why my account was blocked ! So, what have you done in my case ? It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is one of the major complaints about this type of import process. The EXISTING data has been destroyed, and that is historic data that is now lost. When a new import comes out will you again destroy this one and upload the new one? If some one has gone through and added all the missing address and other details how will you link that to the new import? Are you sure that no one has added some extra data which has been delete this time? I respond the point in my previous message. What is missing with this type of import is any mechanism to link to the past history and THAT is my complaint and one of the points of the guide line - you have destroyed data - just as you have with other edits you have done where you have deleted objects with several years history and replaced them with a new object. I remember a few months before, I use to destroy way and *replace* them with brand new nodes data in order to pass thru the redaction bot, and you are saying history is important ? LOLOLOLOLOL ! That was a problem for material in the UK as well, but the replacement data is of a much higher quality then before. What we need in order to PROPERLY import this data is a unique ID for each element in the source data that is maintained by the originator of the data, so that when an 'update' arrives, the new data can be correctly matched to that already contained in the OSM database. Uniq ID ? LOLOLOL again ! Tell me what appends when I cut a way in 2 peaces : a part keep the old ID and the other get a new one without *any* link with the previous one. In fact, do you ever contribute ? Do you realy know how OSM (and primary keys) works ? (just kidding). By the way history is still in diff files. Well I took the trouble to look you up ... so you can see my history and look me up in the lists. All your arguments are sensless ! Why? This is an area where there HAS NOT been any agreement other than the history WILL currently be maintained in the database. My question still remains - what happens when the data is next updated - will you delete everything again? So with regards the 'import guidelines' do you still think you have complied with them? In some peoples eyes you probably have, but in others some useful historic data has been lost. I'm in the second camp ... Please explain me what the guidelines are protecting from : in *my* (and no other) case I have still no answer. So I still do not consider guidelines. Same player, try again... A mass delete of data without a proper comment triggered a response that something bad was happening. An explanation that this was a replacement for an import would have been flagged if the action was from an account that was FLAGGED as doing imports, but since it was not ... any more changes need to be stopped until the matter is sorted. PERSONALLY I would like to see the buildings that were present in 2010 still flagged as such in the database and that is my gripe with the lacks way the guide lines are written, but we DO still need to properly manage every import that is going to be updated at regular intervals so that YOU do not have to manually check every building every time! -- 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: This is an area where there HAS NOT been any agreement other than the history WILL currently be maintained in the database. My question still remains - what happens when the data is next updated - will you delete everything again? What Marc did not explain here is that this particular changeset was the result of an accident during his working session on JOSM for this municipality. He explained that on the French mailing list (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2012-September/047673.html). His first intention was not to delete the previous building import (2010). He downloaded it on JOSM and started to merge it with the 2012 new dataset but on a separate JOSM layer. He simply made a mistake and started uploadling the wrong layer without merging the two JOSM layers first (don't ask me the details). Finally, he decided that the best solution to clean-up the mess was to delete the previous buildings dataset and import the new one. But again, his first intention was to upload the delta only. The one who never made a mistake in JOSM can be the first to throw a stone. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Am 18.09.2012 18:24, schrieb Richard Weait: The one account involved started this little thread was asked to use an import account three times. Then they created their import account. I just can second Richard and Grant: if a person is contacted three times by any working group and seems not at all to have reacted on their message a three day short block of the account seems to me as a fine and fair method of gaining some attention. So please cool down. A general statement on the use of a seperate account for bot and imports: this was discussed years ago. And for my understanding the majority of the community agreed on it within the given discussions. As other stated: while the licence change process we very much learned that seperate accounts are a really good idea. So maybe it was not written down in some guidelines, but since years the imports/bots = seperate account rule is present and mainly accepted and respected in the worldwide community. The change of the guidelines therefor is only a writing down of the practice used sind long term. Best regards, Michael. PS: I'm not member of any working group, just writing his personal opinion as a long term member of the OSM community (since 2006/2007) and reader of multiple OSM mailing lists (10) since years. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 18/09/12 20:58, Eric Marsden wrote: - Openness/transparency. OSMF working groups are notoriously opaque, though some have improved over the last year by posting open minutes of meetings (which requires significant effort and which I applaud). Some of the technical measures implemented by OSMF are well designed in this regard; for example, it is possible for everyone to see the message posted by an admin justifying an account block. But historical information such as the number of blocks imposed per week are missing AFAICT (allows people to monitor for admin abuse). It should be pretty obvious from browsing the block list: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks the first page of 20 entries normally covers at least a few weeks. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Huge Berlin map - OSM?
