Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

[Mikel Maron]

Hey all -- how about going easier here and helping each other. Rather than 
condemnation over a relatively minor decision of which platform to use for a 
survey. 

I think suggestion for another platform is easy enough to consider and remedy. 
OSMF has used limesurvey in the past, it can be looked at here.
-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:56:22 AM EDT, Sören Reinecke  
wrote: 





I am impressed that some of you always choose the path to complain about things 
going against their own world view rather to provide useful suggestion / 
realistic alternatives or even better getting involved in the implementation as 
developers do. Google or Microsoft are unfortunately the choice of many 
non-technical users because it is what they know, feel comfortable with and is 
most of the time easy to use. Only few OSS projects come near their level (the 
good ones like Linux).

So please stop complaining about when someone does not share your ideologic 
attitude. And wanting to use OSS only is a ideology. In this case privacy is 
not even a concern. So please stop polluting email threads with unnecessary 
replies.

For myself I can say that I don't like the giants too but I use what the most 
know and what is an established standard like POSIX or GDrive. I even 
administrate a Google Workspace subscription althought I do not like it because 
Google Workspace has way too limited administration options and a questionable 
permission system in GDrive.

The argumentation of "restricted internet access" is a weak one in an online 
project like OpenStreetMap.


Maybe I get a warning for saying this. But I got banned from tagging already 
because I brought up an important topic three times prior warning not to do 
that so nothing to loose here :)

Sören

Apr 28, 2023 16:27:41 Andy Townsend :

> On 28/04/2023 14:57, Marc_marc wrote:
>> part of the active opendata community
>> does not wish to ally a closeddata based enterprise
> 
> It's actually worse than that.
> 
> OpenStreetMap has mappers all around the world.  Some of those places don't 
> have the virtually unrestricted Internet access that people in the west may 
> be accustomed to, and I wouldn't assume that a website of a major American 
> company (Google) is available in all those places.  Previously the Board and 
> other OSMF working groups have taken care to ensure that everyone can 
> contribute to surveys like this.  Of all people, I'd have expected the 
> Communication Working Group to be aware of this potential issue and to have 
> taken steps to ensure that it wasn't one.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy
> 
> (writing in a personal capacity rather than as a member of the DWG)
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

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

[OSM-talk] consultation on list moderation

[Mikel Maron]

Hello talk
I'm writing on behalf of the OSMF Board to solicit feedback on moderation of 
the talk and osmf-talk mailing lists since May 2022. 
In May 2022, the OSMF Board approved moderation on the osmf-talk and talk 
mailing lists. And we set a timeline of 8 months for a consultation with the 
lists, to inform a further vote on continuing 
moderation.https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2022-05#Vote_on_main_motion:_approval_of_moderators_for_talk_and_osmf-talk_mailing_lists_and_text_as_provided_by_Mikel_-_Approved
Please share viewpoints here, or if you prefer directly with 
bo...@osmfoundation.org. We will consult over the next two weeks until February 
23, and then discuss at the next Board meeting on that date.
Thanks-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Diversity-talk] Etiquette Guidelines bad | Re: Code of conduct

[Mikel Maron]

Yes. And in case you haven’t seen, the board has asked the lccwg to convene and 
come up with recommendations — including Code of Conduct and moderation 
processes — for the OSMF Board to adopt. 
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/12/11/message-from-osmf-board-chair-on-mailing-list-behavior/
 

Mikel

On Sunday, December 13, 2020, 9:16 PM, arnalie faye vicario 
 wrote:

The current Etiquette Guidelines is not enough. By the title, it is just a 
"guideline"  - a suggestion or a piece of advice. 
We really need a CODE of Conduct that is enforceable with a committed moderator 
or working group.
 As a non-native English speaker, I have to look up the definitions in the 
dictionary to confirm.

=Arnalie
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 1:06 AM Mikel Maron  wrote:

The etiquette guidelines have issues, but I’m not sure that’s one. If there was 
moderation and enforcement in place, than we wouldn’t need to call out 
publicly. Moderator could step in to do that. Prefer that way of handling it.

Mikel

On Wednesday, December 9, 2020, 11:33 AM, Rory McCann  
wrote:

Have any of yous read the Ettiquette Guidelines¹? They're rubbish.

Frederik broke them by publically calling Mike Migurski out, and for not 
assuming he was acting in good faith. *But* if anyone publishes something 
saying “What Frederik did was wrong” (like I (& others) did), then they are 
also breaking the Ettiquette Guidelines! That's a horrible outcome!

¹ https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Etiquette

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020, at 16:57, Maggie Cawley wrote:
> I am so happy to see this thread. I believe it will take all of us 
> coming together and speaking with a unified voice to bring upon the 
> change we need at the global level. As Clifford mentioned, a few of us 
> from the LCCWG met on Monday to start talking about next steps. It's 
> not about one statement, but rather that discussions and comments like 
> those from this past week affect us all as we work to build diverse 
> communities around the world.  
> 
> Rob, Clifford and I discussed the need for a CoC, but when Rob pointed 
> out the Etiquette Guidelines exist and are pretty widely accepted it 
> seems like a logical place to start. It would also enable us to move a 
> bit more quickly since the document exists and won't need many rounds 
> of community feedback. What is missing is the process for moderation 
> and a committee available to moderate any complaints on breaches of 
> etiquette. It would be helpful to review and suggest edits to the 
> existing guidelines during this process as well. For the US CoC it took 
> about 8 months to finalize the CoC and moderation process, and find 
> volunteers for a committee.
> 
> I look forward to growing the conversation. Thanks Heather for starting 
> this thread here and to all of you who are stepping forward!
> 
> Maggie Cawley
> 
> 
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 21:30, arnalie faye vicario  
> wrote:
> > Hello/*Kumusta*,
> > 
> > *Salamat*/Thanks everyone for continuing the conversations and taking this 
> > seriously.
> > 
> > It is good to speak up and comment about it in our individual capacities, 
> > but a collective can build a fire  (charcoal comparison). 
> > 
> > This is what we did in OSM PH's Call to Correct Narratives About Geospatial 
> > Work in the Philippines (re: Amazon-HOT video).  
> > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/a/aa/A_Call_to_Correct_Narratives_about_Geospatial_Work.pdf>
> > 
> > Also, I would like to quote and highlight what David Garcia 
> > (@mapmakerdavid) has shared in Twitter:
> >> It is not just the maps that matters. Who *makes* the maps matters. Who 
> >> *tells* the stories of the mapping matters, too. Who *LEADS* the mapping 
> >> and storytelling also matters. Who *gets powerful* due to the mapping and 
> >> storytelling matters most.
> > 
> > Thank you Geochicas, Celine @mapeadora, Heather, Rebecca, Miriam 
> > @mapanauta, Nelson Minar, LCCWG Group, OSMF past/present Board members 
> > (Kate, Rory and Mikel), HOT Community WG and everyone who expressed support 
> > and has spoken up (apologies if I missed your name). It is really 
> > encouraging and inspiring. Please add your thoughts in the document: 
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit
> > 
> > In case you missed it (like me), here is what Celine sent in the OSM talk 
> > mailing list: 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-December/085727.html.
> > 
> > Let us keep the fire burning!
> > 
> > =Arnalie
> > 
> > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 5:54 AM Clifford Snow  
> > wrote:
> >> I should mention that what we, Maggie Crawely, Rob Nickerson and mys

Re: [Diversity-talk] Etiquette Guidelines bad | Re: Code of conduct

[Mikel Maron]

eatherle...@gmail.com
> >>> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson 
> >>> Blog: textontechs.com
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:31 PM Clifford Snow  
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Heather - A small group of the LCCWG met via BigBlueButton yesterday to 
> >>>> start a similar initiative. I was going to send an invite to the rest of 
> >>>> the LCCWG as well as to this mailing list. Since you have the ball 
> >>>> rolling, can you include lo...@osmfoundation.org in the mailing.
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 1:22 PM Heather Leson  
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Great. working in the draft now.  
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Thank you right back. Saturday is just a way to discuss this restart. 
> >>>>> We can keep building. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Heather 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Heather Leson
> >>>>> heatherle...@gmail.com
> >>>>> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson 
> >>>>> Blog: textontechs.com
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 10:10 PM Gertrude Namitala 
> >>>>>  wrote:
> >>>>>> Thanks Heather for starting this. I will try to be available.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>>> Trudy 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 23:05 Mikel Maron,  wrote:
> >>>>>>> This is great
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, December 8, 2020, 03:55:49 PM EST, Heather Leson 
> >>>>>>>  wrote: 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Great!  Editing now
> >>>>>>> Hope we can have an initial chat
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> heather
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Heather Leson
> >>>>>>> heatherle...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson 
> >>>>>>> Blog: textontechs.com
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:33 PM Rebecca Firth 
> >>>>>>>  wrote:
> >>>>>>> > Hi Heather,
> >>>>>>> > 
> >>>>>>> > Thanks for setting that up - I'll need to jig some things around 
> >>>>>>> > but really hope to be able to join that meeting. Some people had 
> >>>>>>> > already started working on a statement to share. I am sharing here 
> >>>>>>> > for allies to add comments they would like to raise, and to 
> >>>>>>> > identify people who are keen to move this work forward: 
> >>>>>>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit
> >>>>>>> >  
> >>>>>>> > 
> >>>>>>> > Thanks,
> >>>>>>> > 
> >>>>>>> > Rebecca
> >>>>>>> > 
> >>>>>>> > 
> >>>>>>> > 
> >>>>>>> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:21 PM Heather Leson 
> >>>>>>> >  wrote:
> >>>>>>> >> Hey 
> >>>>>>> >> 
> >>>>>>> >> A few of us are going to meet this saturday about code of conduct 
> >>>>>>> >> in osm. There is a codw of conduct but we think there needs to be 
> >>>>>>> >> more. We can also touch on the diversity work that mikel shared 
> >>>>>>> >> previously.
> >>>>>>> >> 
> >>>>>>> >> 1500 utc before the osmf board meeting at 1600 utc.
> >>>>>>> >> 
> >>>>>>> >> Hope you can join. This will be a 

Re: [Diversity-talk] Code of conduct

[Mikel Maron]

This is great

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Tuesday, December 8, 2020, 03:55:49 PM EST, Heather Leson 
 wrote: 





Great!   Editing now
Hope we can have an initial chat

heather

Heather Leson
heatherle...@gmail.com
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson 
Blog: textontechs.com


On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 9:33 PM Rebecca Firth  wrote:
> Hi Heather,
> 
> Thanks for setting that up - I'll need to jig some things around but really 
> hope to be able to join that meeting. Some people had already started working 
> on a statement to share. I am sharing here for allies to add comments they 
> would like to raise, and to identify people who are keen to move this work 
> forward: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rebecca
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 8:21 PM Heather Leson  wrote:
>> Hey 
>> 
>> A few of us are going to meet this saturday about code of conduct in osm. 
>> There is a codw of conduct but we think there needs to be more. We can also 
>> touch on the diversity work that mikel shared previously.
>> 
>> 1500 utc before the osmf board meeting at 1600 utc.
>> 
>> Hope you can join. This will be a small group discussion. We can always 
>> widen the circle later.
>> 
>> Link to be shared later. Note this will be a safe and positive space 
>> discussion. We will adhere strongly to the diversity list code. 
>> 
>> Thanks so much
>> 
>> 
>> Heather 
>> ___
>> Diversity-talk mailing list
>> Code of Conduct: 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
>> Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-us] Washington DC place node cleanup

[Mikel Maron]

Hi

In DC, we just say DC usually. Across the states, it's Washington DC to 
distinguish from Washington state.

I'm not sure what the "name" tag should be, but I am wondering what the point 
of the translations are which simply duplicate the default name. Is it like a 
marker to say "don't try calling this place anything else"? Is that common, 
seems unneccesary?

Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Friday, December 4, 2020, 06:04:49 AM EST, Frederik Ramm 
 wrote: 





Hi,

when reverting an edit this morning I noticed that the node for
Washington (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/158368533) has myriad
name:xx tags, many of which seem to be some variant of "Washington D.C."
(with or without commas or dots), whereas the "local" name seems to be
just Washington, without the D.C.

As a native speaker of German I can assure you that we don't call the US
capital "Washington D.C." as the name:de tag claims; I would assume that
it is similar for most other languages. The German-language OSM map at
https://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html?zoom=10=38.70174=-76.93764
has a mechanism where it displays the German name and then, if the local
name is different, the local name below; since the German name
"Washington D.C." and the local name "Washington" are different, this
leads to a somewhat funny display (whereas the logic works ok for other
US cities).

I could of course fix the German name but I think that it might need a
more thorough review and I don't feel competent for that.

Two name tags (and this is checking only those that use Roman letters)
look like they might be entirely wrong and refer to the District of
Columbia only:

name:lfn=Distrito de Columbia
name:mi=Takiwā o Columbia

Then again, I've heard people say "I was in D.C." and mean the city, so
perhaps that *is* a legitimate name for the city? Maybe someone in the
US community wants to have a look and do this right.

It is a bit of a conundrum in OSM - we usually say that local knowledge
tops everything, but then again for many of the languages there might
not even *be* a local Washington mapper in OSM ;)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

[Mikel Maron]

Thanks Mateusz, I agree. Points can easily be made without such garbage. 
Unfortunately Frederik has a habit of using rhetoric that evokes violence 
against women. I’m not saying that he or anyone here personally holds biased 
views about women. But the effect is the same, it degrades our entire 
community. And we wonder why there are no women running for the board. 

Mikel

On Thursday, December 3, 2020, 4:45 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via talk 
 wrote:




Dec 3, 2020, 00:44 by frede...@remote.org:

People have thought the same about Donald Trump - yeah, this
whole

I think that form of this is very unfortunate and references
to Trump and genitalia could be dropped without losing anything.

This really have not added anything useful and this insults
were problematic. Especially as the same could be expressed
without comparing such actions to rape (implied rape?).
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?

[Mikel Maron]

Hi, I’m not actually a active moderator on this list, but I was asked to step 
in by several people, and I think it’s appropriate. I think this discussion can 
stay substantive without veering off topic into geopolitics (we have the whole 
rest of the internet for that), and using profanity and taunting nicknames 
(even if mild).

Mikel



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Can you recommend good introduction to JOSM for 100% osm newbie?

[Mikel Maron via talk]

Might be a touch out of date, but useful guide to JOSM 
https://labs.mapbox.com/mapping/

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Thursday, September 24, 2020, 03:20:01 AM EDT, Maarten Deen 
 wrote: 





On 2020-09-24 08:50, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> I looked at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM and
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Guide and
> https://learnosm.org/en/josm/
> 
> but I am not fully happy about any of them (a bit too much at one for
> someone new)
> 
> Why not iD: they want to edit and fix hiking relations, what AFAIK is
> not well supported in iD

Well, I only know the very basics in iD (and also Potlatch2). I even 
have problems putting a node because it always wants to continue to a 
way and I don't know how to stop this (believe in Potlatch2).
So every editor has a learning curve, even the ones that are supposed to 
be the easy ones like iD or Potlatch2. Because I've been using JOSM for 
years, I know how to use most if not all of the functions and I shun 
away from iD or Potlatch2 just because I've never familiarized myself 
with them (I don't see the need because they lack the features of JOSM).

I don't see what is "much" about 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Guide. 2 steps to start the 
program (if you have Java installed) and the basic functions are 
explained step by step.
Relations are always a more advanced topic, but I can't imagine that 
with a few days of fiddling around you don't get the hang of it.

Regards,
Maarten


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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Examples of good paid mapping?

[Mikel Maron]

Most companies are doing well, and get along well, we just only hear about the 
problems. So it’s probably not this or that company to highlight, but 
particular mapping projects that illustrate well how it’s done.

Mikel

On Friday, September 11, 2020, 3:54 PM, Michał Brzozowski 
 
 wrote:
Hi all,Do we have any examples of companies that do paid mapping (preferably at 
scale) and do it right?Maybe leading by example will help other mapping teams 
get along better with local OSM communities?
Michał
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



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

[Talk-Kosovo] FLOSSK Local Chapter Application

[Mikel Maron]

Hi all,

You may be aware that *FLOSSK* has applied to become an official Local Chapter 
of the OpenStreetMap Foundation. As part of the application process, we would 
like to ask you, *the local mapping community* how you feel about this. Do you 
support this application? Do you have any questions, comments or concerns?

You can find all the information about this Local Chapter application on the 
OSMF website:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Local_Chapters/Applications/Kosovo

We will close this round of discussion two weeks from now (Sept 7th 2020).
You can reply to this thread, send a message to board (at) osmfoundation.org, 
or use the wiki talk page here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/Local_Chapters/Applications/Kosovo
I am looking forward to hearing your responses.

We will also share this message on Telegram.

Thank you to the FLOSSK team for this submission.

Best regards,

Mikel Maron
Board Member
OpenStreetMap Foundation

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron

___
Talk-Kosovo mailing list
Talk-Kosovo@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-kosovo

Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

[Mikel Maron]

More seriously the line “all interests of the OSM community” was one we talked 
a lot about on the board when writing this message, and had several versions, 
and indeed we touched on how to best designate what was needed in composition 
of the panel. I think it’s not possible to put together a specific formula, but 
think we should expand this section to touch on the kinds of things we would 
hope to see in the composition of the board. That certainly would be experience 
and expertise with OSM community and software development and mapping. I don’t 
think anyone is impartial on anything but we’d want people who are recognized 
as open minded.
We haven’t talked at all about transparency of selection and deliberations. I’m 
not sure it’s wise to be completely open in the work of disputes, but certainly 
having deliberations well minutes and explained makes sense.

Mikel

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:42 PM, Mikel Maron  wrote:

It was a joke more aimed at Rory and a continuation of the similar discussion 
we’ve had on the board.
And yes I agree very much with the sentiment that we don’t want OSM to be 
dominated by companies. or any single point of view for that matter.
I’ve come to not like that quote because I don’t believe it’s often the case. 
And I think that there’s a lot of decisions which are favorable to all involved 
in osm, whether giant company or a single mapper. The dichotomy is not that 
pronounced if you look closely.

Mikel

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:31 PM, Joseph Eisenberg 
 wrote:

Re: "Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of 
corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common 
mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?"
This sarcastic comment is not a fair response to Christoph's concerns.
While we hope that no one involved currently in OpenStreetMap would 
purposefully turn the community over to corporations, it is certainly possible 
to imagine this to happen little by little, if the community is eroded slowly, 
lacking safeguards and clear goals.
If the people who become leaders of the OpenStreetMap community have all of 
their experience and ideals based in the corporate tech sector, it will be 
unsurprising if they are naturally inclined to make decisions which are 
favorable to the interests of Facebook, Apple or Amazon, whether or not they 
benefit the OpenStreetMap community. 
As a famous American reformer (Upton Sinclair) often said: "It is difficult to 
get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not 
understanding it." 
– Joseph Eisenberg
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:08 PM Mikel Maron  wrote:

Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate 
sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into 
conformity. Why else would we be doing this?

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Rory McCann  
wrote: 





The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be 
formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't 
address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will 
happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of 
corporate employees?

What would you suggest for appointing & transparency?

On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
>>
>> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
>> dispute resolution panel:
>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu
>> te-resolution-panel/
> 
> I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it
> does not control itself...
> 
> For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected
> entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in
> composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members
> themselves.  See also:
> 
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy
> 
> Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from
> the fact that it is not composed of political appointees.
> 
> Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to
> reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the
> panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping
> and tagging in OSM or in other words:  The competence to assess
> evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters
> in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion.  Neither is
> impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate
> data users.
> 
> Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public
> (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function
> othe

Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

[Mikel Maron]

It was a joke more aimed at Rory and a continuation of the similar discussion 
we’ve had on the board.
And yes I agree very much with the sentiment that we don’t want OSM to be 
dominated by companies. or any single point of view for that matter.
I’ve come to not like that quote because I don’t believe it’s often the case. 
And I think that there’s a lot of decisions which are favorable to all involved 
in osm, whether giant company or a single mapper. The dichotomy is not that 
pronounced if you look closely.

Mikel

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:31 PM, Joseph Eisenberg 
 wrote:

Re: "Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of 
corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common 
mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?"
This sarcastic comment is not a fair response to Christoph's concerns.
While we hope that no one involved currently in OpenStreetMap would 
purposefully turn the community over to corporations, it is certainly possible 
to imagine this to happen little by little, if the community is eroded slowly, 
lacking safeguards and clear goals.
If the people who become leaders of the OpenStreetMap community have all of 
their experience and ideals based in the corporate tech sector, it will be 
unsurprising if they are naturally inclined to make decisions which are 
favorable to the interests of Facebook, Apple or Amazon, whether or not they 
benefit the OpenStreetMap community. 
As a famous American reformer (Upton Sinclair) often said: "It is difficult to 
get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not 
understanding it." 
– Joseph Eisenberg
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:08 PM Mikel Maron  wrote:

Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate 
sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into 
conformity. Why else would we be doing this?