Gregory schrieb am 18.09.2012 15:05: Ah they are great videos Alex. So can you confirm what source map they used? I don't know the source. Don't you have trap streets in OSM? So maybe we can find out :) Alex ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Le 18/09/2012 23:31, Frederik Ramm a écrit : Marc, On 18.09.2012 21:53, Marc Sibert wrote: I thing the point is not why my account was blocked, but why someone have the right to block an account and whatfor ? I think that we need import guidelines, and we need people who can block those who don't follow the guidelines, otherwise having guidelines doesn't make sense. On that particuliar point you are right : rules have to be followed to maintain the community, or else man will loose his head / on lui coupera la tête. Many reasons have been given in support of the separate account rule in the guidelines already. But let me add one more thing: None of these reasons apply to Cadastre uploads (previously discussed)... that only my point of view (not only mine in fact). Others have said that you are a respected and well known mapper in France. If that's true, then I think that you should lead by example. Even if you feel that in your particular case you don't need a separate account - create one anyway, because others will follow your example, and if the message you send to new mappers in France is don't bother about those silly policies then we'll have people violating *other* aspects of the policy - even those you would agree with! - in no time. Just like a professional pilot with thousands of flying hours' experience will still execute all procedures by the book instead of taking shortcuts that his experience would allow him to, a long-time respected mapper should also play by the book and be a good example to others. Some time rules have to be breaked and changed because the field shows there limits. I would not lead to the wrong direction (to my mind). I do not simply bother, but I think the policies *are* stupid in the Cadastre case. Now, we are arguing, discussing... I win :-) Next step, we will change the rule. I am french (latin ?), I used to discuss orders ! In fact DWG people just don't like imports and are jalous of the opendata wind in France. Your anoying ! The amount of open geodata in the world is several orders of magnitude more than what we have in OSM. Decisions need to be made about which parts of that are worth importing; import everything and OSM comes to a grinding halt. Again, I follow you on that point. And in all that data, I choose French Cadastre (only buildings layer) DWG does not have an imports are bad policy but if it were for me, personally, I would require from every importer an analysis about how the import does not only make the *map* better, but also makes the *community* better. Imports to help the community would be acceptable; imports instead of community would not. I have the opposite point of view : The object of OSM is to be complete and usefull (full of good data), not to contribute endless. So first, import automaticaly and then correct with humain brain. Of course I learned that this extrem PoV is not available... also in french community. Still, data are for computers, not for humans ! Today, France has 50% more data in OSM than Germany. I am not jealous of that. I would be jealous if France had 50% more mappers and I sincerely hope that the French community can find ways to engage more people to help. But for all its data glory, the number of people who have made more than 100 edits this year in France is about 3000, and the same number in Germany is about 6000. This means - very roughly of course - that the average French OSMer must keep three times as much data current as the average German mapper. And you can't do that with imports forever - there comes a time when you'll have to switch to maintenance mode. Bye Frederik Humm you seem to like numbers. Personal contributions are too slow. Demo : In France we have about 36000 municipalities. Has you wrote, there is about 1000 (up to 3000) active contributors in the country. I needed 3 months to cover my (small - 7000 inhabitants) village (without buildings). So we need about 36 * 3 = 108 months = 9 years. That's why we need of help of the machines... asta la vista, baby ! My pleasure to read you. -- Marc Sibert mailto:m...@sibert.fr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 18.09.2012 15:42, Pieren wrote: The user had been contacted by DWG beforehand because he had imported several millions of objects under his account, Sounds as a mass, uncontrolled import but is not. Didn't you read what Frederik and others wrote? This user is very active and well known in the French community and nobody came to us complaining about the quality of his imports. The user was contacted, he didn't react as I understood. There for he was short time blocked. That's a very fair and fine reaction from the DWG. The user was not banned or something, just blocked for short time to gain his attention. And: why should the DWG contact the french community at first? The user being is the contacted, which is sufficient accoording to my understanding. If the user likes it he can involve the community. But that's not the job ob the DWG. And I even would avoid to do so for privacy reasons. Best regards, Michael. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 18.09.2012 20:56, Gert Gremmen wrote: [...] Plonk! Sorry, Michael. :-( ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 09/19/2012 02:23 AM, Michael Kugelmann wrote: And: why should the DWG contact the french community at first ? To gain a better understanding of local practices that look dodgy from the DWG's point of view but may actually be the result of local consensus grounded in years of debate and experience with that specific data source ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote: On 09/19/2012 02:23 AM, Michael Kugelmann wrote: And: why should the DWG contact the french community at first ? To gain a better understanding of local practices that look dodgy from the DWG's point of view but may actually be the result of local consensus grounded in years of debate and experience with that specific data source ? OR... The import could be done with a dedicated account which has a brief explanation in the account description that links to the wiki page about the import and a mailing list archive where it has been discussed among the local community. Then the DWG can see immediately that the local community is behind it. Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