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Rory McCann  
wrote: 





The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be 
formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't 
address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will 
happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of 
corporate employees?

What would you suggest for appointing & transparency?

On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
>>
>> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
>> dispute resolution panel:
>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu
>> te-resolution-panel/
> 
> I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it
> does not control itself...
> 
> For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected
> entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in
> composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members
> themselves.  See also:
> 
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy
> 
> Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from
> the fact that it is not composed of political appointees.
> 
> Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to
> reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the
> panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping
> and tagging in OSM or in other words:  The competence to assess
> evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters
> in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion.  Neither is
> impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate
> data users.
> 
> Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public
> (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function
> otherwise).  I guess that means both the nominations and selection of
> panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel
> on cases is going to happen behind closed doors.
> 

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

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

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

[Mikel Maron]

Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate 
sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into 
conformity. Why else would we be doing this?

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Rory McCann  
wrote: 





The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be 
formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't 
address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will 
happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of 
corporate employees?

What would you suggest for appointing & transparency?

On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
>>
>> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
>> dispute resolution panel:
>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu
>> te-resolution-panel/
> 
> I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it
> does not control itself...
> 
> For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected
> entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in
> composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members
> themselves.  See also:
> 
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy
> 
> Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from
> the fact that it is not composed of political appointees.
> 
> Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to
> reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the
> panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping
> and tagging in OSM or in other words:  The competence to assess
> evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters
> in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion.  Neither is
> impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate
> data users.
> 
> Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public
> (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function
> otherwise).  I guess that means both the nominations and selection of
> panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel
> on cases is going to happen behind closed doors.
> 

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

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

[OSM-talk] Funding of iD Development and Maintenance

[Mikel Maron]

Hello

The OSMF board is working to make OSM's core software and infrastructure more 
stable and sustainable by supporting paid roles for priority needs, such as the 
Senior Site Reliability role 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-July/006973.html), 
and the pilot to fund "OSM Infrastructure" projects 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-August/006987.html).

As part of this focus, we want to organise coordinated funding to support 
continued maintenance and development of the iD editor, as iD's strong 
continuous development over the past several years has served the OSM community 
well. Quincy Morgan is iD's maintainer and lead developer. Unfortunately, 
full-time support of his work recently ended. He'd very much like to continue, 
and the OSMF Board wants to see that happen. He has written up this proposal 
(https://github.com/quincylvania/quincylvania.com/blob/main/resources/Morgan%20iD%20work%20proposal%207_27.pdf)
 with his ideal plans for iD over the next year, along with notes about how 
he'll organise, grow the developer base, communicate, and set priorities, and 
make iD better. The final priorities for the year will be made in consultation 
with the community.

To help fund this project, as well as the SSRE role, we're looking at earmarked 
donations from companies, chapters and organisations. Administratively, we 
believe this is easier than other methods of pooled funding, as the OSMF is 
already in most companies' procurement systems, and it would limit paperwork to 
one contract for iD. Initial contract would be for 1 year, and that's what the 
OSMF would look to raise now.

With the OSMF holding the contract, the Board would take a key accountability 
role, reviewing work done on the contract and assessing progress on the plans 
Quincy develops for the project. Additionally, the OSMF is working in 
cooperation with Quincy to establish a formal appeal process 
(https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/06/08/toward-resolution-of-controversies-related-to-id/)
 for the relatively rare community issues iD cannot resolve itself.

The OSMF would not see its role as a traditional "boss", instructing iD to 
focus on this or that feature. We would not be prescriptive about priorities. 
This does not mean work in a vacuum. Our expectation is that Quincy, in 
addition to following our hiring framework's principles for transparent service 
to the community, would regularly convene stakeholders from the community to 
share their priorities and feedback. Quincy would assess all priorities 
holistically as he decides on a workable plan for the project.

Over the course of the year, we'll evaluate and learn from how the arrangement 
is working for all, as we look towards year 2 and beyond. For future years, we 
are looking at developing an overall plan for long-term support for all parts 
of the OSMF infrastructure. We want to be able to offer similar support to 
other OSM editors. Our early focus on iD is to ensure continued development.

We want to find out what you, the OSM community, think. Do you have any 
feedback?

If you know of an organisation that might want to fund this, please feel free 
to ask them to contact the OSMF Board.

-Mikel, for the OSMF Board

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries

[Mikel Maron]

A wide scale revert without assessing closely the quality and particulars in 
specific countries is not a good idea. Just an opinion that a method is flawed 
is not enough to demonstrate that such a wide scale revert is justified. Much 
more detailed analysis is needed before it should even be considered, and even 
then recommend that discussions should be opened up with local mapping 
communities in each place. It’s just not soemthing to do lightly.
Additionally, there may have been subsequent edits that would be lost in a 
revert.
I think if you look at your local area and determine that the mapping was not 
accurate in a large number of samples, you’d be justified reverting in that 
place. But you should still look carefully and make sure other good work is not 
undone in the process.

Mikel

On Saturday, July 18, 2020, 6:53 AM, Michael Reichert  
wrote:

Hi,

while reviewing changes in my local area, I discovered that user Modest7
has been adding tracktype=* tags to lots of highway=track at various
locations. I asked him what sources he used apart from the satellite
imagery mentioned in the imagery_used=* tag of his changesets. See
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896 for a discussion with him.

I do not believe that one can add reliable tracktype=* information from
satellite imagery without having some ground truth knowledge in order to
know how to interpret the imagery in that region. Adding estimated
tracktype=* does not help OSM on the long term. People how rely on the
information (e.g. some wanting to drive or cycle on that track) are
disappointed about this low-quality OSM data. Mappers who decide where
to map assume these roads to be mapped properly. IMHO, adding
fixme=resurvey tracktype will not improve it. Data consumers usually do
not use tags like fixme=* In the case of imports (another type of mass
editing), we say that an import must not add fixme=* to cover
shortcomings of the data to be imported because they usually do not get
fixed in a reasonable time. Therefore, I plan to revert these changes.

Modest7 does not seem to realise that estimating tracktype from
satellite imagery is not doing a service to OSM. I am currently
preparing a revert of all additions of surface=* and tracktype=* by him
he uploaded since 1 January 2020 [1]. The revert will only edit tags,
geometry will stay unchanged. I revert changes on surface as well
because that's not very different to tracktype except that it applies to
other types of roads as well.

The countries which will be affected are:
Germany
Denmark
Turkey
United States
Poland
Ukraine
Morocco
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Sweden
Norway
eSwatini

A changeset discussion with him can be found at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896

Best regards

Michael


[1] This date is not fixed yet.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Could/should editors detect/disallow huge changeset bboxes?

[Mikel Maron]

> Yes please - I am using Osmcha to look at changesets around me and i
have a high number of changesets which span half Europe and thus
intersect with the area i am looking at.
Side note to this discussion — in OSMCha you can filter out these wide spanning 
changesets with “Bbox size bound” filter. If a changeset is larger than the 
bbox filter area multiplied by this value, it’s filtered out.
That doesn’t help if features in large changesets are actually in your area of 
interest. Would definitely be better if these unintentional  large changesets 
were reduced at the source.
Mikel



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD

[Mikel Maron]

> Who owns the iD project now? What's happened after "nearly all of the 
> original authors left Mapbox", has the project ownership been transferred 
> from Mapbox to OSMF, or perhaps to current maintainers? Does Mapbox still 
> retain the ownership rights to the project (even if they don't currently care 
> about them)?

Ownership is a nebulous concept here. The original repo was hosted by RichardF 
under https://github.com/systemed/, and now is at 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD. 

Mapbox employees contributed under open source licensing terms, and have 
certainly been keenly involved in setting the initial project concept and 
direction. That was all done with a lot of intention within the OSM community. 
Launch blog from that time 
https://blog.mapbox.com/new-map-editor-launches-on-openstreetmap-org-13956033d0c9.
 

And John Firebaugh's talk at OSM US 2014 is a great perspective on Mapbox's 
approach (and what it takes to do software development in OSM)
https://2014.stateofthemap.us/session/implementing-change-in-openstreetmap/

Mapbox continued to support the development of iD with developer time, but not 
with a posture of setting direction as a company. The desire for Mapbox was and 
continues to be that iD continues to serve its purpose to provide a great 
mapping experience in OSM. 

So Mapbox never "owned" iD, and it's unclear if you can assign that concept. If 
you had to say who owns it, then it is OpenStreetMap, and that yes OSMF has the 
responsibility to make sure it has a healthy development and community 
environment.

-Mikel


* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Tuesday, June 9, 2020, 12:06:21 PM EDT,  wrote: 





On 09/06/2020 16:00, Simon Poole wrote:
> Nearly all of the original authors left Mapbox a long time ago, nobody
> working on it today is an "original author". The grant that Mapbox
> received at the time was clearly instrumental in allowing them to start
> growing the company to its current size, so while we are obviously
> thankful for the support that Mapbox has provided over the years, it was
> clearly a win-win situation.

Who owns the iD project now? What's happened after "nearly all of the 
original authors left Mapbox", has the project ownership been 
transferred from Mapbox to OSMF, or perhaps to current maintainers? Does 
Mapbox still retain the ownership rights to the project (even if they 
don't currently care about them)?

The code license is very permissive so there is always an option of 
starting a new project based on it (forking). But the license and 
ownership of the project are not the same thing.


> Many would have argued that the OSMF should have received the half a
> million dollars  and contracted the work out, maybe to Mapbox, but in
> any case just because what actually happened was slightly different,
> doesn't mean that the OSMF and the OSM community gave whoever happens to
> be working on iD the licence to control the projects destiny forever.

Not saying that this shouldn't be the case, but clearly it wasn't, at 
least initially. And if it isn't ours we can't simply take it, even if 
we really, really want it.

From my point of view - I am happy with the current project governance. 
It works well for iD, it works well for the OSM community. Controversies 
are all around minor issues and contributions - basically saying that 
the maintainers are doing their job.

Ndrw




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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD

[Mikel Maron]

Hey I have some other things to say on this thread, but quickly this point is 
based on incorrect assumptions
> But if push comes to shove, and someone
needs to decide how something is done, do we want US tech firms to decide what 
the official OSM editor does, or do we want the OSMF to decide what the 
official OSM editor does?

False dichotomy. The choice here is not between Silicon Valley and OSMF. 
Decisions on iD are not made by US tech firms. I say this as an employee of one 
of those firms who has observed this first hand. The decisions on iD are made 
by the developers, working within the OSM community. 
As it should be. What’s needed is the availability of more structure to come to 
software decision in those rare situations when ad hoc community is not enough. 
Yes iD is the focus currently, but it’s not the only place our community needs 
more software support.
Mikel

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020, 7:55 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

Hi,

On 2020-06-09 12:32, nd...@redhazel.co.uk wrote:
> To me, OSMF wants the control of a project it hasn't developed but
> turned out too successful to ignore,

The iD editor has been originally built by Mapbox funded by a grant from
the Knight Foundation with the aim of being a good editor for OSM. That
was before any of the people currently driving iD development came on
board. Had it been "some GIS editing software that might or might not be
used for OSM one day", it is very unlikely that this grant would ever
have been given. iD was never a project that would have been viable
without the OSMF's blessing (as in "if you get this editor to work then
we'll put it on our web site").

> and to add insult to injury you are
> asking the author to keep working on it by committing patches he
> disagrees with.

As far as I am aware, both former and current iD lead developers are
doing their work within a full time IT job, not in their spare time.
Their employer - US tech firms in both cases - asks them to spend time
on iD because their employer wants to help OSM improve. Most employment
situations bring it with them that you have to do something you disagree
with now and then. We do not know what instructions the paid iD
developers receive from their employers but it is obvious that they
*could* receive instructions.

Now, of course as long as everything purrs along smoothly, good software
is created for a happy user base by happy developers and nobody
interferes, that's all dandy. But if push comes to shove, and someone
needs to decide how something is done, do we want US tech firms to
decide what the official OSM editor does, or do we want the OSMF to
decide what the official OSM editor does?

> - It's deeply unethical. OSMF should foster the development of the OSM
> ecosystem, not harass people working on it. How does this fit OSMF own
> charter and CoC?

I think you have a very warped view of the whole topic. Given that I
haven't seen you on these lists before I must assume that you haven't
followed any of the history, background, and past discussions about the
matter. You're of course entitled to your point of view but your point
of view doesn't really do much for the discussion when it is, obviously,
based on the mistaken assumption that iD is a third-party hobby project
that OSMF now wants to nefariously take control of because it has proven
successful.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] mspray stealth organized mapping

[Mikel Maron]

Before everyone jumps to revert undelete block etc I’ve gotten in touch with 
the teams at Akros and am helping to work out what’s happening here and 
resolve. More soon.

Mikel

On Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:33 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via talk 
 wrote:

Are you sure that in 72427535 buildings were just moved?
buildings and college that used to be mapped at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-12.94547/28.64318

It is gone thanks to https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=72427535

BTW how one may undelete delete buildings? Straight revert will delete new ones,
what may be not needed.

Use reverter plugin in JOSM, copy buildings to a new layer, delete reverter 
layer, save?

Is there some script that I can run with "revert deletions only in changeset 
XYZ"?

May 22, 2020, 15:47 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

Le vendredi 22 mai 2020 07 h 29 min 19 s UTC−4, Frederik Ramm 
 a écrit :
> Sometimes users deleted a large number of
> buildings e.g. here https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=72427535
> without giving a clear reason

Looking at Achavi, red outlines make us think objects were deleted. But in 
fact, the buildings were simply slightly moved to realign to DigitalGlobe 
imagery (not Bing).  And no correction of geometry was made, even where too 
many and unsquared angles to represent a rectangular building. Also Tags are 
systematically added:  
    "mapper"="mspray4"
    "source"="Akros"
 



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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] mspray stealth organized mapping

[Mikel Maron]

Does possibly look like organized editing. No need to invoke intention — if 
this was “stealth” that means they are intentionally trying to hide. More 
likely case is they simply aren’t aware of the guidelines.

Mikel

On Friday, May 22, 2020, 4:52 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:

   
I just noticed a serie of mspray[numerical suffix] (mspray16, mspray15, 
mspray13 and mspray4 for example) are are mapping many buildings in Senegal, 
some of which of dubious quality. This looks like organized mapping but I do 
not see any description of it in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities
 
I attempted contact today, I am awaiting an answer - I'll keep this list 
informed.
 
 
I suspect if may be part of the mSpray malaria spraying project.
 
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



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

Re: [OSM-talk] healthsites.io breaks OSM data, do not use

[Mikel Maron]

Update:

https://github.com/healthsites/healthsites/issues/1357#issuecomment-602164476

The editor is disabled for now. 
They're working on fixing bad edits.

-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Sunday, March 22, 2020, 03:37:43 AM EDT, Oleksiy Muzalyev 
 wrote: 





On 3/21/20 17:39, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the "healthsites.io" web app allows you to contribute data to OSM,
> however if you modify existing OSM objects, it throws away all tags it
> does not know of. Until this bug is fixed, please refrain from using
> healthsites.io!
>
> You can track progress here
> https://github.com/healthsites/healthsites/issues/1357#issuecomment-602068556
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
It is one more lesson of this outbreak that the emergency response tools 
are to be prepared and tested well beforehand.

By the way, a viral respiratory infection can be stopped, or at least 
slowed down, by mere physical separation of hosts, i.e. people, because 
it stops the exponential chain reaction.

That is why mapping with the reliable editor say an archeological site 
in a forest could be also very beneficial. As some people could hike to 
it on weekend, instead of going to an overcrowded city park.

And we shall also remember of ambulances. Sometimes it is very hard for 
a driver to find a location of an address. In some cases it may take 
hours. So the general overall improvement of the map should continue.

Best regards,

Oleksiy



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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] healthsites.io breaks OSM data, do not use

[Mikel Maron]

Yikes. Good catch and agreed. 

Can anyone track the extent of the damage, and prepare to restore the thrown 
away tags, while keeping the good new data?

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Saturday, March 21, 2020, 12:42:01 PM EDT, Frederik Ramm 
 wrote: 





Hi,

the "healthsites.io" web app allows you to contribute data to OSM,
however if you modify existing OSM objects, it throws away all tags it
does not know of. Until this bug is fixed, please refrain from using
healthsites.io!

You can track progress here
https://github.com/healthsites/healthsites/issues/1357#issuecomment-602068556

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets

[Mikel Maron]

> Today's blog posts are the press releases of past years. It would have been 
>quite possible to run it past the responsible organs of the organisation they 
>were writing about, as it would have been customary in earlier days.

Good enough idea, but I have seen very few or even no examples of someone 
asking OSMF about a PR/blog beforehand, nor the OSMF asking for that. Not a bad 
idea to change expectations around this.

-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Friday, March 20, 2020, 04:43:28 PM EDT, Simon Poole  wrote: 






Am 20.03.2020 um 20:00 schrieb Mikel Maron:
>>   But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step 
>> imports.
> No they're not. It's a couple sections in a blog post that is being wildly 
> misinterpreted.

Today's blog posts are the press releases of past years. It would have
been quite possible to run it past the responsible organs of the
organisation they were writing about, as it would have been customary in
earlier days.

Simon


>
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 20, 2020, 02:18:54 PM EDT, Rory McCann 
>  wrote: 
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19/03/2020 20:15, Mikel Maron wrote:
>
>> This whole thread is blown out of proportion, and rehashing old 
>> theoretical debates about imports that are more or less resolved in 
>> practice.
>
> Yes, we have an import guideline. But this thread is from Facebook 
> trying to change that. To side step imports.
>
> BTW the Etiqutte guidelines require you to assume all people here are 
> operating in good faith 

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

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets

[Mikel Maron]

>  But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step imports.

No they're not. It's a couple sections in a blog post that is being wildly 
misinterpreted.

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Friday, March 20, 2020, 02:18:54 PM EDT, Rory McCann  
wrote: 





On 19/03/2020 20:15, Mikel Maron wrote:

> This whole thread is blown out of proportion, and rehashing old 
> theoretical debates about imports that are more or less resolved in 
> practice.


Yes, we have an import guideline. But this thread is from Facebook 
trying to change that. To side step imports.

BTW the Etiqutte guidelines require you to assume all people here are 
operating in good faith 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets

[Mikel Maron]

> What's your guess, who will care more for the map, people who have copied AI 
>generated data or those who have created it, or doesn't it matter and it's the 
>same?
Germany is awesome but not the only way things can develop. People who already 
care about OSM and have for years think rapid can help. They also recognize it 
has limitations. 
And btw, this thread started on the theoretical possibility of rapid being used 
for general purpose conflation, not AI proposed data.
Mikel

On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 11:12 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:



Am Do., 19. März 2020 um 13:01 Uhr schrieb Mikel Maron :

Martin, have you actually tried RapiD? It doesnt resemble what you describe and 
does not disempower anyone.


it changes the way we add things, or at least has potential to significantly 
shift the relation of individual people creating geodata (bottom up) towards 
big players providing geodata (top down) which at best gets looked at and 
"confirmed" by the contributor who actually copies it in, at worst it is a 
click-through mechanical operation without any effective review.

 
 From talking to mappers in places with less developed maps than Germany, there 
is enthusiasm about a tool that will help their mapping processes, and a 
thorough understanding of the limits of the approach.


as always, you can find both, people applauding and people opposing. If Germany 
had started with a process like this, they would not be where they are now (a 
vital community of active mappers). To keep the data useful, permanent 
maintenance is required. What's your guess, who will care more for the map, 
people who have copied AI generated data or those who have created it, or 
doesn't it matter and it's the same?
CheersMartin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets

[Mikel Maron]

> How would a mapper performing imports via RapiD comply with the import 
>guidelines?
By complying with the guidelines before setting up an import process that 
leveraged RapiD for conflation.
Mikel

On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 11:28 AM, Jmapb  wrote:

 On 3/19/2020 7:57 AM, Mikel Maron wrote:
  
 
There is nothing here about circumventing our well defined import guidelines, 
or disrespecting our basic tenets. 
  
The blog post says "The process of creating an import is too onerous for many 
users" and "Our hope is that RapiD can become a tool that’s simple enough for 
anyone to import and verify new data sets."
 
 
How would a mapper performing imports via RapiD comply with the import 
guidelines?
 
Jason

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets

[Mikel Maron]

Some imports are good, some are bad. We have ways to asses them with 
guidelines. There are tools to help the technical process. Maybe there’s more 
possibilities with rapid on tooling, maybe not. Seems pretty simple.
This whole thread is blown out of proportion, and rehashing old theoretical 
debates about imports that are more or less resolved in practice.

Mikel

On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 2:44 PM, Tobias Knerr  wrote:

On 19.03.20 17:54, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
> So - why are authoritative data sets an unwelcome addition?

At its core, OSM is a platform for collaboratively editing geodata. So
the following would be strong reasons not to import a dataset:

- other mappers should not edit it (because the dataset is the official
source and changing it would just make it wrong)
- other mappers cannot meaningfully edit it (because we cannot see the
object in the real world and don't have access to useful sources).

The way you describe it, collaborative editing doesn't seem to be a net
benefit to your scenario, and in fact makes it harder to sync updates
with the authoritative source.

So as a thought experiment: Why not just convert your dataset to the OSM
format to make it compatible with the OSM ecosystem, but skip the import
into the main OSM database?

In practice, I guess part of the answer for that is discoverability: Who
wants to hunt down datasets scattered across various servers and
portals? So it's tempting to put it all into a single big database. And
I guess that's ok as long as it doesn't get in the way of the main
purpose of that database too much – which is collaborative editing, not
data distribution. But surely, with a decent implementation of
compatible data layers tracked in some central repository, authoritative
data could be used *with* OSM without being *in* OSM.

Tobias

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets

[Mikel Maron]

Martin, have you actually tried RapiD? It doesnt resemble what you describe and 
does not disempower anyone. From talking to mappers in places with less 
developed maps than Germany, there is enthusiasm about a tool that will help 
their mapping processes, and a thorough understanding of the limits of the 
approach.
Mikel

On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 7:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:

Am Do., 19. März 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm :

I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of
OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what
gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software
that interacts with our database. I think we should disallow any
contributions made with RapID/map-with-ai and friends.


I support this notion. OSM should remain the project where local people add 
facts, not a collection of probable geo data as identified by AI (based just on 
remote sensing and without a clue of the "on the ground situation"). For many 
tasks it more important that the information is reliable (and maybe obviously 
incomplete) than apparently "complete". From am political point of view, OSM is 
a project that gave the power to the people and we have been working hard to 
make a success. Let's not hand the power over to big business now.
Cheers
Martin


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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets

[Mikel Maron]

Frederik, you’re crying out against phantoms, and getting stuck on one 
interpretation of the word “authoritative”, and using that misinterpretation as 
an excuse to beat on one of your favorite punching bags, and try to exact 
radical unrational restrictions on a piece of software.
What Facebook is saying here is that RapiD can make the technical part of the 
import process easier. It’s a well done conflation process that has every 
single new feature individually examined by a mapper.
There is nothing here about circumventing our well defined import guidelines, 
or disrespecting our basic tenets. It’s just your imagination.
There are totally rational ways to engage with an idea like using rapid for 
conflation. Let’s do that, and figure out how we can make OSM better with 
productive conversation.
Mikel

On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 7:28 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

Hi,

a propos a recent statement from our friends at Facebook in which they
make plans for the future of our project,

https://tech.fb.com/map-with-ai-updates/

> Beyond AI-based data sets, one of the biggest challenges for OSM is importing 
> even readily available authoritative data sets
> ...
> our hope is that RapiD can become a tool that’s simple enough for anyone to 
> import and verify new data sets and to make use of these powerful tools

I would like to reiterate that the "challenge" is not that it is
difficult to import "authoritative data sets"; the problem is that
authoritative data sets are fundamentally incompatible with the way we
operate in OpenStreetMap. To quote just an obvious example, the
government of India certainly has an authoritative data set about where
their boundaries are, it's just that this does not align with facts on
the ground and hence our data is different. The past has shown that
petrol station chains also have "authoritative" data sets about their
stations but they are riddled with bugs, and not suitable for wholesale
import.

I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of
OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what
gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software
that interacts with our database. I think we should disallow any
contributions made with RapID/map-with-ai and friends.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Announcing Daylight Map Distribution

[Mikel Maron]

I heard Mapbox is working on this and divide data spatially not as
a sequence of changeset. My impression would be that this way
you could produce a "nice looking map" but most likely it will
break for routing purposes in most horrible ways where ways suddenly
are not connected anymore as some changeset inbetween has been
withdrawn/rejected.

Mapbox Streets Review groups data for review by feature type and spatial 
proximity, for a single day. There’s some complexities but it does maintain the 
routing graph.
I understand Facebook does something similar, but yes their use case does not 
involve routing but only visible map. Nothing wrong with that, fit the process 
to purpose.

> So i'd guess the way you and IIRC Mapbox try to solve the vandalism/bad
edit issue is a labour and machine learning intensive task which you cant win. 
Once you eliminate changesets you fall behind and you pile up inconsistencie
That’s not the case. It is labor intensive, but with well designed processes 
it’s manageable, and you can stay on pace and consistent.
I’d say one issue is not missing problems but being overly conservative, and 
flagging false positives. So flags in OSMCha from Mapbox shouldn’t be 
interpreted as a definite problem, but a suspicion. That’s by design, but it 
would be good to get even more accurate.
> So i'd love to hear more thoughts about long term ideas how to solvethis in a 
>collaborative manner. OSMCha is probably not the final solution but currently 
>it brings together analysis, be it human
or machine learning in a transparent way, not that it currently has an impact 
on the main OSM database.
100%. OSM and OSM validation needs to be collaborative to work. One idea, 
OSMCha could be more integrated into OSM.org, could provide more insightful 
insight in the history view. 
Mikel

On Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 5:52 PM, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 05:08:10PM -0700, Michal Migurski wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I’m writing to let you know about a new OpenStreetMap project Facebook
> just released. It’s called Daylight Map Distribution. Daylight is a
> complete, downloadable preview of OpenStreetMap data we plan to start
> using in a number of our public maps:

I think its a humble approach to try to identify (un)intentional bad
edits. A lot of people try to deal with this.

I am doing a lot of QA myself and i look at OSMCha changesets in 
my greater surrounding on a daily basis.

I fail to see a sane technical way of producing consistent map data
out of some intermingled data of which some changesets have been 
flagged/removed.

I heard Mapbox is working on this and divide data spatially not as
a sequence of changeset. My impression would be that this way
you could produce a "nice looking map" but most likely it will
break for routing purposes in most horrible ways where ways suddenly
are not connected anymore as some changeset inbetween has been
withdrawn/rejected.

So i'd guess the way you and IIRC Mapbox try to solve the vandalism/bad
edit issue is a labour and machine learning intensive task which you
cant win. Once you eliminate changesets you fall behind and you
pile up inconsistencies. This is, i guess, the reason for
your "one shot" dump of your current internal state.

So from my perspective the vandalism/bad edit issue will only be
fixable if we have some review process (Not that i would suggest one)
for strictly sequential changesets where review must be in order
and a once rejected/withdrawn changeset can only be requeued not
put in that sequential place again. And even then you'll see 
vandalism sneak by with innocent looking edits or intentional
3rd party validation.

So i'd love to hear more thoughts about long term ideas how to solve
this in a collaborative manner. OSMCha is probably not the final
solution but currently it brings together analysis, be it human
or machine learning in a transparent way, not that it currently
has an impact on the main OSM database.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff                                                f...@zz.de
        UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran 
away___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Announcing Daylight Map Distribution

[Mikel Maron]

Thanks Mike and Facebook for doing this. I commented on your diary post, but 
also adding to the coversation here. It's great to have this insight out and 
available. There's a good tradition of downstream data processing and 
redistribution in the community (you could call them packages I supposed) -- 
from GeoFabrik's regional and country downloads, to OSMQATiles, etc.


In this case (and I focused on this when we spoke), I'm not sure that the most 
valuable thing to distribute is what made it through Facebook filters, but 
rather what didn't make it through and why. That insight is valuable to 
identify problems that need fixing on a faster basis, notify local communities 
and other editors, and to build up a corpus of understanding of what 
problematic edits in OSM look like.


The most actionable way to do this distribution will be through OSMCha. Through 
the OSMCha API, you can flag changesets/features with reasons, and can be set 
up so that any reason tag by Facebook has a "Facebook:" prefix.


This is what Mapbox has set up. The Mapbox Streets Review team looks at edits 
every day, and problems are flagged and surfaced in OSMCha. You can see all of 
this [with this OSMCha 
filter](https://osmcha.org/?aoi=083b147b-a72c-4026-9db5-b70761a6795c). You'll 
see the most recent flag as about 3 days ago -- that's the typical time between 
OSM edit and review / publishing in Mapbox Streets.


Adding in Facebook flagged problems to OSMCha would provide even stronger 
signal of problems, and hope to explore implementing it with you all.

-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Monday, March 9, 2020, 08:10:29 PM EDT, Michal Migurski  
wrote: 





Hi everyone,

I’m writing to let you know about a new OpenStreetMap project Facebook just 
released. It’s called Daylight Map Distribution. Daylight is a complete, 
downloadable preview of OpenStreetMap data we plan to start using in a number 
of our public maps:

    https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/migurski/diary/392416

Facebook uses maps to let our users find friends, businesses, groups and more. 
OpenStreetMap (OSM) has a substantial global footprint of map data built and 
maintained by a dedicated community of global mappers and it’s a natural choice 
for us. Every day, OSM receives millions of contributions from the community. 
Some of these contributions may have intentional and unintentional edits that 
are incompatible with our needs. Our mapping teams work to scrub these 
contributions for consistency and quality. 

What’s Included in the Daylight Map Distribution:

    • A PBF planet file composed of 100% OSM data, released under the terms of 
the Open Database License.
    • Only those edits which have been validated to contain no malicious 
vandalism or unintentional errors so we can show them in our display maps

This is just an initial first release, and we’re looking for feedback from the 
community to decide what would be useful to release in the future and how 
frequently. I’d be interested to hear any response you might have about it!

-mike.


michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
sf/ca            http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html


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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Announcing Daylight Map Distribution

[Mikel Maron]

It's fair to point out that "no malicious vandalism or unintentional errors" is 
overdoing it, no one can claim 100% on this. 

But "you don't really know what you're talking about" is a rude thing to say. 
And expressing a belief that FB is not capable of doing this to a small, or 
even large degree, is not based on any factual inquiry of what they've done.

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 04:06:05 PM EDT, Marc M. 
 wrote: 





Michal Migurski wrote
> Only those edits which have been validated to contain no malicious vandalism 
> or unintentional errors so we can show them in our display maps

I get the impression that you don't really know what you're talking
about. There are many "complaints" that FB does not respond enought
to community feedback. So to believe that FB is capable of validating
even the slightest change is naive at best.
I spend a lot of time checking every changeset in 2 comfort zones, I
regularly detect anomalies, but to know if it is correct or not takes time.

Regards,
Marc


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

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

[Diversity-talk] Notes posted on DISC, thoughts on research

[Mikel Maron]

Hey all

Finally got around to posting information about the DISC and our recent meeting 
to the OSMF wiki: 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Diversity_and_Inclusion_Special_Committee

I also was chatting with Martin Dittus, who has done a lot of research on HOT 
http://martindittus.info/, for his insight on how to approach the survey work. 
Thought I'd share his thoughts.

> I don’t have quite the right specialisation for this, but can offer some 
> general reflections based on the above. Regarding filling in gaps, a) 
> Surveys. Might be worth to simply review what old & recent surveys are 
> available, and (if you want to run your own) how they phrased these kinds of 
> questions. I imagine Yu-wei might have good perspectives on survey design if 
> needed - her approach might actually already be described in the paper. b) 
> there is of course survivorship bias there in any such survey - it won’t tell 
> us why people dropped out. For that I’d recommend more ethnographic 
> approaches, people who’ve accompanied the community and have seen/heard 
> stories.  C) generally I suspect that a lot of the work that is being asked 
> for has already been done, and it’s simply not been collated and given 
> visibility. It might be worthwhile to eg review all the documents linked in 
> that Diversity wiki page above and see what kind of recommendations the 
> authors make. Broadly speaking I suspect the committee’s time might be well 
> spent not trying to reproduce the most recent stats, but instead simply 
> finding succinct articulations of known specific issues; ie a kind of 
> visibility & strategy-setting agenda 

This echoes a lot of the thoughts during our first meetings of the DISC -- 
there's a lot existing to draw on, and what's the most we can make with it.

-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron

___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Diversity-talk] [Osmf-talk] First Meeting of Diversity and Inclusion Special Committee

[Mikel Maron]

Thanks everyone for the follow on discussion. Please keep it going!

I had promised a next action myself to digest and post to OSMF wiki, including 
some next steps that others can take up. But I ran out of time, and that's not 
going to happen for another 1.5 weeks, I'm going offline for the kids' school 
break. 

In the mean time, if someone wanted to step in and start organizing my notes 
into more tangible discrete tasks, please do. 

Something else I intend to do is more direct outreach to folks to join this 
group. We need more diversity in the diversity committee! I think there's a lot 
OSMF can learn from what other folks have already done in our community, and I 
hope to develop relationships to explore this more.

-Mikel


On Wednesday, February 12, 2020, 01:15:48 PM EST, Mikel Maron 
 wrote: 





We just concluded second of two meetings today. Lots to digest, thanks to those 
who were able to make it. Raw notes are at 
https://hackmd.io/3cy5P9fhSvSVI8gkIHIX6w?view. My next action is to digest a 
bit, and create a page on the OSMF wiki with some things that came out of the 
meeting.

Other next steps. Maggie is going to start a OSM wiki page to gather previous 
research, Rory is looking at tweaks to the Diversity Statement, and Jinal is 
putting together a short form to gather details on interest from people who 
didn't make this meeting.

-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Thursday, February 6, 2020, 01:41:45 PM EST, Mikel Maron 
 wrote: 






Last month, the OSMF adopted this Diversity Statement [1] and appointed a 
committee [2] to compile research and undertake new research on our diversity, 
identify root causes that contribute to any shortfalls, and make 
recommendations to help resolve issues and improve. 

If you're interested to take part, join an upcoming initial meeting of the 
committee. We're holding a first meeting on Wednesday February 12 at 1400 UTC 
[3] on Mumble [4] (in the public OSMF Board of Directors room). Please join if 
you'd like to contribute. If you're unavailable at that time, let us know other 
times that might work, and we can schedule another kickoff meeting in addition.

[1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Diversity_Statement
[2] https://hackmd.io/ZG8x44H4Skq0CPkcrMTB6A?view
[3] Timezone converter: 
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DISC+Meeting=20200212T14=1440
[4] How to use Mumble: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mumble

-Mikel




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

___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Diversity-talk] First Meeting of Diversity and Inclusion Special Committee

[Mikel Maron]

We just concluded second of two meetings today. Lots to digest, thanks to those 
who were able to make it. Raw notes are at 
https://hackmd.io/3cy5P9fhSvSVI8gkIHIX6w?view. My next action is to digest a 
bit, and create a page on the OSMF wiki with some things that came out of the 
meeting.
Other next steps. Maggie is going to start a OSM wiki page to gather previous 
research, Rory is looking at tweaks to the Diversity Statement, and Jinal is 
putting together a short form to gather details on interest from people who 
didn't make this meeting.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Thursday, February 6, 2020, 01:41:45 PM EST, Mikel Maron 
 wrote:  
 
  Last month, the OSMF adopted this Diversity Statement [1] and appointed a 
committee [2] to compile research and undertake new research on our diversity, 
identify root causes that contribute to any shortfalls, and make 
recommendations to help resolve issues and improve. 
If you're interested to take part, join an upcoming initial meeting of the 
committee. We're holding a first meeting on Wednesday February 12 at 1400 UTC 
[3] on Mumble [4] (in the public OSMF Board of Directors room). Please join if 
you'd like to contribute. If you're unavailable at that time, let us know other 
times that might work, and we can schedule another kickoff meeting in addition.
[1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Diversity_Statement[2] 
https://hackmd.io/ZG8x44H4Skq0CPkcrMTB6A?view[3] Timezone converter: 
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DISC+Meeting=20200212T14=1440[4]
 How to use Mumble: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mumble
-Mikel

  ___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-talk] OTG rule, borders & mountains existing | Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

[Mikel Maron]

Colin doesn’t seem to be advocating for deference to and worship of authorities 
in all situations. That’s an over the top interpretation. 
It’s maybe better to say that it’s something to consider when evaluating data — 
as we always look at a mappers context in OSM when looking at edits and 
revisions.
Side point
>  we *are* a project of hobbyists and volunteers
and professionals. And students and researchers. And anyone else who wants to 
participate in an open map. Been that way since the beginning.
Let’s not cut ourselves short in comparison to “professional” tools. Many of 
the software tools we’ve developed as a community are leading the industry. 

Mikel

On Wednesday, February 12, 2020, 4:42 AM, Frederik Ramm  
wrote:

Hi,

On 2020-02-12 10:28, Colin Smale wrote:
> Where a boundary coincides with the centre line of
> a road for example, and there is a discrepancy in OSM between the
> locations of the two, there should be a recognition that the
> professionally surveyed locations are more likely to be correct

I disagree.

What you are requesting here is that we blindly defer to authorities. "I
cannot verify this - but a professional surveyor with his $10k equipment
claims it is so - hence I guess I have to believe it."

I think this is not how OpenStreetMap should be operating. I can see how
to a professional surveyor the idea must be painful that someone comes
along with their rubbish equipment and makes a change, but we *are* a
project of hobbyists and volunteers, and something that a hobbyist and
volunteer cannot verify ("don't touch this unless you invest $10k in
equipment first!!!") should not be in OSM, and we should not worship
precision that we cannot create ourselves.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] OTG rule, borders & mountains existing | Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

[Mikel Maron]

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-February/083993.html

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020, 04:42:42 PM EST, stevea 
 wrote:  
 
 Thanks, Mikel, but may I please ask what you mean by "control boundaries?"
SteveA

> On Feb 11, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Mikel Maron  wrote:
> 
> btw, I think it's entirely compatible to follow On the Ground, with tagging 
> that recognizes the distinction between political boundaries and control 
> boundaries.
> 
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OTG rule, borders & mountains existing | Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

[Mikel Maron]

btw, I think it's entirely compatible to follow On the Ground, with tagging 
that recognizes the distinction between political boundaries and control 
boundaries.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Tuesday, February 11, 2020, 03:55:48 PM EST, stevea 
 wrote:  
 
 On Feb 11, 2020, at 12:05 PM, Mark Wagner  wrote:
> Have you actually been to the US-Canada border?  For thousands and
> thousands of kilometers, it's really obvious:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/US-Canada_border_at_Crawford_State_Park_20130629.jpg
> 
> Even when it's not as obvious as in that photo, there are still
> frequent boundary cairns.  And yes, they're mapped in OSM:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1997617997

I have been there, and in British Columbia, as is your example.  There will 
always be counter-examples to a claim of "boundaries are not always obvious or 
indicated on-the-ground," (as you did, here, with a cutline in the real world 
some of these being mapped in OSM).  Same with mountain ranges, oceans / bodies 
of water, etc. that have no signage or evidence of them (named as they are) 
being OTG.  Simply stated, there ARE (and always will be) things we map which 
are not OTG, making OTG not a rule strictly followed.

However, we map these anyway, and by the thousand.  My point is that OSM 
shouldn't pretend that the OTG "rule" is absolute, as it isn't.  While I think 
all of us (even its original proponent in 2007, as Mikel stated earlier) agree 
that OTG is "an excellent guideline to be followed where it can be," others 
(Colin, Yuri) here have chimed in or infer that it can't realistically be 
absolute (as it isn't, and it can't).  Me, too.  There seems to be consensus 
that "Independent verifiability" is a crucial component of Good Practice in 
those cases where OTG cannot STRICTLY be followed, as in cases of invisible 
boundaries, oceans without signage, and mountain ranges where we are forced to 
concede "well, everybody simply KNOWS that these are 'The Alps' or 'The Rocky 
Mountains.'"  The solution here is "this (and its correct name) can be 
independently verified, that's "good enough for OSM" even without OTG evidence.

https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Good_practice#Supplementing_and_clarifying_the_On_The_Ground_.22rule.22
 has input from Yuri and jeisenberg and I discussing whether unsigned routes 
qualify for this treatment (we can't see them OTG, but we map them anyway, as a 
public agency asserts their existence, though it hasn't signed them well).  
While routes like this are a relatively minor (lesser) concern about OTG, 
broader discussion continues here (in talk).  (I'm OK with that).  But lest my 
suggestion that we modify/soften OTG from a "hard rule" (which it isn't and 
cannot be) into a wishy-washy, too-ill-defined "guideline," please understand 
I'm stating OTG isn't a rule.  Rather, it is an excellent guideline to be 
followed where it can be and is, but it is a fact that it cannot be and is not 
always followed.  The particulars of how we better apply OTG going forward 
might be difficult to describe well and reach consensus upon, but we shouldn't 
let that deter us, even with disagreement.