I really don't like the attitude expressed by several people here in response to this subject and which is already contained in the subject itself OSMF/DWG governance. Governance. There's no governance. DWG is a group and everybody is free to join it. The job is voluntary and unpaid. Being just a mapper I'm more than happy that there are skilled people who help OSMF and the administrators to keep the system running which I gladly can use for free. And if they would contact me and tell me that I'm doing something which is not good for the system or might even cause problems I would say thank you and be happy to follow their advice. I can map but I'm no OSM system expert and I'm very interested that the system keeps running as good as it does. If I travel in a foreign country problems arising from not speaking the local language are for sure not to blame to the local people. And if I join an international community problems arising from being unable to communicate in the language of the community are for sure not to blame to the community. In both cases it's my decision and therefore my problem. DWG and administrators, thank you very much for doing this voluntary and unpaid job. Keep on going and don't' get disappointed by people with inappropriate attitude for community work. They are the minority. Willi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 18/09/12 at 20:51 +0100, Lester Caine wrote: I think that one of the problems here is that if a large block of data is uploaded in one 'commit' it is difficult to know if it IS a manually edit, or something that has been created automatically off-line, and is being slipped in to bypass the bot rules. I don't buy that argument. I think that what matters is that changesets/commits are logically split, not split just to keep them below some size limit and avoid raising eyebrows. When integrating cadastre data, contributors work on a /commune/ by /commune/ basis (a /commune/ is an administrative division, basically similar to a city). Why should contributors have to artificially split a commune into several changesets? It's much more convenient to process the whole commune at once. Alternatively, if this was software development, what should probably be done is: 1. commit the raw conversion for the vectorized cadastre, before the cleanup 2. clean up and upload modified buildings after the cleanup 3. add roads, etc. and upload That would split the integration of a commune's cadastre, into several logical commits, but I suspect that this would raise even more eyebrows due to the nature of the first commit. Or are you suggesting that the first commit should be made with a separate account, but the two following commits should be done with a normal account? That would generate many more changes, as many buildings need to be fixed. Lucas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Toby Murray wrote: On 09/19/2012 02:23 AM, Michael Kugelmann wrote: And: why should the DWG contact the french community at first ? To gain a better understanding of local practices that look dodgy from the DWG's point of view but may actually be the result of local consensus grounded in years of debate and experience with that specific data source ? OR... The import could be done with a dedicated account which has a brief explanation in the account description that links to the wiki page about the import and a mailing list archive where it has been discussed among the local community. Then the DWG can see immediately that the local community is behind it. Which is where the guide lines have come from, but I will accept that they are not as well documented as they could be, and they are probably even less well translated into other languages? But see my other post in a bit ... -- 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 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk-nl] Fwd: Gebruikersvoorwaarden BAG niet meer van toepassing
Hi talk-nl, onderstaande ontving ik als afnemer van de BAG. Misschien interessant voor wie wat met BAG data wil doen in het kader van OSM? (Ik heb geen idee of die discussie nog wordt gevoerd.) Groet, Martijn -- Forwarded message -- From: b...@kadaster.nl Date: 2012/9/18 Subject: Gebruikersvoorwaarden BAG niet meer van toepassing To: b...@kadaster.nl Geachte heer, mevrouw, Het ministerie van IenM heeft een open databeleid. Daarom vindt het ministerie het belangrijk dat wij de gegevens uit de Landelijke Voorziening Basisregistraties Adressen en Gebouwen (BAG LV) zonder voorwaarden leveren aan de gebruikers. Toen u zich aanmeldde voor het gebruik van gegevens uit de BAG LV, hebt u bepaalde voorwaarden geaccepteerd. Die vervallen bij deze. Wij vertrouwen erop u hiermee voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd. Met vriendelijk groet, Kadaster. W: http://kadaster.nl/bag E: b...@kadaster.nl T: 088-1833400 -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