Rather than get snarled in counter-examples, let's discuss how OTG isn't and 
can't be strictly followed in many cases.  It IS followed in the majority of 
cases, but in those corner cases where it isn't, because it can't be ("nothing" 
is OTG), must be realistically addressed, likely in our wiki where we state the 
"rule" today, though going forward much better state a "guideline".  I think we 
can get there, but it remains under discussion / construction.

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

Re: [Diversity-talk] [Osmf-talk] First Meeting of Diversity and Inclusion Special Committee

[Mikel Maron]

There’s really no good time that works universally. These won’t be the only 
meetings or way to get involved, they’re just to get things moving.

Mikel

On Saturday, February 8, 2020, 1:40 PM, Philip Barnes  
wrote:

On Sat, 2020-02-08 at 16:12 +, Mikel Maron wrote:
To accommodate time zones, we’ll hold this initial meeting twice, the second at 
1700 UTC on the same day, Wednesday February 12. I’ve blocked out an hour for 
each, but if you can only attend a portion that’s fine too.

Hi Mikel
Would it not be better to hold these meetings on a weekend when more people are 
likely to be available?
Whilst Europe is very much awake at these times, 14:00 is also working time, 
17:00 is end of work time, commute time and woking time in North America. Phil 
(trigpoint)



___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org



___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Diversity-talk] [Osmf-talk] First Meeting of Diversity and Inclusion Special Committee

[Mikel Maron]

To accommodate time zones, we’ll hold this initial meeting twice, the second at 
1700 UTC on the same day, Wednesday February 12. I’ve blocked out an hour for 
each, but if you can only attend a portion that’s fine too.
Expect we’ll discuss the scope of work laid out by the Board, sketch initial 
work plans, and figure out logistics and timing and structure of future 
meetings. I’d rather not “chair” the meetings after this, so if you’re 
interested we can discuss at either meeting and decide after both. I’ll take 
minutes if no one else volunteers and circulate after.

Mikel

On Thursday, February 6, 2020, 1:44 PM, Mikel Maron  
wrote:

 Last month, the OSMF adopted this Diversity Statement [1] and appointed a 
committee [2] to compile research and undertake new research on our diversity, 
identify root causes that contribute to any shortfalls, and make 
recommendations to help resolve issues and improve. 
If you're interested to take part, join an upcoming initial meeting of the 
committee. We're holding a first meeting on Wednesday February 12 at 1400 UTC 
[3] on Mumble [4] (in the public OSMF Board of Directors room). Please join if 
you'd like to contribute. If you're unavailable at that time, let us know other 
times that might work, and we can schedule another kickoff meeting in addition.
[1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Diversity_Statement[2] 
https://hackmd.io/ZG8x44H4Skq0CPkcrMTB6A?view[3] Timezone converter: 
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DISC+Meeting=20200212T14=1440[4]
 How to use Mumble: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mumble
-Mikel

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



___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground

[Mikel Maron]

Godo point SteveA. If I had it to do over again, when I developed this in 2007 
for our first edit war over city names in Northern Cyprus, I would have name 
this the "On the Ground **Guideline**" rather Rule.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, February 7, 2020, 02:15:11 PM EST, stevea 
 wrote:  
 
 Without touching the Crimea specifically, I'd like to chime in that 
"on-the-ground" (OTG) is a good rule, but in reality it must be approached more 
like a goal to be achieved where it can be, as we must acknowledge that 
realistically, this rule both cannot be and is not applied everywhere under all 
circumstances.  That is the simple truth and OSM should not pretend otherwise.  
Maybe we need to tighten up our language about how we define OTG to better 
acknowledge this, clearly and explicitly.

A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which frequently do not 
exist "on the ground," but our map data would be remiss if it excluded these.  
So we do our best to include boundaries even as they are not on-the-ground, but 
exist in both de pure and de facto ways in the real world, so OSM expresses 
them.  Yes, when boundaries are disputed, this is difficult:  there is no way 
around that and it isn't unique to OSM.  I like Mikel's recent suggestion 
positing that OSM can better develop tagging that accommodates a wide array of 
disputes, as we do have plastic tagging and it can evolve well.

Other examples include large bodies of water and mountain ranges.  I've lived 
on the Pacific coast most of my life and been to dozens of beaches, but never 
once on any beach have I seen a sign which reads "Pacific Ocean."  Same with no 
signs at the edge of or in the middle of "Rocky Mountains" or "The Alps."  
(I've been, and I haven't seen).  Yet, OSM maps oceans and mountain ranges.  
How do we know their names without anything on the ground?  It's a tricky 
question which usually starts with some hand-waving (especially for enormous, 
major-chunk-of-planet-sized entities like oceans), and progresses to "well, 
everybody simply KNOWS that's the Pacific Ocean..." and we are faced with OTG 
and an inherent contradiction of what we should do, then we do it anyway.  
(Name something without having a solid OTG reality).

To a lesser (weaker) extent, OTG flexibility might also apply to newly 
developed routes (bicycle routes are a good example) as these may not be signed 
(or well signed), yet a government (whether local, state or national) expresses 
these as real (on a public map — just as with a boundary) and poorly signs or 
doesn't sign them at all in the real world.  OSM uses "unsigned_ref" to denote 
these, but it's a fuzzy semantic that doesn't have wide agreement or even 
consensus.  I have seen the opinion that these shouldn't be in OSM at all, 
which seems a shame for things which many local users (of a bike route decreed 
by a government, for example) agree do "exist," yet there isn't any OTG 
evidence for this.  While one tenet of OSM is "don't copy from other maps," 
when the only evidence that something exists is ONLY from a PUBLIC map 
(yielding us ODbL permission), we have to reconcile that with OTG.  Today, we 
don't do that very well.

So, rather than being fully enthusiastic about the absolute application of OTG 
(we simply can't), let's realize that it is a good guideline which should be 
followed where it can, yet it must include some flexibility which allows for 
exceptions.  I haven't seen that said (here, yet, perhaps it is elsewhere) and 
I believe it is important to be explicit about it.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground

[Mikel Maron]

There's two different concepts at play, that OSM does not currently tag well 
when in conflict. There's national sovereignty, which is a political concept 
which in large part depends on international recognition. And there's de facto 
control, which could result from military actions. For most of the world, these 
two are in sync. In Crimea, they are not, and there is a dispute. 
There are so many varieties of disputed territories in the world, it's hard to 
come up with a system that works for every single situation. And tagging 
structures for disputes could certainly get complicated. However, I believe 
that the OSM community could come up with something that works well enough for 
Crimea, that it would be broadly agreed that the situation is represented 
accurately. 
That tagging may not work for every single dispute in the world, but the tags 
could evolve as well as they are implemented in practice.
-Mikel


On Friday, February 7, 2020, 01:38:23 PM EST, Tomas Straupis 
 wrote:  
 
 Note, that I'm opposing OTG rule application to non-physical objects
as that is philosophically impossible as well as too unpracticall.

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

Re: [Diversity-talk] First Meeting of Diversity and Inclusion Special Committee

[Mikel Maron]

Heather -- I chose a time next week that would be near waking hours for maximum 
number of timezones. We can have more than one initial meeting. Want to get 
this moving. Suggest another time to me and we can schedule another.-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Thursday, February 6, 2020, 04:06:43 PM EST, Heather Leson 
 wrote:  
 
 Hi how did you choose this time? I really want to attend as someone who had 
been engaged in this topic. 
Reason for response: i am in a work event during this time.

Thanks in advance and am glad to see actions
Heather 
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020, 19:42 Mikel Maron,  wrote:

 Last month, the OSMF adopted this Diversity Statement [1] and appointed a 
committee [2] to compile research and undertake new research on our diversity, 
identify root causes that contribute to any shortfalls, and make 
recommendations to help resolve issues and improve. 
If you're interested to take part, join an upcoming initial meeting of the 
committee. We're holding a first meeting on Wednesday February 12 at 1400 UTC 
[3] on Mumble [4] (in the public OSMF Board of Directors room). Please join if 
you'd like to contribute. If you're unavailable at that time, let us know other 
times that might work, and we can schedule another kickoff meeting in addition.
[1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Diversity_Statement[2] 
https://hackmd.io/ZG8x44H4Skq0CPkcrMTB6A?view[3] Timezone converter: 
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DISC+Meeting=20200212T14=1440[4]
 How to use Mumble: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mumble
-Mikel

___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
  ___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

[Diversity-talk] First Meeting of Diversity and Inclusion Special Committee

[Mikel Maron]

 Last month, the OSMF adopted this Diversity Statement [1] and appointed a 
committee [2] to compile research and undertake new research on our diversity, 
identify root causes that contribute to any shortfalls, and make 
recommendations to help resolve issues and improve. 
If you're interested to take part, join an upcoming initial meeting of the 
committee. We're holding a first meeting on Wednesday February 12 at 1400 UTC 
[3] on Mumble [4] (in the public OSMF Board of Directors room). Please join if 
you'd like to contribute. If you're unavailable at that time, let us know other 
times that might work, and we can schedule another kickoff meeting in addition.
[1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Diversity_Statement[2] 
https://hackmd.io/ZG8x44H4Skq0CPkcrMTB6A?view[3] Timezone converter: 
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=DISC+Meeting=20200212T14=1440[4]
 How to use Mumble: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mumble
-Mikel

___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

[OSM-talk] Diversity in OpenStreetMap, Seeking your help on ideas for the Foundation

[Mikel Maron]

Hello -- I've written up ideas on steps the OSMF could take to address 
questions on diversity. Input and help welcomed. Please share to other OSM 
channels so people from far and wide can participate.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mikelmaron/diary/391966

ThanksMikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-legal-talk] update to mailing list description (was use OSM data to select proprietary data)

[Mikel Maron]

On Monday, December 16, 2019, 07:35:08 AM EST, Simon Poole  
wrote:

> Just to be clear: you asked a question on an unmoderated, publicly accessible 
>mailing list on which everybody can voice their opinions however unfounded 
>they are or not, and now you are unhappy with that you got a cacophony of 
>conflicting opinions, which is exactly what you should have expected.

Looks like this was clear to the poster, but I don't think it would necessarily 
be clear to a random person joining the list.

Suggest we modify the list description on 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk to 

"The list for discussion of all legal matters relating to Openstreetmap, 
including licensing and copyright. For official information on the license from 
the OSM Foundation, see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence;

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?

[Mikel Maron]

I suggest that those that want to continue this discussion do so on the 
legal-talk mailing list. It’s especially for discussing this level of detail of 
license questions.https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/ 

You all are free to ignore my suggestion, it’s not made with any moderation 
authority.

Mikel



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

Some first results from the OSM community survey 
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2019/09/17/pre-sotm2019-survey-initial-numbers-and-reflections-from-board-members/
 Thanks all who submitted! Curious to hear reactions and ideas here and at SotM


* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Saturday, August 10, 2019, 11:45:08 AM EDT, joost schouppe 
 wrote:  
 
 Hi,
We had a tight schedule for this survey, because we want to be able to present 
something by the next SotM. That explains why some questions aren't exactly 
worded perfectly. It would have been better to get more people involved and do 
more testing. But that inevitably slows things down. We did ask the science 
mailing list for feedback, but the only response was a volunteer to translate 
to Hungarian (thanks Levente!).And while I think there are clearly some issues 
that we missed, the output will still be quite useful.
I think we would like to get more people involved next time. The first survey 
was really last minute, this one is a bit better prepared but still made a few 
mistakes. The next one can be built over a bit more time. Oh

The "remote mapping" was added as a "nice to know" and wasn't even deeply 
discussed between the three of us writing the actual survey questions.
We did intend to publish "raw data", and consulted with LWG to get a proper 
wording for that. We understood that the "Publicly, aggregated and anonymously" 
meant "answers presented together" in whatever form (spreadsheet etc) and was 
not referring to a summary. If we misenterpreted that (unfortunately that feels 
kind of obvious now), than we'll make sure the wording is better next time.
And there is also the option to become an OSMF volunteer who has signed ad NDA, 
for those who want to work with the raw data.
-- 
Joost SchouppeOpenStreetMap | Twitter | LinkedIn | 
Meetup___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance

[Mikel Maron]

Fascinating discussion, thanks for all participating. The tension between an 
open community and standards of practice has always been the key dynamic of OSM.
What I think has changed as OSM has grown and accreted code, data, and culture 
is ..  less opportunity to just do it. Like many things in those days, Map 
Features page came about at the initiative of one person (Andy Robinson 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2005-November/000450.html), with 
close consultation within a relatively small community.
The closest I think we can get in 2019 is (as has been suggested?) asking a 
smaller group to dig into the topic, come up with guidelines, recommendations, 
a plan, to share for further discussion with the broader community. This is 
essentially the model of OSMF working groups -- and I think a working group 
looking particularly at tagging could be a good idea, but also understand that 
not everyone thinks this should be under the umbrella as an official org. If 
the idea of a smaller group seems sensible, then the particulars of how to 
bring it together is something else we can talk about.

Mikel

p.s. Getting off topic but did want to respond to Christoph's assertion
> There are no  interface specifications and unit tests in text writing. 

Interestingly, I have seen this work well. It's possible to define some writing 
standards in code, and run unit tests on them, to maintain consistency of 
structure and terminology. For a simple example, we once had tests for the 
Mapbox blog (published in markdown) to warn about usage of the "OSM" 
abbreviation (preference was to fully spell out OpenStreetMap).
On Thursday, September 12, 2019, 7:59 AM, Christoph Hormann  
wrote:

On Thursday 12 September 2019, Roland Olbricht wrote:
> Thus the question is: are contradictions between pages a problem? If
> yes then a holisitic toolset may do better, if not then the holistic
> tool has no advantage in this regard.

Yes they are but it is unrealistic in practical work on any text 
document of considerable size to keep it contradiction free at all 
times.

For writing any larger body of text collaboratively you will need to 
compartmentalize to some extent and have different people focus on 
different parts of the whole thing and coordination between those will 
need to happen through human evaluation and human communication.

Being able to keep an eye on the whole while working on the details is 
one of the core qualifications necessary for this.  There are no 
interface specifications and unit tests in text writing.  There is also 
usually a significant benefit in terms of clarity and readability of 
text if there is clear individual authorship on the level of individul 
sections or chapters.  If you mix different styles of writing on a too 
fine grained level that often has a negative effect on text quality.

As Frederik said the idea to approach this with "Lets use technology X 
in combination with technology Y and everything else is going to fall 
into place" is not going to work.

The real hurdle here is to set up an editorial baseline of guiding 
principles and goals and find qualified people willing to contribute to 
such a project under these principles in the long term.  And this is 
not something you can bootstrap from open community discourse and 
consensus because then it would be no different from what we already 
have on the wiki with all the cacophony of different contradicting 
interests and opinions.

Therefore this idea of a curated body of tagging documentation can only 
be a contribution to open community discourse and governance on 
tagging, it cannot be the result of it.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

> My main concern is rather that there are a lot of free form questions yet 
>there is no option for the participants to allow publication of the individual 
>free form answers in anonymized form. 
Select “publicly aggregated and anonymously” as answer to the first question 
and the free form answers will be published.

Mikel



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

We did this write up on how the previous survey was useful for board 
discussions, and some summary of what was raised 
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2019/06/13/surveying-openstreetmap/

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 05:55:35 PM GMT+3, marc marc 
 wrote:  
 
 Hello,

where are the results of the previous survey and the resulting actions 
available?
I don't remember the exact title but I'm talking about the investigation 
about what osmf could/should do, a few months ago.
it would be nice to be able to indicate that you want to receive a 
notification when it is available, as not everyone reads the minutes of 
the different groups to find a follow-up to what they have participated.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

Also note that no questions are required, so you can skip if most comfortable 
with that. 
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 05:00:05 PM GMT+3, Mikel Maron 
 wrote:  
 
 > The question wrt remote mapping would seem to be designed to achieve a 
 >specific result. 


Not at all. But please do feel free to answer truthfully, and explain anything 
in the previous question "Where do you map mostly?"


* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 04:31:38 PM GMT+3, Simon Poole 
 wrote:  
 
 Hi Dorothea

There's a typo in the section on communication channels, the first
occurrence of "other mailing lists" is mangled.

@the designers of the survey. The question wrt remote mapping would seem
to be designed to achieve a specific result. While a truthful answer on
my behalf would require a yes, because now and then I'll map remote and
if it is simply reverting a changeset on request of a remote mapper, but
that doesn't mean that a) I in general think it is a good idea, b) it is
any significant part of my contributions.

Simon

Am 07.08.2019 um 12:59 schrieb Dorothea Kazazi:
> Hello,
>
> The following survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap
> was developed by board members. The survey is not quantitative and its
> aim is to stimulate  discussions in local communities and at the Local
> Chapters Congress at SotM.
>
> https://osmf.limequery.org/428835
>
> ~ The survey will run for two weeks.
> ~ Only one question is mandatory: "How can we share your answers?".
>
> There is more information on the scope of the survey and approach on
> the opening page.
>
> warm greetings,
>
> Dorothea
>
>
> ~~
> Links you can share for different languages:
>
> English (Base language): https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=en
> Chinese (Simplified): https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=zh-Hans
> Chinese (Traditional; Hong Kong):
> https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=zh-Hant-HK
> French: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=fr
> German: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=de
> Hungarian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=hu
> Italian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=it
> Lithuanian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=lt
> Persian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=fa
> Portuguese (Brazilian): https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=pt-BR
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

> The question wrt remote mapping would seem to be designed to achieve a 
>specific result. 


Not at all. But please do feel free to answer truthfully, and explain anything 
in the previous question "Where do you map mostly?"


* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 04:31:38 PM GMT+3, Simon Poole 
 wrote:  
 
 Hi Dorothea

There's a typo in the section on communication channels, the first
occurrence of "other mailing lists" is mangled.

@the designers of the survey. The question wrt remote mapping would seem
to be designed to achieve a specific result. While a truthful answer on
my behalf would require a yes, because now and then I'll map remote and
if it is simply reverting a changeset on request of a remote mapper, but
that doesn't mean that a) I in general think it is a good idea, b) it is
any significant part of my contributions.

Simon

Am 07.08.2019 um 12:59 schrieb Dorothea Kazazi:
> Hello,
>
> The following survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap
> was developed by board members. The survey is not quantitative and its
> aim is to stimulate  discussions in local communities and at the Local
> Chapters Congress at SotM.
>
> https://osmf.limequery.org/428835
>
> ~ The survey will run for two weeks.
> ~ Only one question is mandatory: "How can we share your answers?".
>
> There is more information on the scope of the survey and approach on
> the opening page.
>
> warm greetings,
>
> Dorothea
>
>
> ~~
> Links you can share for different languages:
>
> English (Base language): https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=en
> Chinese (Simplified): https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=zh-Hans
> Chinese (Traditional; Hong Kong):
> https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=zh-Hant-HK
> French: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=fr
> German: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=de
> Hungarian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=hu
> Italian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=it
> Lithuanian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=lt
> Persian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=fa
> Portuguese (Brazilian): https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=pt-BR
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

Sorry I but I disagree. Yoga is a long tradition in OpenStreetMap ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPq4X47x3x0

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 10:04:46 AM GMT+3, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:  
 
 

sent from a phone

> On 7. Aug 2019, at 03:34, Naveen Francis  wrote:
> 
> Try YOGA it will help you.


I don’t believe this is an acceptable comment in the OpenStreetMap context, it 
may be at wikimedia, here it is not.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

I'd love to move into rational and studied discussion of corporate involvement 
in OSM and the application of machine learning techniques. 
It's easy to get caught up in rhetoric. I dislike "turbocharged" as much as I 
dislike "exploitation". The entire application of machine learning is plagued 
with overblown rhetoric, when after all, it is simply a statistical technique.
OpenStreetMap was founded on equal parts radical, reactionary rhetoric, and 
JFDI. It's also easy to forget how much traditional map making rejected OSM --  
that the craft of surveying is not something to be left to wild hooligans. 
While at the same time the involvement of companies was a critical part of the 
vision since 2004, from helping build software, selling GPS devices, hosting 
servers, and contributing data. And certainly bringing new people into the 
community -- no matter how people find OSM, I have almost universally seen a 
magic gleam in the eye of people who take part, that forms the core of many 
corporate initiatives in OSM. Just because my brain exploded with that vision 
of OSM before I started having the supreme privilege to spend my working days 
on it does not entitle me to some more exalted position.
I wonder if some of us have lost touch with that spirit, as OpenStreetMap has 
succeeded so wildly. I was so absorbed the audacious vision of OSM in 2005, I 
still am regularly shocked that anyone takes OSM seriously. Yes it is radical 
in 2019 to reject corporations and machine learning. But I think we have a lot 
more to offer than conservative rejection; rather we have a wildly successful, 
collaborative, practical approach that puts humans in the fore of complex 
technologies, as the world grapples with very complex times.
The reaction to Facebook's work really confuses me. Have critics of it actually 
tried it? I found it a measured approach, where every edit needs to be examined 
closely by a human and is checked for quality. The advantage of it, where I 
tried it in a dense partially mapped urban settlement, is that it highlighted 
missing streets very well, and made what would have been a maddening squinting 
process a bit smoother and more enjoyable. I still felt satisfaction in what I 
was doing. From talking with folks here in Kenya, there is genuine excitement 
at these new techniques. They've experienced the challenges of creating the 
map, and want to focus and build skills where their human abilities are most 
valuable. 
Now I am not saying that we accept anything without a critical examination. 
Absolutely not! What worries me is that our criticisms are not informed. And 
that there are valuable corporate contributions, and those that are not, and 
the same goes for new technologies.
Yes, there are quality issues. Yes, there are issues of the experience of the 
map and the community we built. Yes, there are serous issues of displacement 
and alienation. What are these specifically, and what are the range of 
responses we can explore together?
To take one example, Simon rightly points out that road geometry is only a 
portion, and perhaps the easiest portion, of what needs mapping. And that 
metrics to measure overall completeness sets real goals for us. How can we 
rally and build community around this? So many of our tools are oriented to 
greenfield mapping. What creative workflows, metrics, analysis and 
visualizations of OSM data can bring the same thrill of creating the map from a 
completely blank slate, to a stage of the map where the base geometry is there?
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Saturday, July 27, 2019, 01:43:59 PM GMT+3, Simon Poole  
wrote:  
 
  

 
 Am 26.07.2019 um 19:30 schrieb Naveen Francis:
  
 
Including my ₹ 0.10 (Indian ten paisa)   Echoes same thoughts of Brazilian 
Real.  
  AI-assisted human mapping tools will be a good aid for the OSM community. 
  "Map faster, Map better". 
   
  40,00,000 kms to be mapped in India.  15 years of OSM mapped 18,00,000 kms. 

The (rhetoric) question is, why is this the case?
 
Because the community in India is still very small relative to the population 
size.  
 
 
So from where will the additional contributors come from that will turn the 
additional 4 million road geometries in to something really useful? There is a 
real danger of the desire for "completeness" instead of quality resulting in 
multiple TIGER 2.0s, and we are just now slowly working ourselves out of the 
hole we dug (full of good intentions) with the original.  
 
 
Note on the side: outside of raw total  road length, a much more sensible 
comparison would be completeness measures per road categories (which I suspect 
is likely to look far less dramatic) and which might give more realistic goals 
for the community.
 
Simon

  
   
  thanks,
  naveenpf

  On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:42 AM Sérgio V.  wrote:
  
  Just adding my R$0,02 (Brazilian Real).
  I guess soon the AI as

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

>"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salarydepends 
>upon his not understanding it." 
Ok it's a pithy quote. Is it possible that however well written, this quote may 
not always be right? that it's difficult but not impossible to get a man or 
woman to understand something, despite their position? and that my salary does 
not depend on me avoiding thinking freely about this project?
Seeing that none of you arguing with me in this thread know me personally, I 
think it's extremely presumptuous that you think you understand me.
> I think it's unfair to accuse Christoph of being uninformed.
Is it unfair that Christoph accuses me of being in a cult?
I did not accuse Christoph of being uninformed. But the general argument here 
certainly is -- about the capability of people involved in OSM in a corporate 
way having no ability to think in another frame; or that even the corporate 
frame can not encompass other viewpoints, only profit.
-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, July 26, 2019, 01:18:11 PM GMT+3, Joseph Eisenberg 
 wrote:  
 
 The most well-know version is from Upton Sinclair's campaign to become
governor of California in the 1930's:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair - See
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/

Upton Sinclair is most famous for writing "The Jungle" as a young man.

> "enough with the division of OSM along these blunt, uninformed lines"

I think it's unfair to accuse Christoph of being uninformed. From what
I've read over the past year, he appears to be one of the few
individuals who are informed about the goings-on between the OSMF
board and corporations, who is not actually a member of either body.

On 7/26/19, Mikel Maron  wrote:
>
> From Christoph...
>> The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap and the OSM community
>> has meanwhile all the characteristics of a cult .. But i have strong
>> doubts meanwhile that arguing with people who are  fully immersed into the
>> belief system of corporate PR regarding OSM is  of benefit in most cases.
> Well this is pretty much a statement to end the conversation, isn't it? I
> could say the same "cult" about the knee jerk reaction of the self appointed
> representatives of the "hobby mapper". It does lead me to the same
> conclusion, almost -- which is that there is no point discussing these
> topics with you people here. But where would that get us?
> I for one would not say anything if I did not personally believe it. I am
> not here representing corporate interests (at this very moment I'm writing
> this from the middle of Nairobi's largest slum working on OSM, rather than a
> comfortable room in Europe). You can still draw whatever conclusions about
> me you like.
> For me, enough with the division of OSM along these blunt, uninformed
> lines.
> From Martin...> Fakeboosts
> good one :)
>> Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of
>> the OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the
>> OSMF / OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB.
> Well that very well might be true about perception. But Facebook did not say
> that OSMF was supporting the project. They representing correctly. We all
> here get the difference and understand that HOT is a different organization.
> Making this distinction is not Facebook's problem, but rather HOT and OSMF
> should do a better job explaining the complexity of the whole universe of
> OSM.
> -Mikel
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>    On Friday, July 26, 2019, 12:17:38 PM GMT+3, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>
>  @mikel in Fakeboosts own blog post there is still the misrepresentation of
> the role OSM plays in this project, due to HOT appearing to be an official
> OSM body (by the mere utilization of the OpenStreetMap trademark in their
> company name):
>
>
> “The RapiD tool was developed in conjunction with those in the mapping
> community who have been working in this area for many years. Because this
> tool was built with their input, it is already having an impact,” says Tyler
> Radford, the executive director of the Humanitarian OSM Team (HOT), which
> aims to make sure OSM represents all parts of the world."
>
>
> and
>
>
> The Map With AI team is collaborating with HOT to add more features to
> RapiD. For one step in that process, they’ve integrated RapiD into a
> development branch of HOT Tasking Manager,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of
> the OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an offi

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

>From Christoph...
> The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap and the OSM community has 
> meanwhile all the characteristics of a cult .. But i have strong doubts 
> meanwhile that arguing with people who are  fully immersed into the belief 
> system of corporate PR regarding OSM is  of benefit in most cases.
Well this is pretty much a statement to end the conversation, isn't it? I could 
say the same "cult" about the knee jerk reaction of the self appointed 
representatives of the "hobby mapper". It does lead me to the same conclusion, 
almost -- which is that there is no point discussing these topics with you 
people here. But where would that get us?
I for one would not say anything if I did not personally believe it. I am not 
here representing corporate interests (at this very moment I'm writing this 
from the middle of Nairobi's largest slum working on OSM, rather than a 
comfortable room in Europe). You can still draw whatever conclusions about me 
you like.
For me, enough with the division of OSM along these blunt, uninformed lines.
>From Martin...> Fakeboosts
good one :)
> Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of the 
>OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the OSMF / 
>OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB.
Well that very well might be true about perception. But Facebook did not say 
that OSMF was supporting the project. They representing correctly. We all here 
get the difference and understand that HOT is a different organization. Making 
this distinction is not Facebook's problem, but rather HOT and OSMF should do a 
better job explaining the complexity of the whole universe of OSM.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, July 26, 2019, 12:17:38 PM GMT+3, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:  
 
 @mikel in Fakeboosts own blog post there is still the misrepresentation of the 
role OSM plays in this project, due to HOT appearing to be an official OSM body 
(by the mere utilization of the OpenStreetMap trademark in their company name):


“The RapiD tool was developed in conjunction with those in the mapping 
community who have been working in this area for many years. Because this tool 
was built with their input, it is already having an impact,” says Tyler 
Radford, the executive director of the Humanitarian OSM Team (HOT), which aims 
to make sure OSM represents all parts of the world."


and


The Map With AI team is collaborating with HOT to add more features to RapiD. 
For one step in that process, they’ve integrated RapiD into a development 
branch of HOT Tasking Manager, 








Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of the 
OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the OSMF / 
OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB.

I am not sure if being a "corporate Gold member" already counts as being in 
collaboration with OSMF (likely not, because "collaboration" means "working" 
(labor) together, not just providing funds)


Cheers,


Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

This is just another badly written article by a third party. As someone else on 
thread said, hardly the first time a media piece gets OSM wrong.
Take a look at facebook’s own words here 
https://tech.fb.com/ai-is-supercharging-the-creation-of-maps-around-the-world/
I’m sure there’s plenty of phrases in FB’s own post to get worked about, if 
you’re looking for things to flame Facebook and the entire corporate world 
about. 
Myself, I like what they’re doing.
Mikel

On Friday, July 26, 2019, 10:47 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

Hi,

On 25.07.19 22:03, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> This press release is on the same level as "Cloudmade's
> OpenStreetMap Project" so many years ago.

In case anyone doubts that -

https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/07/facebook-ai-is-supercharging-the-creation-of-maps-around-the-world.html

"Recently, Facebook released a statement about its new effort to create
an OpenStreetMap project to not only benefit from mapping data but also
making this platform an open-source navigational source for users."

And the rest of the article is about how Facebook's only purpose is to
bring comfort to people's lives etc.

This is probably normal for corporate PR people, but for me it's just
disgusting.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

I also tried it out after Drishtie's post, and was impressed with many of the 
considerations in the process. The team developing this is indeed very open to 
feedback and have iterated a lot. I had also been watching this work as it 
moved alongside great strides in quality checks in iD. Deliberate open work to 
apply ML where it can be useful -> aiding human mappers, is the name of the 
game. Recommend to all to check it out directly.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Thursday, July 25, 2019, 05:29:17 PM GMT+3, Martijn van Exel 
 wrote:  
 
 I did. After Drishtie Patel announced a preview of this project[1] I gave it a 
go and shared my observations with them.
Martijn

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/DrishT/diary/368711

> On Jul 24, 2019, at 2:16 PM, stevea  wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure whether Martijn said this or not


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

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

[Mikel Maron]

> I believe the issue is more about the unwillingness to take community 
> feedback seriously at all when it doesn't coincide with the opinions already 
> held by the developers. Which brings us back full circle to the discussion of 
> the privileged position of the default editor on openstreetmap.org and the 
> related transparency (aka who is holding the purse strings) and the 
> non-existent community control or even just control by the OSMF.

This is a very interesting paragraph, dense with deep topics for the OSM 
project. These topics should separate this from the particulars of individual 
situations, because the dynamics are not unique to any single component of the 
OSM data and software ecosystem. OSM has always been a muddle and arguably one 
of the reasons for its success. In OSM people disagree, there's strong points 
of view and discussion, sometimes it resolves, often times we continue to 
muddle through. Yes, the OSMF has ultimately legal authority over all aspects 
of the project but by design and history, exercises it very selectively. And 
community is a very amorphous concept, with disagreements over what that means 
and how it functions. 
Certainly the shape of the OSM project has outgrown the systems we haphazardly 
put in place for governance and community back in 2007. It's worth stepping 
back from many of the recent heated issues in the community, and look at how 
they are the result of growth without intentional adaptation, and consider what 
kind of approach we can take to imagine what OSM is like in the next 15 years.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Thursday, May 9, 2019, 5:56:14 PM EDT, Simon Poole  
wrote:  
 
  

 
 Am 09.05.2019 um 23:14 schrieb Mikel Maron:
  
 
> What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on 
www.openstreetmap.org?  
  Absolutely. My understanding is this feature will greatly improve data 
quality in OSM. I think it's fair to validate squareness of existing buildings. 
Appreciate the great work of the iD team.  

The question was not about validating square or not square buildings, it is 
about storing a hint for iDs validation mechanism permanently in OSMs data. 
There is some precedent for doing so, as was mentioned in the github issue, 
still it is a bit controversial and discussion when adding such a feature 
should be expected. 
 
 
[Rant on the massively overrated concern for buildings in the first place and 
the background why people think that such a validation is necessary omitted]
 
   Also commend your attention to tagging issues Michael. There's certainly a 
broader issue with how tags are managed in OSM. In short it's a mess all around 
and is in need of a rethink. I don't think this minor issue is a "hill to die 
on" however.   
 
I believe the issue is more about the unwillingness to take community feedback 
seriously at all when it doesn't coincide with the opinions already held by the 
developers. Which brings us back full circle to the discussion of the 
privileged position of the default editor on openstreetmap.org and the related 
transparency (aka who is holding the purse strings) and the non-existent 
community control or even just control by the OSMF.
 
 
Simon

  
   
  -Mikel 
  * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron  
  
  On Thursday, May 9, 2019, 4:18:20 PM EDT, Michael Reichert 
 wrote:  
  
   Hi,
  
  this could be seen as a tagging discussion but I think that it is a
  discussion on governance and power. That's why this email goes to the
  Talk mailing list.
  
  Quincy Morgan, one of the maintainers of iD, invented a new tag called
  nosquare=yes today which should be added to buildings which are not
  square and should not be flagged by iD's validator. I (and later Paul
  Norman) pointed out issues with the tag. I asked Quincy to discuss the
  addition with the wider community beforehand.
  
  https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6332
  
  Here are the issues I pointed out in the bugtracker. At the beginning he
  planned to use square=no which he later changed to nosquare=yes but this
  change does not make things better:
  > Although noname=yes is common, it is not that common that it can serve as 
an argument in favour of introducing unsquare=yes. In difference to noexit=yes, 
unsquare=yes and noname=yes only serve as a workaround for quality assurance 
tools. noexit=yes also conveys information for map users: There road ends here.
  > 
  > Some people prefer to tag as complete as possible and add oneway=no, 
cycleway=no, lit=no etc. to any way. However, such a practice is not base on a 
broad consensus and if you dig deep enough in the history of user blocks in 
OSM, you might find blocks set due to an excessive use of negative binary tags.
  > 
  > I think that iD does not need this tag and should only validate buildings 
if they have been added or modified in the current session. If do

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

[Mikel Maron]

> What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on 
> www.openstreetmap.org?
Absolutely. My understanding is this feature will greatly improve data quality 
in OSM. I think it's fair to validate squareness of existing buildings. 
Appreciate the great work of the iD team. 
Also commend your attention to tagging issues Michael. There's certainly a 
broader issue with how tags are managed in OSM. In short it's a mess all around 
and is in need of a rethink. I don't think this minor issue is a "hill to die 
on" however.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Thursday, May 9, 2019, 4:18:20 PM EDT, Michael Reichert 
 wrote:  
 
 Hi,

this could be seen as a tagging discussion but I think that it is a
discussion on governance and power. That's why this email goes to the
Talk mailing list.

Quincy Morgan, one of the maintainers of iD, invented a new tag called
nosquare=yes today which should be added to buildings which are not
square and should not be flagged by iD's validator. I (and later Paul
Norman) pointed out issues with the tag. I asked Quincy to discuss the
addition with the wider community beforehand.

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6332

Here are the issues I pointed out in the bugtracker. At the beginning he
planned to use square=no which he later changed to nosquare=yes but this
change does not make things better:
> Although noname=yes is common, it is not that common that it can serve as an 
> argument in favour of introducing unsquare=yes. In difference to noexit=yes, 
> unsquare=yes and noname=yes only serve as a workaround for quality assurance 
> tools. noexit=yes also conveys information for map users: There road ends 
> here.
> 
> Some people prefer to tag as complete as possible and add oneway=no, 
> cycleway=no, lit=no etc. to any way. However, such a practice is not base on 
> a broad consensus and if you dig deep enough in the history of user blocks in 
> OSM, you might find blocks set due to an excessive use of negative binary 
> tags.
> 
> I think that iD does not need this tag and should only validate buildings if 
> they have been added or modified in the current session. If doing so, they 
> will be reported once which does not bother that much.
> 
> Adding such a tag is not a simple change as it might seem to be and I ask you 
> to discuss it with the broader community on the Tagging mailing list.

What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on
www.openstreetmap.org?

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [talk-latam] Invitación a mostrar nuestro trabajo en NNUU en Chile

[Mikel Maron]

Hello
I support the use of OSM for the SDGs.
I am not involved with this side event.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Thursday, March 28, 2019, 11:40:30 AM EDT, Comunidad GeoCensos 
 wrote:  
 
 Hola amigos,
Queremos  invitarlos para incluir a la mayor cantidad de integrantes de nuestra 
comunidad  mapera a un foro que estamos organizando en NNUU en su sede para 
América Latina y el Caribe de Chile.
Todos quienes quieran difundir su trabajo en la plataforma están invitados a 
presentar un poster con su mapa acá  Los que lo verán son funcionarios de 
gobiernos y organismos internacionales de nuestra región.
Les agradecermos si quieren  también recomendar iniciativas de OSM interesantes 
en temas de desarrollo y nosotros los podemos hacer invitar. Este año vamos a 
priorizar los aportes que podamos hacer como comunidad a los Objetivos del 
Desarrollo Sustentable, que es un tema que viene difundiendo varios compañeros, 
entre ellos Mikel Maron. Por eso va en copia.

Si desean registrarse y de frente ir (especialmente quienes vayan a estar en 
Abril en Chile) les dejamos el vinculo  
https://eventos.cepal.org/event/5/registrations/8/ para hacerlo. Cierra muy 
pronto.
Besos y abrazos
Martín CoronadoCommunity Manager de GeoCensos

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Your thoughts on osm.org

[Mikel Maron]

A map built from data from the osm community index to connect to mapping 
communities https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Tuesday, March 12, 2019, 1:01:59 PM EDT, Martijn van Exel 
 wrote:  
 
 Hi all,

Here’s something I ask myself from time to time and would like to hear other 
people’s thoughts about.

Imagine the openstreetmap.org home page, but without the map.
What would the home page be about instead? What would be on it?

Thanks for sharing,
Martijn
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

[Mikel Maron]

Just as my opinions here don’t represent the osmf board, they don’t represent 
Mapbox either.
Personally, I don’t care much about the details of attribution either way. I 
love to see it and regularly look for it in every map I come across. I tweeted 
this three weeks ago 
https://twitter.com/mikel/status/1094603703384973312. I’m also under zero 
illusions that anyone else but people in osm notice or care.
As enthusiastic as I am to see osm “in the wild”, I’m irritated by license 
shaming. I know, it’s irritating by design. I don’t believe it works and just 
casts a bad light of OSM.
The main motivation that triggered this discussion about attribution, is to 
paraphrase, that the “no one knows OSM”. 
However much OSM is known now, I agree, it should be known more. OSM is the 
most interesting story in mapping of the last ten years. There are so many good 
stories.
To make sure OSM is known takes a serious communication and marketing strategy, 
resources to build relationships with press, etc.
Certainly attribution is important. LWG is working on better guidelines. 
Publicly shaming on a regular basis hurts our opportunity to be better known. 
Or we become known for being a grumpy underdog.

Mikel

On Friday, March 1, 2019, 5:25 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:

 
Just a couple of general comments on this.
 
- The LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our attribution guidance this 
year 
seehttps://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2019-01-10
 
- I would have preferred that the discussion take place when we've actually 
written something, because some of the issues raised have been settled since at 
least 2014, including obtaining legal advice on what  "reasonably calculated" 
is, but that's life :-). In any case the community can expect a draft guideline 
for discussion in the upcoming months.
 
 
And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the results of the 
2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847 which a) states that the 
attribution is be default expanded, and b) that should be the case "whereever 
possible" which in our understanding limits the use of a default collapsed 
attribution to cases where it is physically impossible to show the expanded 
version, for example very small map snippets.  In 2014 we felt that this was 
acceptable (we don't have an formal statement on this iirc), and I would go out 
on a limb and say that it would still be considered a reasonable guideline. 
 
 
Simon

  

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

[Mikel Maron]

These are norms not rules. ODbL doesn't specify how attribution needs to 
happen, or anything about equivalence with other attribution. So even if OSMF 
were to take on enforcement, there's nothing to specific to enforce. (And I 
recommend we drop the whole license shaming shenanigans -- we should accept 
that OSM has won and we are not the underdogs any more. ) Sure we could get 
legal, but imagine the number of legal opinions about what "reasonably 
calculated" means. 
We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation. We can 
certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation can only be 
formulated through the OSMF; a mailing list discussion will not lead to a legal 
decision, though it's an interesting pulse on the topic. afaik the LWG is 
actually thinking about updating the guidance to modern day usage, and welcome 
that effort. 

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Thursday, February 28, 2019, 8:03:23 PM EST, Greg Troxel 
 wrote:  
 
 Paul Norman via talk  writes:

> On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>
>> In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service"
>> providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an
>> click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples:
>>
>> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png
>> https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG
>
> In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how
> they find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom
> logo like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap
>
> With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated"
> attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other
> companies.

Agreed.  The notion that there isn't room does not hold up to scrutiny.

I tend towards OSM being more aggressive about insisting that the
attribution rules be followed.

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

[OSM-talk] OSMF Membership Fee Waivers for Financial Hardship

[Mikel Maron]

If the membership fee for OSMF is a financial burden, the OSMF Board will 
review any requests for a fee waiver from potential members. This is a 
temporary measure, while a full process is implemented (if you are interested 
to help, please let us know!) Below are details on the decision, how we'll 
handle applications from yesterday, and how to apply.

To apply:
    email bo...@osmfoundation.org, with your first and last name, country of 
residence, OSM id. Also please state that you are applying for fee waiver 
because of financial hardship, and give a short account of your activities in 
OpenStreetMap.

On the decision:
At the 2014 Annual General Meeting [1], it was decided

>  The membership fee for associate membership, which normally is tied to the 
>regular membership fee, may be waived if paying the fee would constitute an 
>unreasonable burden to the member, either because of financial hardship or 
>because of the lack of a suitable money transfer facility.

Implementation was delegated to the Membership Working Group. Yesterday, they 
announced the full process for waiver because of lack of suitable money 
transfer [2].

At yesterday's Board meeting, we resolved to review fee waiver requests for 
financial hardship. [3]


> The membership fee waiver program has not been implemented yet. However, 
>today (2018-11-15) there was a flurry of emails sent to the board and the 
>Membership Working Group from people asking to join the Foundation and the fee 
>to be waived. The board will review the requests and individually decide on 
>the waiver. If approved, the membership join date will be the date of the 
>approval.


The starting date of membership will be recorded on the day they are processed. 
That means that applicants from yesterday will not be members in time to 
participate in this year's AGM. There was a request to delay the AGM to 
accommodate more sign ups through this process; however the AGM time and date 
had already been announced.

[1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Annual_General_Meetings/14[2] 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-November/005427.html[3]
 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-11-15#Voting_on_reviewing_recent_fee_waiver_requests

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Diversity-talk] How do you mapping gender neutral toilets? What should the unisex tag mean?

[Mikel Maron]

> That's one of my original questions. What (if any) data consumers are
using this data/tags?
>
> If some popular site/app was using it to display a map that's one thing.
If no-one is using the data, and many data contributors (mappers) are
using "unisex=yes" as gender neutral, then it doesn't matter if the wiki
says "it's the same as gender segregated"! 
>
> I haven't found any sites/apps/projects using this data/tags.

Proud to say, my alma mater University of California, Santa Cruz, has had 
various versions of its campus map based on OSM, and they highlight gender 
neutral bathrooms. "unisex=yes" is the tag used 
there.https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1951346808

The application of the tag is not consistent across the campus, so is a prime 
location to engage for a mapping effort.
-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Thursday, April 26, 2018, 3:18:45 AM EDT, Rory McCann 
<r...@technomancy.org> wrote:  
 
 On 26/04/18 01:00, Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
> If most existing data is using unisex to mean "there are both male and
> female toilets", then it doesn't matter one bit what the wiki says.
> Reusing the tag to mean "there are gender-neutral toilets" will cause
> confusion with that existing data.

That's one of my original questions. What (if any) data consumers are
using this data/tags?

If some popular site/app was using it to display a map that's one thing.
If no-one is using the data, and many data contributors (mappers) are
using "unisex=yes" as gender neutral, then it doesn't matter if the wiki
says "it's the same as gender segregated"! 

I haven't found any sites/apps/projects using this data/tags.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Undiscussed mass-revert by user Nakaner-repair

[Mikel Maron]

 blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px 
#715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white 
!important; } Nakaner
This is an epic effort and appreciated.
But there are two things that need to be cleared up.
> The choice was to either accept that OSM
is overrun by a army of sockpuppets who ignore us at all or to make the
time/money they invest into editing a waste of time/money by reverting their 
edits even if it removes good contributions. That's sad but what is the 
alternative?

It's not a binary choice. The alternative is to establish good dialogue with 
the communities you are monitoring (the US on this case), and make sure there 
is awareness and buy in to your proposed action. I don't think that would be 
difficult or time consuming but does take consideration of other mappers in OSM 
who you don't regularly communicate with.
> There is no formal policy yet but that doesn't mean that they can do what 
>they want to do. If it is against the interests of the community, it's against 
>the existing unwritten rules.
There is no such thing that gives anyone the right for large scale vigilante 
actions. There is enough justification to potentially take action (after 
discussion and with proper communication) -- sock puppets for one -- that you 
don't need to invoke organized editing.   If and when we do have a policy, we 
in the osmf will also need to develop clear guidance on how it is communicated 
and implemented.

Mikel

On Friday, April 20, 2018, 8:22 PM, Michael Reichert  
wrote:

Hi,

Am 20.04.2018 um 17:13 schrieb Ian Dees:
> I noticed that user Nakaner-repair just reverted 1000+ changesets
> throughout the United States without any discussion in the local community.
> Nakaner-repair points to a thread in the German forum [0] that seems to
> indicate that they think these edits were made by paid mappers. Having not
> heard from those suspected paid mappers, they went ahead and reverted
> without discussion from the local community.

TL;DR A group of mappers (presumeably from UTC+5) started adding
highway=service and doing wrong quality assurance on roads in Europe and
the U.S. in mid/end of March. British and later German mappers found
these strange edits last week, some German searched for more accounts,
SomeoneElse and myself wrote changeset comments and SomeoneElse (DWG)
blocked many on them.

Unfortunately, the 0-hour user blocks are not as useful as they are
usually (and I expected them to be). They have been ignored and they
continued editing or created sockpuppets. Longer blocks were ignored and
they continued editing after the block. Changeset comments were not
answered or the response did not answer the question.

Since this week, they don't do any QA on roads any more and only add
highway=service in the U.S. They create new accounts if their old
accounts are blocked. This pattern now repeats day by day and the last
resort was to revert their work because that causes financial damage (I
hope they get paid).

Please see some inline comments/responses on Ian's questions below.

-
The full story:

On 2018-03-29 Will Phillips writes to the Talk-gb mailing list that he
observed "a series of edits with users removing or changing access and
oneway tags". He describes the quality of these edits as "very poor". At
that time "none of them has yet responded to changeset comments".
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-March/021259.html

SomeoneElse suggests him to write an email to d...@osmfoundation.org
(the DWG).
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-March/021260.html

I am not subscribed to Talk-gb and did not notice it at that time.

On 2018-04-09 tux67 creates a new thread on the German forum because he
found two users (sri_harsha and Premsakhare) editing roads globally
without local knowledge. He asks other mappers to review their edits.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=693849#p693849
(contains changeset links)

Premsakhare had received multiple (!) user blocks at that time. The
oldes block was created after the discussion on Talk-gb.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1831
He had been blocked because he did not answer changeset comments asking
for the sources being used. The block was removed automatically when
Premsakhare read it. Premsakhare uploaded more changesets but did not
answer the question, SomeoneElse blocked him again, the block expired,
Premsakhare started editing again, SomeoneElse blocked him again, …
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Premsakhare/blocks

One hour after tux67's posting on the German forum, user whb commented
that he observed multiple mappers editing roads and intersections
without local knowledge. He found patterns (editor, locale, mapped
features) making it possible to group them. He suspected that they are
accounts of employees of "Mapbox or at least any other company".

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Undiscussed mass-revert by user Nakaner-repair

[Mikel Maron]

> If mappers find edits they consider questionable - either factually or 
>methodologically - and attempts to get in contact with the mapper making those 
>edits fail it is commonly accepted practice that mappers can revert such 
>changes
While that is somewhat correct (I question how common or accepted or in what 
cases a revert is called for, but anyway...), that's not what's happening as 
far as I understand. All edits are being reverted without evaluation of their 
individual merit. 
Nakaner seems to be applying an organized editing policy here without grounds. 
We do not have an official policy, nor do we have guidance on how this kind of 
situation would be managed.
I am not saying there is not an issue here with the edits by these mappers and 
this group. Just that this action by Nakaner does not look to be particularly 
well thought through.
>  i am pretty sure the local US community does not want this to continue in 
>their domain and how to best accomplish that would be a good subject of 
>discussion
While you are probably correct that the US community does not want this kind of 
behavior,, as far as I can tell no one was consulted outside of the German 
forum discussion, where the US community does not tend to hang out -- so I'm 
not sure you should just make this assumption. How best to accomplish this 
would actually be a good subject of discussion, but _before_ a mass action such 
as the one Nakaner has deputized himself to do.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, April 20, 2018, 12:30:02 PM EDT, Christoph Hormann 
<o...@imagico.de> wrote:  
 
 On Friday 20 April 2018, Ian Dees wrote:
>
> I'd be interested in seeing all of these reverts reverted (at least
> in the US) until discussion can take place.

I don't know about these changes or the reverts of them in detail but on 
a general note here:  If mappers find edits they consider 
questionable - either factually or methodologically - and attempts to 
get in contact with the mapper making those edits fail it is commonly 
accepted practice that mappers can revert such changes.  This happens 
every day many times all over the world and is a good way to reduce the 
workload of the DWG by not getting them involved in all the small 
matters mappers can resolve between each other.

OTOH reverting an edit, even if that edit itself is a revert, without 
trying to discuss it with the mapper making it, is generally not 
considered to be acceptable.

I don't want to assess Nakaner's edits with that but your call for a 
blanket revert of them without a previous discussion giving him the 
chance to explain his intentions with those edits and their merit would 
not be in line with established practice in OSM.

If what the discussion on the German forum indicates is accurate, i.e. 
that there is a group of mappers performing organized edits which 
reject attempts to contact them and evade blocks established to ensure 
they do not continue without getting in contact with the community by 
creating sockpuppet accounts, i am pretty sure the local US community 
does not want this to continue in their domain and how to best 
accompish that would be a good subject of discussion.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Undiscussed mass-revert by user Nakaner-repair

[Mikel Maron]

> If mappers find edits they consider questionable - either factually or 
>methodologically - and attempts to get in contact with the mapper making those 
>edits fail it is commonly accepted practice that mappers can revert such 
>changes
While that is somewhat correct (I question how common or accepted or in what 
cases a revert is called for, but anyway...), that's not what's happening as 
far as I understand. All edits are being reverted without evaluation of their 
individual merit. 
Nakaner seems to be applying an organized editing policy here without grounds. 
We do not have an official policy, nor do we have guidance on how this kind of 
situation would be managed.
I am not saying there is not an issue here with the edits by these mappers and 
this group. Just that this action by Nakaner does not look to be particularly 
well thought through.
>  i am pretty sure the local US community does not want this to continue in 
>their domain and how to best accomplish that would be a good subject of 
>discussion
While you are probably correct that the US community does not want this kind of 
behavior,, as far as I can tell no one was consulted outside of the German 
forum discussion, where the US community does not tend to hang out -- so I'm 
not sure you should just make this assumption. How best to accomplish this 
would actually be a good subject of discussion, but _before_ a mass action such 
as the one Nakaner has deputized himself to do.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, April 20, 2018, 12:30:02 PM EDT, Christoph Hormann 
<o...@imagico.de> wrote:  
 
 On Friday 20 April 2018, Ian Dees wrote:
>
> I'd be interested in seeing all of these reverts reverted (at least
> in the US) until discussion can take place.

I don't know about these changes or the reverts of them in detail but on 
a general note here:  If mappers find edits they consider 
questionable - either factually or methodologically - and attempts to 
get in contact with the mapper making those edits fail it is commonly 
accepted practice that mappers can revert such changes.  This happens 
every day many times all over the world and is a good way to reduce the 
workload of the DWG by not getting them involved in all the small 
matters mappers can resolve between each other.

OTOH reverting an edit, even if that edit itself is a revert, without 
trying to discuss it with the mapper making it, is generally not 
considered to be acceptable.

I don't want to assess Nakaner's edits with that but your call for a 
blanket revert of them without a previous discussion giving him the 
chance to explain his intentions with those edits and their merit would 
not be in line with established practice in OSM.

If what the discussion on the German forum indicates is accurate, i.e. 
that there is a group of mappers performing organized edits which 
reject attempts to contact them and evade blocks established to ensure 
they do not continue without getting in contact with the community by 
creating sockpuppet accounts, i am pretty sure the local US community 
does not want this to continue in their domain and how to best 
accompish that would be a good subject of discussion.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Diversity-talk] Who Maps the World

[Mikel Maron]

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/03/who-maps-the-world/555272/

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron___
Diversity-talk mailing list
Code of Conduct: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct
Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-talk] Effecting change in OpenStreetMap

[Mikel Maron]

I agree there are several parts of the OpenStreetMap software ecosystem where 
there's a healthy developer process. openstreetmap-carto and iD come to mind. 
Search and routing. Part of the issue with the main website -> it's a monolith, 
encompassing many different components. Sign up & authentication, messaging and 
communication, data exploration, the API. Andy Allan has been doing great work 
lately to make development on the rails app cleaner and more approachable. A 
good next step to consider is further isolating components, and the 
stakeholders on those components, so that development discussion and plans can 
become more focused.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017, 10:36:05 AM EST, Matthijs Melissen 
<i...@matthijsmelissen.nl> wrote:  
 
 On 21 November 2017 at 14:47, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
<m...@komzpa.net> wrote:
> "I'm worried about this. I have not performed a technical review." as a
> blocker for PR merge:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/2939
>
> Basically, most of wide ~2011 dev community was hired away, and core is in
> hands of those who weren't hired away by Map* for whatever reason, be that
> lack of social skills or lack of technical skills. You've got no fresh
> blood, and there's no road map for it to improve.

I can't speak for the other projects, but at least towards
openstreetmap-carto this is very unfair criticism. In fact, what
you're describing is something I've been actively trying to combat
with openstreetmap-carto. Our project has added 8 maintainers, 4 of
which have been added over the past two years. Also in the last two
years, 22 people have contributed code through pull requests. So it's
certainly not true that it's impossible to get something merged into
the project.

Your criticism of the comment on your PR is not fair either, the
comment 'I'm worried about this' was referring to an earlier, more
detailed response, by me:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/2939#issuecomment-343258037

> Basically, most of wide ~2011 dev community was hired away, and core is in 
> hands of those who weren't hired away by Map* for whatever reason, be that 
> lack of social skills or lack of technical skills.

Either that, or they like to fiddle with maps at night time, and have
a day job in a more lucrative industry.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Mikel Maron]

 blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px 
#715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white 
!important; } Let's not get hung up on this, I think we're missing the point. 
The way the item in WeeklyOSM was written was rude and unnecessarily 
antagonistic. The very same information about the direction of the discussion 
could have gotten across without resorting to commentary on an individual, or 
continuing the argument.
I have a good rule of thumb for online communications. Imagine the people being 
addressed are in the same room as you. Read what you're writing out loud, 
without any intonation. If you are not comfortable saying the same in real 
life, not a good idea to write it online.

Mikel

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017, 8:36 AM, Rory McCann  
wrote:

On 17/11/17 23:04, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 11/17/2017 07:34 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
>> Also, there is such a thing as "fake balance".  Imagine you're 
>> running an article about someone who's discussing ways to offset 
>> the problems caused by the Mercator projection; you don't then need
>> to also quote someone from the Flat Earth Society for the sake of
>> impartiality.
> 
> This is actually quite important. In the US, after the election, I 
> read a lot of media critique where people said that many papers had 
> misunderstood their journalistic impartiality as having to give both 
> sides of an argument equal coverage, however nonsensical one side may
> have been. This mistake that was made by well-meaning, 
> liberal-thinking, fairness-aspiring journalists, it was claimed, 
> contributed to giving the country Trump.

I second this. Irish broadcast law requires that political discussions
are "balanced", which was horrible during the 2015 same-sex marriage
debate. It was used to require that any mention of LGBTQ people on TV
was also "balanced" be equal airtime for people to respectfully claim
that gay people are a threat to children¹.

Requiring "balanced" discussions is fundamentally incompatible with any
sort of code of conduct.

Panti's Noble Call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXayhUzWnl0 :
> Have any of you ever come home in the evening and turned on the
> television and there is a panel of people - nice people, respectable
> people, smart people, the kind of people who make good neighbourly
> neighbours and write for newspapers. And they are having a reasoned
> debate about you. About what kind of a person you are, about whether you
> are capable of being a good parent, about whether you want to destroy
> marriage, about whether you are safe around children, about whether God
> herself thinks you are an abomination, about whether in fact you are
> "intrinsically disordered". And even the nice TV presenter lady who you
> feel like you know thinks it's perfectly ok that they are all having
> this reasonable debate about who you are and what rights you "deserve".
> 
> And that feels oppressive.

Calls for "balance" are often only made in one direction. Does anyone
believe that any mention of a company is required to give equal space to
someone to (respectfully, reasonably) claim that privately owned
companies are a threat to society, to the planet, are evil, and must be
fought, and must not be trusted? Surely people people should be
impartial on the capitalism/communism debate!

-- 
Rory

[1]
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bai-rejects-charge-of-stifling-debate-on-gay-marriage-301581.html


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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Mikel Maron]

One request. Can we not relitigate thie topic of Yuri's tool on this thread. 
Want to focus on helping WeeklyOSM to improve its coverage of our whole 
community.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, November 17, 2017, 4:29:39 PM EST, Steve Doerr 
<doerr.step...@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 On 17/11/2017 20:50, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> One important aspect was missing in the announcement. The tool's new 
> name is a tiny part of a much bigger set of community suggested and 
> requested changes. Fully ignoring functionality changes that many 
> community members suggested is biased.
>
> Mechanical edit claim was also never justified -- saying it's a 
> mechanical edit tool doesn't fit with the community's own definition, 
> per wiki. Just the other day the importance of using the right word 
> was mentioned - when I allegedly missed the word "deprecated". Let's 
> keep things consistent, and not dilute or change the meaning of 
> existing terms to fit the immediate agenda.
>

+1


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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Mikel Maron]

> I don't think you could argue with "perceived by many as unreasonable" - just 
>wade through the recent archives of the talk mailing list again and weigh the 
>arguments for and against.
It's just not ok to call out an individual like that. It's not appropriate, not 
correct and not helpful.  The dynamic of the discussion be expressed much 
better, with full information, without disrespecting each other. I'm happy to 
find ways to help WeeklyOSM if you all agree that the issue of impartiality is 
an important and serious one to take on.

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, November 17, 2017, 1:35:58 PM EST, Andy Townsend 
<ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
  On 17/11/2017 17:52, Mikel Maron wrote:
  
   Yes, doing this is hard work, and appreciate the job WeeklyOSM has to do. 
Point is, statements like "Yuri is as unreasonable as before and tries to 
ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM" is inappropriate, and there are many 
better ways to summarize the topic.   
 
 Well to be fair, the article as written didn't actually say that - it said "is 
perceived by many as unreasonable".
 
 Full disclosure - I'm an occasional contributor to the weekly OSM newsletter.  
I didn't add or edit that article (actually I didn't contribute to any last 
week - you can usually tell the ones I've written because they have more links 
and perhaps too many words in them), but although perhaps a little over-concise 
I don't think you could argue with "perceived by many as unreasonable" - just 
wade through the recent archives of the talk mailing list again and weigh the 
arguments for and against.  Also, there is such a thing as "fake balance".  
Imagine you're running an article about someone who's discussing ways to offset 
the problems caused by the Mercator projection; you don't then need to also 
quote someone from the Flat Earth Society for the sake of impartiality.
 
 Secondly - and this is a point that applies to many other areas of OSM too - 
there seem far more people willing to contribute their copy-editing skills here 
on a mailing list than actually helping put _next_ week's newsletter together.  
It's not a new phenomenon - a short while ago WeeklyOSM had a complaint from an 
OSM-centric organisation (let's call it "X") that "we never report on what's 
happening with X".  It was politely suggested to the complainer that perhaps 
they ought to volunteer themselves; then they could submit all the articles 
they like.  It went very quiet after that.
 
 It's a similar situation with technical discussions elsewhere ("you ought to 
render X like Y", "you ought to change how the osm.org website works so I don't 
have to build infrastructure for $project", "Nominatim ought to support my 
$odd_non_address_search_example").
 
 Although there's always room for improvement, much of what's around OSM now 
has a surprisingly low bar for entry, whether it's creating a map based on OSM 
data that shows $favourite_but_quite_rare_tag, or answering questions on the 
help site or forum, or as here, volunteering to submit and review a few news 
articles a week.
 
 Best Regards,
 Andy
 
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Mikel Maron]

Yes, doing this is hard work, and appreciate the job WeeklyOSM has to do. Point 
is, statements like "Yuri is as unreasonable as before and tries to ignore all 
the unwritten rules in OSM" is inappropriate, and there are many better ways to 
summarize the topic.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, November 17, 2017, 12:35:44 PM EST, Martin Koppenhoefer 
<dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 2017-11-17 17:27 GMT+01:00 Mikel Maron <mikel.ma...@gmail.com>:


Good point. Try this..
> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the 
>tool now called Sophox. The discussion continues to be quite contentious.


but then the message boils down to: "Yuri Astrakhan is discussing a re-named 
tool (Sophox) on the talk mailing list", and you have to go there and read 
through everything in order to actually get "information".
Cheers,Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Mikel Maron]

> believe the version you propose is still biased, because Yuri says his tool 
>isn't about performing mechanical edits.
Good point. Try this..
> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the 
>tool now called Sophox. The discussion continues to be quite contentious.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, November 17, 2017, 11:23:23 AM EST, Martin Koppenhoefer 
<dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 2017-11-17 16:53 GMT+01:00 Mikel Maron <mikel.ma...@gmail.com>:

Now try this version...
> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the 
>tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). The discussion 
>continues to be quite contentious.

This is better. It gets the same substantial information across, but does not 
call out judgement on an individual, and allows the reader to enter the 
discussion with an open mind.


Thank you Mikel for the insights, but I believe the version you propose is 
still biased, because Yuri says his tool isn't about performing mechanical 
edits. ;-)
Cheers,Martin
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Mikel Maron]

> Anyway, it's sad to see that WeeklyOSM has abandoned all attempt at 
>impartiality
Impartiality is an ongoing issue for any journalistic enterprise. WeeklyOSM has 
at times done better, and done worse. I think WeeklyOSM is a really valuable 
service, and I hope the editors there are open to our help to become a better 
service for the whole OSM community.
Let's look at this example, and see if we can come up with something better. 
Compare the original version...
> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the 
> tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). Yuri is perceived by 
> many as unreasonable as before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in 
> OSM.

and this version
> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the 
>tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). Yuri is as unreasonable 
>as before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM.
This is worse, but I posit not much worse. While the published version does 
semantically avoid WeeklyOSM making this judgement, the meaning comes through 
much the same.
Now try this version...
> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the 
>tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). The discussion 
>continues to be quite contentious.

This is better. It gets the same substantial information across, but does not 
call out judgement on an individual, and allows the reader to enter the 
discussion with an open mind.
-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, November 17, 2017, 6:52:25 AM EST, Rafael Avila Coya 
<ravilac...@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Hi:

I've read the majority of the posts of the "New OSM Quick-Fix service" 
thread in OSM-talk, and I don't see any partiality in the post of the 
WeeklyOSM. In fact, I think they have been very polite and diplomatic.

Cheers,

Rafael.

On 17/11/17 11:34, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 17/11/2017 08:20, weeklyteam wrote:
>> Yuri Astrakhanre-started 
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-November/079504.html>the
>>  discussion on the Talk mailing list about the tool to do mechanical edits 
>> (it is now called/Sophox/). Yuri is perceived by many as unreasonable as 
>> before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM.
> 
> 
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one 
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress 
> depends on the unreasonable man."
> -George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)
> 
> 
> Anyway, it's sad to see that WeeklyOSM has abandoned all attempt at 
> impartiality.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>  
>     Virus-free. www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>  
> 
> 
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[Mikel Maron]

Hey everyone -- let's do stick to the topic at hand. My takeaways from the good 
points on the discussion here from Frederik and Yuri.
* It's ok to have different points of view* Being respectful of each other is 
important. Very important* Let's not make disagreements personal
Online communication is hard. We are missing all the context and cues from real 
life. Let's make an extra effort to get beyond the inevitable miscommunications 
when they crop up.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017, 4:32:42 AM EST, Yuri Astrakhan 
<yuriastrak...@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 TLDR; Please read my previous email, and lets discuss the actual tool, its 
capabilities, and how it can fit and add value to OSM ecosystem, while 
minimizing potential negatives.
Frederik, I have offered to have a direct video conversation with you to better 
understand your concerns, explain my goals, and bring it back into productive 
scope, but no luck yet. I still hope you are more interested in resolving our 
differences than having a public tribune.  Lets not spend hours on emails, but 
try to understand each other's concerns in a private conversation, without 
involving the entire world.  I am sure what you think I am trying to do is 
substantially different from what I actually am trying to do, and my 
understanding of your concerns is also different from your actual concerns.
If there is a large group of people who are trying to do something different 
from your strongly held believes, it means they have a problem you might not be 
aware about. In your example, "kick foreigners out" is a symptom of a problem - 
possibly related to people's insecurity or lack of education. Vilifying them 
and calling their ideas outrageous makes us feel righteous and united, but does 
not solve the actual problem or changes what they think - it actually 
exacerbates it, because both sides become more entrenched in their believes.

So yes, I do want to keep our conversation constructive (not positive!) - 
understand concerns on all sides, and provide the most value to everyone 
involved.

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:

Hi,

On 07.11.2017 07:29, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Please keep discussion to constructive suggestions and ideas - they help
> us all move forward and reach agreement.

I have a general remark about statements like the above, that is not
related to your specific tool.

Statements like this are aimed at silencing opposition. But that is
neither fair, nor right, nor a good way for a community to move forward.
Opposition must be allowed, and people who are in opposition must not be
cast as "negative" (="bad").

Just imagine if someone suggested something outrageous ("Let's deport
all foreigners from or village") and then if someone says "no", they are
told: "Please keep discussion to constructive suggestions and ideas".
("If you have a better idea on how to get rid of foreigners, we're all
ears!")

There are many ideas that are broken beyond repair, where the basic
tenets are already so wrong that no constructive suggestion can ever
make it good. Rejecting such ideas is good, and a valuable contribution.

Please don't try to silence opposing voices by limiting discussion to
"constructive suggestions".

As I said, this is not aimed specifically at you; I think the last time
I said it was in a discussion about a tree import where the importers
asked critics to simply take their energy elsewhere instead of being
"negative" about the import.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

__ _
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.or g/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Misrepresentation of OSM by HOT?

[Mikel Maron]

Hey Frederik
Really good questions. 
First off, I don't necessarily see this as an American - European thing .. 
there are plenty of people with different approaches to communication 
everywhere. 
What does guide me is experience communicating online, in text, with people 
from a variety of backgrounds. It is *very* easy to misunderstand intent 
online. It is *very* easy to have an limbic reaction to something we read 
online. (There is in fact a lot introspection right now about the effect of 
this dynamic on democracy as a whole). When I feel it's necessary, I go out of 
my way to not only share my issue, or what I want to happen, but also my 
thought process getting there, and my understanding of other points of view.
The start of this thread began in the context trademark policy. I don't mean to 
get into a discussion about the details of trademark policy, though that is an 
important topic. Starting off discussion of the Tasking Manager in this way 
feels pretty aggressive. As HOT, and very importantly the individuals who 
participate in HOT, are well known in the OSM community, you can assume they 
are on this mailing list, are open to discussion, and want to make things 
better.
In fact, I totally agree with Christoph that the new Tasking Manager needs to 
improve how it communicates about OSM, and there have been some constructive 
suggestions in the thread. I think posting on talk@ is one fine way to open 
that discussion. He could also have contacted HOT people directly, posted on 
the hot@ list, opened GitHub issues. The point is, HOT is not a faceless, 
unresponsive entity, but people you run across every day in OSM, with whom you 
can discuss things, and work together constructively.
So here's maybe a turn at rephrasing the original email.
> Subject: How can we better talk about OSM on the new Tasking Manager?>> I 
> recently turned up on the HOT tasking manager page  
> (http://tasks.hotosm.org/)> and found the page is now presenting itself as 
> the "OpenStreetMap Collaborative > Mapping"  portal with  no indication 
> except for the small logo on top that this is one of> many projects in the 
> OpenStreetMap community.>> At the same time it seems (at a  first glance) I 
> could not find any links on the site> to OpenStreetMap.  >
> To the visitor unfamiliar with OSM this is quite likely to generate the 
> impression that this is OSM and that contributing to "OpenStreetMap 
> Collaborative Mapping" always happens via HOT tasks.
>> From past discussions on this topic, I figure HOT does not want to give 
>> this> impression. Here are some ways I think the tasking manager and it's 
>> relationship> to OSM could be better communicated.
Hope this helps clear this up.
Thanks-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Monday, October 23, 2017, 11:24:33 AM MDT, Frederik Ramm 
<frede...@remote.org> wrote:  
 
 Hi,

On 10/23/2017 05:06 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2017 08:59, "Mikel Maron" <mikel.ma...@gmail.com
> <mailto:mikel.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>    However ... I hope we can also agree that it is counter productive
>    to start off such discussions in such an argumentative pose. I hear
>    a lot of distrust in phrases like "misrepresentation", "claiming
>    ownership", "exactly what HOT doesn't do". It's emotionally draining
>    for me to read things like this, and I don't think I'm alone. There
>    is always more we can learn from each other, about what to do and
>    how to do it. We are all here in OpenStreetMap because we love the
>    map. Can we please use that as a starting point in our interactions,
>    and focus on helping each other to make the map together?
> 
> 
> Yes, thanks for bringing this up Mikel. Combative questions and the
> assumption that the other party is trying to attack OSM makes threads
> like this extremely difficult to participate in. People interested in
> having a conversation about OSM avoid the mailing lists because of
> threads like this and it hurts our community.

I find it tiring to read these "see that's why nobody does mailing lists
any more" tirades, and it is very difficult for me to separate criticism
of the style in which something is written, from criticism of the actual
message. I feel that there's too much language policing going on, and
too little respect for cultural diversity. Christoph is, like me, from
Europe, and those of you who are quick to cast him (or "threads like
this") off as harmful to the community, seem to be from the USA. Is it
possible that we simply have different ways to express things? Can civil
conversations about OSM only be had by US citizens and those who swallow
their values, and everyone else is a problem? Or do we have the same set
of values b

Re: [OSM-talk] Misrepresentation of OSM by HOT?

[Mikel Maron]

Christoph
I see that my message wasn't received as intended. My hope is not to amplify 
disagreements, but to help set a constructive and friendly tone. Let's take the 
discussion of how we're communicating "offline" -- I'll connect with you, and I 
hope set up a time to talk directly.
In any case, I don't feel I'm deflecting. As I said, "I think there are some 
very reasonable ideas and discussion on this thread, about how to describe the 
tasking manager, OSM, HOT, etc", and appreciate your work to help frame the 
complexities of OSM appropriately. 
I also think we should have better guidance on the handling of trademark 
policy, the appropriate ways and places to raise issues, and how the OSM 
Foundation and LWG handle these issues. Will bring this up.
Thanks-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Monday, October 23, 2017, 10:23:14 AM MDT, Christoph Hormann 
<o...@imagico.de> wrote:  
 
 On Monday 23 October 2017, Mikel Maron wrote:
> [...] However ... I hope we can
> also agree that it is counter productive to start off such
> discussions in such an argumentative pose. I hear a lot of distrust
> in phrases like "misrepresentation", "claiming ownership", "exactly
> what HOT doesn't do".

This has nothing to do with trust, i looked at the website and describe 
my observations here.  The term "misrepresentation" is from the 
trademark policy:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#5.3._Misrepresentation

If you think it is inappropriate to use such a term w.r.t. OSM 
trademarks this is probably something you need to discuss with the LWG.

> It's emotionally draining for me to read things 
> like this, and I don't think I'm alone.

Have you considered that it might be "emotionally draining" for OSM 
contributors to see the name of the project being used on a website 
like this without any links to OSM and mentioning of the fact that OSM 
is all about collaborative global mapping even without HOT or the 
tasking manager?

FWIW - i do not feel emotionally drained about this, but i feel rather 
offended by your, Ian's and Clifford's reactions deflecting a 
matter-of-factly critique of that website and the resulting discussion 
about this and possible ways to improve it (and i welcome the 
constructive suggestions so far) into a discussion about what words may 
be used in discussion here.

I would also like to remind you that one of the most important guiding 
principle in communication in OSM is to "assume good faith".  I 
followed this principle here by describing my observations of the 
tasking manager without any interpretation as for why it is designed 
this way - although this is of course a question i did contemplate.

It would be nice to see you doing me the same courtesy by arguing the 
topic at hand without insinuating "an argumentative 
pose", "distrust", "Combative questions" or a lack of respect.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Misrepresentation of OSM by HOT?

[Mikel Maron]

Hello everyone
I think there are some very reasonable ideas and discussion on this thread, 
about how to describe the tasking manager, OSM, HOT, etc. We all can agree it's 
complicated, and explaining this right is worthy of our time and energy. (One 
additional complication to consider is that the tasking manager software is 
used in lots of different scenarios, include every day mapping, so the tag line 
may need to cover non-disaster situations as well.)
However ... I hope we can also agree that it is counter productive to start off 
such discussions in such an argumentative pose. I hear a lot of distrust in 
phrases like "misrepresentation", "claiming ownership", "exactly what HOT 
doesn't do". It's emotionally draining for me to read things like this, and I 
don't think I'm alone. There is always more we can learn from each other, about 
what to do and how to do it. We are all here in OpenStreetMap because we love 
the map. Can we please use that as a starting point in our interactions, and 
focus on helping each other to make the map together?
Thanks-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Monday, October 23, 2017, 7:59:41 AM MDT, Christoph Hormann 
<o...@imagico.de> wrote:  
 
 On Monday 23 October 2017, Simon Poole wrote:
> I suspect Christophs issue is more that HOT seems to be claiming
> ownership of "OpenStreetMap collaborative mapping".

Yes, this is one of my points.  The other is that it fails to connect 
the visitor to collaboration and communication within the OSM 
community.  The visitor is invited into what is being presented 
as "OpenStreetMap collaborative mapping" but this whole concept as it 
is being presented on that site seems to be carefully segregated from 
the rest of the OSM community with its communication channels, wiki, 
local communities etc.

No one can forbid HOT to do that but if they do so they IMO should not 
present this under the name OpenStreetMap as "OpenStreetMap 
collaborative mapping" in general or even as pars pro toto.

Or they could rework the site to properly present OpenStreetMap and HOT 
and how they relate to the visitor.  learnosm.org (which i think is 
also mainly built by HOT) shows this is possible to do.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

[Mikel Maron]

The essential discussion here is -- OSM communities can put together plans 
ahead of this redaction, in order to minimize impact to the map. With 
sufficient legal process. This seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to plan 
out, rather than doing a large scale revert and scrambling to clean up after.
The chdr problem has been with us for years. There is little risk in giving 
slightly more time to plan ahead. Perhaps that is best done country by country. 
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Monday, August 28, 2017 7:06 AM, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> 
wrote:
 

 On Monday 28 August 2017, Greg Morgan wrote:
> We do get to go through the five stages.  We do get to express the
> emotions until acceptance of our fate as part of the healing process.
>  There is no rubber stamping!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model

You are free to express your emotions but I think you are overreaching 
here with comparing a redaction of data in OSM to the grief over a 
serious personal loss.

In case this was not clear the term 'healed' as i used it was referring 
to the legal concept of healing a breach of contract or other legal 
infractions by ceasing some activity or doing something you neglected 
to do before.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

[Mikel Maron]

> we can find a good workflow for that. I wasn't expecting the community to 
>start working on this pre-redaction but if people prefer that to fixing issues 
>later...
Absolutely, let's do this!
Also, Frederik, I think your script picked up false positives. Spot checked in 
DC, and these are expansions of both the street and the quadrant ("St NW" -> 
"Street Northwest"(. Can we fix the script and regen the list?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109419946/historyhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109431926/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109431927/history

-Mikel
 * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 2:45 PM, Greg Morgan <dr.kludge...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
 

 

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Martijn van Exel <mart...@openstreetmap.us> 
wrote:

Happy to help. All we'd need for MapRoulette is a list of locations and a 
proper description of the work we'd expect people to do. Anyone can create the 
challenge but I'd be happy to do it.Martijn

Martijn,
I'd would be great if you can break this down to an area.  For example, I have 
a list of Arizona streets.  I'd prefer to work on this as an Arizona challenge 
verses one big chdr challenge.
Please Advise,Greg
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

[Mikel Maron]

> we can find a good workflow for that. I wasn't expecting the community to 
>start working on this pre-redaction but if people prefer that to fixing issues 
>later...
Absolutely, let's do this!
Also, Frederik, I think your script picked up false positives. Spot checked in 
DC, and these are expansions of both the street and the quadrant ("St NW" -> 
"Street Northwest"(. Can we fix the script and regen the list?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109419946/historyhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109431926/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109431927/history

-Mikel
 * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 2:45 PM, Greg Morgan <dr.kludge...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
 

 

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Martijn van Exel <mart...@openstreetmap.us> 
wrote:

Happy to help. All we'd need for MapRoulette is a list of locations and a 
proper description of the work we'd expect people to do. Anyone can create the 
challenge but I'd be happy to do it.Martijn

Martijn,
I'd would be great if you can break this down to an area.  For example, I have 
a list of Arizona streets.  I'd prefer to work on this as an Arizona challenge 
verses one big chdr challenge.
Please Advise,Greg
___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [Talk-us] FBI using OSM on website... without attribution

[Mikel Maron]

I'm going to check with some USG tech friends to see if they know anyone on the 
FBI web team. I think it may prove more expedient and get better attention than 
calling or emailing parts of the bureau which have little to do with this.
-Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, June 30, 2017 5:28 PM, Dale Puch <dale.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
 

 My mistake, Leaflet's example map and code on their main page do show correct 
attribution to OSM

So back to the FBI  https://www.fbi.gov/cve508/technical-support seems to 
suggest contacting a community outreach specialist in your local field office 
(via a dead link for me).
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices/richmond/community-outreach-1 just 
lists training...@ic.fbi.gov as a possible contact 
Dale Puch
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Denis Carriere <carriere.de...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

It's not Leaflet's fault the attribution is incorrect, their website is 
disabling the default attribution and adding a custom one.
~~Denis Carriere
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Dale Puch <dale.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

A better route is to contact http://leafletjs.com/ since they are providing the 
actual map data thru their script.  Also they probably do so for lots of other 
sites.
Leaflet does attribute Openstreetmap at the bottom of their main page page 
though.

Dale Puch
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 2:36 PM, David Kewley <david.t.kew...@gmail.com> wrote:

It looks like all the FBI field office sites are essentially part of the 
national site, so they're all probably managed centrally. They all credit 
Leaflet in the map widget, and use OSM tiles without crediting OSM.
It's been years since I've noticed webmaster links, like we used to have in the 
early days of the Web. Poking around, I couldn't find any technical feedback 
links at all on fbi.gov. Ideas for contacting someone who might be able to help 
with this issue:   
   - Call the national FBI number: (202) 324-3000 from 
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us /fbi-headquarters.
   - Email one of the Community Outreach addresses available at various field 
offices ("Community Outreach" link near the top of each field office's page). 
E.g. for the San Francisco office, it's outreach...@ic.fbi.gov from 
https://www.fbi.gov/conta ct-us/field-offices/sanfrancis 
co/community-outreach-1. Some other field offices also have outreach email 
addresses.
   - On their "Businesses" page https://www.fbi.gov/resou rces/businesses, they 
have a link for "Intellectual Property Theft/Piracy" at 
https://www.fbi.gov/investi gate/white-collar-crime/piracy -ip-theft. While 
this issue seems economically tiny compared to the IP theft issues they tend to 
spend time on, it might be possible to get someone's help this way, since it's 
their own website. (Although the reporting methods I found went to other 
offices, not obviously directly to the FBI.)
I won't be following up on these in the foreseeable future, but if someone else 
does follow up, please let us all know what happens.

David
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Joseph R. Justice <jayare...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us /field-offices/denver

See map in upper right part of page

Does either the page for the Denver field office, and/or the nation-wide field 
office locator referred to in a separate post in this thread, include a 
"Contact the Webmaster" sort of link?  Or even just a "Contact Us" link?  Those 
would be a first obvious point of contact, I'd think...


Joseph

__ _
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.or g/listinfo/talk-us




__ _
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.or g/listinfo/talk-us




__ _
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.or g/listinfo/talk-us





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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] HDYC, login requirement and "privacy"

[Mikel Maron]

This topic started a bit backwards -- with an action taken by one project 
within the OSM ecosystem. We've covered a lot of perspectives on the topic of 
privacy in OSM, and possible actions and their implications. To turn this 
thread into some forward movement for us, a good course of action will be as 
follows. This does not clearly fit into one Working Group responsibility, so 
the OSMF Board can consider taking up the design of the process at least.
* We need to considerately research and assess the personal information (PI) 
risk. Including defining what is PI, and what various part of OSM might expose.
* LWG get informed legal advice on EU and other jurisdiction's PI laws* 
Consider the range of possible activities to address the risk
I reckon the most reasonable and effective starting activity will be to clearly 
define what OSM users need to know about contributing geodata to OSM, and the 
PI considerations they should keep in mind. As Frederik says, "raising 
awareness". For this to be effective, this means smarter design in the learning 
process and onboarding of new mappers. 
And perhaps that's the ending point. Personally I can't see any way the 
removing contributor metadata from geodata would 1) really protect anyone 2) 
not hobble the project, which depends so much on user reputation to retain 
quality. In any case, let's kick that question down the road.
-MIkel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, May 5, 2017 12:28 PM, Yves <yve...@gmail.com> wrote:
 

 Actually, can an OSM username be considered as 'personal data'? 
Can somebody point out to a definition of 'personal data' ? 
How would this be different from, say, my github account? 
Yves___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Responding to vandalism

[Mikel Maron]

Hi 
Frederik wrote
> Hence, the #1 strategy against "there's no local community that helps newbies 
>and reports vandals" for me is always: Attract a local community. Put more 
>cynically: A map without a local community is not able to survive, and has 
>never been, and it was perhaps a mistake to put it there in the first place.
It's an interesting question -- what is the ideal local community, what is the 
way of building one, and what is the role of the global OSM community in this? 
I don't think we have the answer to this, nor is there one answer -- what has 
worked in Germany, or even particular parts of Germany, is not going to work 
everywhere. I doubt that participation of the global community has dampened the 
growth of local communities, quite the contrary in my experience. 
Anyway, I feel this thread has wandered and I'd love to focus on what I take is 
Manohar's intent in writing this email...> Building better support systems to 
respond to bad edits could help more experienced mappers focus on community 
building activities. Even well developed local communities could simply use 
better support systems to monitor and respond to issues on intentional 
vandalism and unintentional errors. What do those systems look like? How can we 
improve the osm website, other services in the OSM ecosystem, documentation?
For example (this may have been mentioned before on the thread) .. the OSM US 
community has set up a Slack channel with notifications of every new user 
editing. We monitor this channel, give a quick look at edits, and send welcome 
emails. That said, it's an overwhelming number of new users, and improvements 
which helped the community both focus on problematic new edits and scale 
welcomes would help a lot.
I work with Manohar at Mapbox, so do have some rough ideas here from our 
internal QA work. But really wanted to learn what else is used currently, and 
what we'd all like to do together. Curious to hear if there's some 
commonalities among Tomas's tools for Lithuania, Joost's approaches, Michael's 
osm-analytical-tracker. Maybe we could also schedule a time to chat together on 
IRC and brainstorm approaches.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:07 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> 
wrote:
 

 Hi,

  I find it a bit unfortunate that you have chosen to use "vandalism"
in the subject, even though you later write

On 16.03.2017 14:47, Manohar Erikipati wrote:
> ... protect the map against common mistakes and intentional attacks. 

I think that "common mistakes" (mostly, beginner's mistakes) and
intentional attacks are two very different things that need very
different strategies.

And in vandalism, I would also distinguish between teenage doodles
("penis! ha ha ha!"), and serious concerted efforts to harm OSM. The
latter we haven't seen yet, but need to be prepared to face in the future.

> Much of the world lacks an active mapping community

It is my personal belief that OSM can never work without an active local
mapping community. That's one reason why I am always skeptical about
armchair mapping or massive imports (or even using machine learning to
generate data). These techniques help to fill the map with nice colours
but they don't give us what OSM thrives on - local mappers.

Hence, the #1 strategy against "there's no local community that helps
newbies and reports vandals" for me is always: Attract a local
community. Put more cynically: A map without a local community is not
able to survive, and has never been, and it was perhaps a mistake to put
it there in the first place.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM for government

[Mikel Maron]

Joost
Off the top of my head... The French government led by etalab have a really 
good model of working with OSM and several good projects.In the USG, USAID has 
been working with OSM and universities for data in Malaria spraying 
campaigns.Several resilience programs developed by the World Bank serving local 
governments using OSM.
Let's get a catalog started -- want to create a wiki page Joost?
-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, February 3, 2017 10:47 AM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
 
 

 A couple of the city of Ottawa web sites use the osm map.  Ottawa Hydro which 
is owned by the City for example.  I think the UK has imported all the bus 
stops and there are tools to import the GTFS format transit data but that 
depends on the license of course.

Cheerio John

On 3 February 2017 at 10:33, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us> wrote:

TRIMet in Portland, Oregon, US is the regional transit operator. They use and 
contribute to OSM. The US National Park Service has been working on a version 
of iD that can feeds users changesets into both OSM and NPS. Last I heard it 
still is waiting to be rolled out. (Now that NPS is in trouble for their 
tweets, not sure if we'll even have national parks.)
If there isn't a catalog there should be. 
Clifford
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:44 AM, joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,
With the Belgian community, we're making some careful progress into getting 
government to really integrate OSM/VGI into their data management efforts. So 
not talking about background maps here, real data contribution or community 
engagement.
There are some very specific issues and opportunities there. I believe the 
Canadian Census is going that way. Are there any other projects in this 
direction? Is there anything like a project catalogue around?

-- 
Joost SchouppeOpenStreetMap | Twitter | Link edIn | Meetup
__ _
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.or g/listinfo/talk





-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.usOpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
__ _
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap. org/listinfo/talk




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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

[Mikel Maron]

 blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px 
#715FFA solid !important;  padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white 
!important; }  Paul, thanks I hadn't seen that before, and it's a good response.

Mikel

On Friday, January 6, 2017, 7:05 PM, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com> wrote:

 On 1/6/2017 7:37 AM, Mikel Maron wrote:
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39517002 is an example. There were 
issues with this import, sure. This was not vandalism, advertising, or a fatal 
breakage of the map -- not a situation where an immediate action was justified 
(and definitely there are other situations where immediate action is needed). 
An active mapper and an active community were communicating, acting to fix the 
problems. The reverter in this case choose to ignore the mapper and the 
community and took a unilateral action, in contradiction to some guidelines on 
the wiki. This kind of approach discourages community contribution and 
cooperation. We can do a lot better to cooperatively improve the map and how we 
map it. 
 
 The revert in this case did not involve the Data Working Group. The DWG 
statement on this issue 
ishttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2016-September/007260.html. 
Quoting from it
 
 
Advance permission is not required for reverts, nor for normal mapping
 activities. At the same time, users are expected to be responsible,
 particularly when using tools for reverting which allow large-scale
 changes where other users may disagree with them.
 
 Where there are problems with an import reverting is an option, but
 just one of many, and often not the appropriate first action. Unless
 there are legal problems or fatal problems with the import it is
 preferable if the original importer can fix the problems in a timely
 manner. There was every indication this was going to happen in this case.
 
 The revert of 39517002 was inappropriate and counter-productive. New
 actions like this revert may lead to further Data Working Group
 involvement and potentially blocks. If the Canadian community needs help
 reverting 41749133 and 41756737, the Data Working Group can revert those
 changesets.
 
 
 Because there seems to be some confusion, neither Nakaner or Mikel are members 
of the Data Working Group.
 
 Frederik Ramm, Andy Townsend, and myself are the three people in this thread 
who are also members of the DWG. Unless they state otherwise, their opinions 
aren't representing the DWG.
 
 Paul Norman
 For the Data Working Group
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

[Mikel Maron]

> It is fatal for the project...
It's difficult for me to see how more respect, patientience, and clarity is an 
existential threat to OpenStreetMap. Perhaps I'll feel different after I run 
through a few of these cases...
Mikel

On Friday, January 6, 2017, 11:52 AM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:

Am 06.01.2017 um 16:37 schrieb Mikel Maron:

..

I would suggest that using this case to make your point is seriously
misplaced.

Reverting a broken import asap to allow for a) the guidelines to be
followed, b) address technical and legal issues, is the sensible,
logical and low impact and only scalable course of action. It is
definitely neither unfriendly nor un-welcoming or any other adjective
you want to use*. The earlier and more consistently it happens the less
effort and work is lost by all participants.

If there is an issue with immediate reverts, it is that, particularly in
the past, there hasn't been enough. The numerous broken imports (CANVEC
and broken import is essentially a synonym) that bitrot in our data and
are long past any reasonable way of removing them are testimony to this.

It is fatal for the project that you are creating the impression that as
long as you argue long enough and feign innocence you will be able to
bypass the rules and get away with whatever you want. To the contrary,
we should be making it clear that not following the few, definitely not
particularly arduous to adhere to, rules will result in immediate
removal of the content.

Simon

* the participants in the referenced discussion are neither newbies, not
aware of the guidelines, or any other mitigating factor, but that is not
the point.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

[Mikel Maron]

> "Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports" and "well documented 
>and visible plan" I read it as meaning "I want you to stop doing what you are 
>currently doing in the way that you are doing it", and want to understand 
>why.> I'd much rather the direction on this came from the community rather 
>than the board
You are questioning my motives and my affiliations. Yes, I wrote off the cuff, 
quickly in the middle of the thread. (Though have no idea what you mean by dog 
whistle here -- and I do know what a dog whistle is, I've just survived the US 
election :P). But sure, I'll take a little time here to do my best to achieve a 
clear communication -- no doubt I'll fall short, happy to keep trying.
It is good we have guidelines for handling imports, mechanical edits, disputes, 
and a community and working group that works to protect the map. I helped start 
the DWG after all. I do think there is room for improvement in certain 
circumstances (I'll give an example below) -- particularly around the tone and 
depth of the communication, the right speed of action, and transparency of 
process. My motivation is pretty much the same as everyone's here -- create a 
great map welcome to contributions to everyone who shares the vision of OSM, 
and helps us collectively improve how we do it. And I'm getting involved again 
in the DWG as me -- this has not been discussed by the Board at all, and 
serving as a Board member has no bearing on this discussion for anyone involved.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39517002 is an example. There were 
issues with this import, sure. This was not vandalism, advertising, or a fatal 
breakage of the map -- not a situation where an immediate action was justified 
(and definitely there are other situations where immediate action is needed). 
An active mapper and an active community were communicating, acting to fix the 
problems. The reverter in this case choose to ignore the mapper and the 
community and took a unilateral action, in contradiction to some guidelines on 
the wiki. This kind of approach discourages community contribution and 
cooperation. We can do a lot better to cooperatively improve the map and how we 
map it.

We need guidelines and transparency on reverts and other processes of the the 
DWG, so the community knows best how to act when issues arise, and what to 
expect as mappers. We need to have a consistent understanding -- this will only 
help us in the DWG over time. Transparency educates everyone and has benefitted 
other parts of the OSMF, like the Board. Certainly not saying the transparency 
means all is visible -- there are definitely sensitivity topics, privacy 
implications, etc.

So that's where I'm at. My next steps are going to be review what we have 
written up on the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism, 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group, 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes), assess where there's a need for 
more clarity or inconsistencies, and propose some edits.
-Mikel

 * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

   

 On Friday, January 6, 2017 6:16 AM, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 

  On 05/01/17 12:23, mi...@groundtruth.in wrote:
 
     * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron ...  As Frederik said, 
better reporting and processing can benefit DWG. This is something I want to 
spend time on.
  
 
 I think that it's important that how we do this sort of thing as a project is 
discussed in whatever public forums are available (and right now the "most 
international" one we have is this talk list, alongside the other widely-used 
international community forums for different languages over at forum.osm.org 
such as the DE and RU forums there).
 
 Your "Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports..." post above 
may have been something of a dog-whistle response to Frederik's post, but when 
I read things that talk about "the current revert regime" and say "Reverts 
should be held to the same standard as imports" and "well documented and 
visible plan" I read it as meaning "I want you to stop doing what you are 
currently doing in the way that you are doing it", and want to understand why.
 
 I'd much rather the direction on this came from the community rather than the 
board (and yes, there will obviously be as many different views as there are 
OSM mappers).  If "the communication I've seen from community members making 
reverts has left a lot of rough feelings" then let's talk about it (for a 
start; which particular actions are we talking about?  Was the data that was 
removed added when it shouldn't have been (for e.g. license reasons) and are we 
just talking about the tone of the conversation, or something else?
 
 Activities such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44923663 (to take 
an example re

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

[Mikel Maron]

 blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px 
#715FFA solid !important;  padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white 
!important; }  Ok I hear you. Let me walk this back a step. Not the same 
standard, but a standard beyond now that gives some visibility to the process. 
I know there is a process of monitoring, analysis, communication and action 
followed by the DWG. Let's document that. And a simple not burdensome log of 
actions - summarizing the above. This visibility will improve community 
understanding of the process, help to spot trends, and improve everyone's work 
overall.


Mikel

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017, 5:00 PM, Richard Fairhurst 
<rich...@systemed.net> wrote:

Mikel Maron wrote:
> Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports (outside 
> of obviously urgent problems).

Where a revert of an import (or other automated edit) is done by DWG because
an import did not follow the rules, reverting that import just goes back to
the status quo ante.

That allows damage to be cancelled out and the import to be retried, later,
when the problems have been addressed. Nothing is lost to OSM or the
importer, and a lot is gained.

I would gently submit that requiring DWG volunteers to undergo through a
laborious consultation regime for every revert, simply to be able to apply
the long-standing (and well-founded) rules, would achieve nothing apart from
driving away a bunch of selfless, hard-working volunteers.

(There are no other large-scale reverts that take place in OSM to my
knowledge.)

Richard




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Wikipedia-Wikidata-admins-cleanup-tp5888517p5888705.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

[Mikel Maron]

Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports (outside of obviously 
urgent problems). That means a well documented and visible plan, community 
discussion. Rob's comment shows that it is not possible for someone eyeing a 
revert to judge this from a quick look at the data or discussion on talk@. 
Right or wrong, the communication I've seen from community members making 
reverts has left a lot of rough feelings. I don't believe that this thread 
meets a community friendly threshold for reverts.
Can we hold off on the current revert regime across the board until we have as 
good guidance and practice in place as we have for Imports? * Mikel Maron * 
+14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 2:50 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> 
wrote:
 
 

 Hi,

On 01/04/2017 07:25 PM, nebulon42 wrote:
> I would revert it then.
> Violations of the automated edits policy should not be tolerated.

Some automated Wikidata additions have been reverted by me in the past,
mainly where they came from an algorithm that used proximity (and not
existing wikipedia tags) to match OSM to Wikipedia.

As for Yuri's edits which are based on matching Wikipedia tags, I asked
him on 18 November to stop making un-discussed automated edits:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/4377#map=6/54.750/35.752

to which Yuri replied (last comment in the list)

"Woodpeck, I have already stopped changing any objects except the admin
levels regions 1-6, and even those I have greatly slowed down, and began
reviewing most of the auto-resolved wikidata IDs. I will cease further
automodifications, and instead concentrate on getting wikidata tags
quality review for the admin levels."

Contrary to what he wrote there, he's modified more than one hundred
thousand objects *after* that exchange - newly adding, instead of just
quality reviewing, Wikidata tags.

I think that at in a first step, those wikidata tags added by Yuri after
18 November need to be removed. It is rather brazen to ignore our
existing rules outright, especially after I had made it very clear to
Yuri that his edits *are* automated edits according to our rules. I was
a bit hesitant because there's quite a few people in OSM who think that
low-quality Wikidata tags are better than no Wikidata tags at all, but
hearing here that the express desire of other community members has been
blatantly ignored just like our automated edit rules have, I'm leaning
towards reverting the lot and making a clean new start.

We're not in a rush here - we can afford to wait until someone who
actually knows the area they are working in has the time to add Wikidata
tags. That will yield much higher quality data than some automated matching.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Building Detection using Machine Learning

[Mikel Maron]

Frederik, all
> an editor plugin were to help the mapper trace buildings that the mapper 
>identifies or at least individually verifies, that would probably be ok
This feels like the consensus across the board -- machine learning has 
potential to be useful when integrated into a human editor workflow. Maybe we 
can work on guidelines that encapsulates this. With something written up, we'll 
be able to stop "spinning wheels" on whether this is useful or not, and focus 
on experimenting and implementing promising approaches.
-Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 7:59 PM, Frederik Ramm 
<frede...@remote.org> wrote:
 
 

 Hi,

On 12/22/2016 01:10 AM, john whelan wrote:
> Do we have any guidelines in the wiki etc?

Nothing specific, no.

Automated editing and/or import guidelines would apply to any such
process and I would ask everyone who overhears discussions about
"uploading" machine-detected data to OSM to point this out to those
discussing. We've already had to revert a couple hundred thousand such
edits (roads though, not buildings).

If, OTOH, an editor plugin were to help the mapper trace buildings that
the mapper identifies or at least individually verifies, that would
probably be ok, at least until HOT trains an army of monkeys with
typewriters, er keyboards, to rubber-stamp everything the algorithm puts
out ;)

More generally speaking, in my opinion the human-centered aspect of
mapping is a key property that sets us apart from other map databases.
You can safely assume that any algorithm we can run to detect buildings,
Google can run 1000 times faster and with a fraction of the error rate,
leading to 1000 times more and 10 times better data of that kind than we
can accumulate. This is not a field in which we can, or should attempt
to, compete.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [HOT] Help HOT give 10 communities the resources to map!

[Mikel Maron]

Hey all, please dampen down the conspiracy theories, personal bitterness and 
politics. There are ways to ask questions with out being damning, and to share 
perspectives without lowering ourselves to populist rhetoric and smearing. 
Let’s try better. The etiquette page on the wiki is a good read to get our 
conversations on the right footing 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette. Thanks -Mikel * Mikel Maron * 
+14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM New Logo Proposal

[Mikel Maron]

 blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px 
#715FFA solid !important;  padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white 
!important; }  Im not a designer, but standard wisdom on logos is something 
that works at multiple scale with few substantial differences is better. Less 
visual noise is good.


Mikel

On Saturday, October 15, 2016, 5:13 AM, Frederik Ramm  
wrote:

Hi,

On 10/15/2016 08:03 AM, Yves wrote:
> I personally find the 'negative magnifier' elegant, and the
> disappearance of the 0s and 1s a good way to simplify this logo and make
> it easier to scale.

I wonder what the established wisdom in the design community is about
this. I mean, many people view the web site on a high-dpi screen with
about a bazillion calibrated colours and we could have a super crafty
logo with gradients and shadows and a shiny 3D effect and so on.

Then there are use cases where you want to logo on a T-shirt or in
16x16px in the corner of a map.

Does that automatically mean that you need to have the
lowest-common-denominator logo that uses only 4 colours and is easily
scalable - or are there ways to have a polished logo for large displays
together with a scalable version and both still retain the same visual
identity?

Of course even a simple logo can look good in large print but I do like
it about the current logo that there are details to discover when you
look closer.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

 

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

Re: [Talk-us] OpenStreetMap US Census

[Mikel Maron]

Please represent in the OSM US Census! https://osmlab.github.io/census/
Look forward to learning more about our community * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 
@mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, July 22, 2016 5:36 PM, Mikel Maron <mikel.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 

 p.s. We will be sharing the link to the survey tomorrow ... * Mikel Maron * 
+14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

   

 On Friday, July 22, 2016 5:13 PM, Mikel Maron <mikel.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 

 OSM US Community
This weekend at State of the Map US, we're kicking off an "OpenStreetMap US 
Census" -- asking you all to contribute a little bit of information about 
yourselves to help us better understand who is mapping where and when. Robert 
Soden and Jennings Anderson are researching OpenStreetMap at the University of 
Colorado Boulder, and along with myself, we are developing this survey. We want 
to hear your thoughts and questions on this approach.
Over the years, there have been many interesting questions about the 
composition and makeup of the OSM community -- like where we're from, who we 
are, and what are our motivations for contributing. At present, it’s hard to 
learn any of this information because the OSM user profile does not tell us 
very much about the people behind the map.
Survey responses will be kept confidential; only aggregate results (aggregated 
to zoom 12 tiles) will be shared publicly. Here are some of the question we are 
looking to ask, to start:
 * OSM username * "Home" tile * Gender * Age * Do you use OSM in your everyday 
life at work, or personal use?
We’re looking to kick this off at State of the Map US this weekend and be able 
to provide immediate, interactive feedback. We're going to take part in a 
Birds-of-a-Feather session at the conference on Analysis of the OpenStreetMap 
community and the potential of future community surveys to help us understand 
who an OSM contributor is, what our community looks like, and how we can 
improve!
Look forward to hearing from you and seeing many of you in Seattle!
Mikel Maron, Jennings Anderson, & Robert Soden
OSM Usernames: (mikelmaron, Jennings Anderson, rsoden) * Mikel Maron * 
+14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


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


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

[Talk-us] Code Sprint at State of the Map US

[Mikel Maron]

Look forward to seeing many of you at SotM US!
Monday will have Code Sprints. I'm planning to focus on analysis, but would 
also love to delve into some core infrastructure topics.Who's planning on 
going? Have any more ideas of what you'd like to work on?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_Of_The_Map_U.S._2016/Hands-On_Day#Code_sprints

We don't get many chances to come together and work together in person. Would 
love to see this kick off more collaborative development in the community, into 
the future.
-Mikel  * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us