Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap
Hi, On 7/25/19 17:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > so it is an official OpenStreetMap effort, the OpenStreetMap-Foundation > is involved, and this is their statement? This is the impression I would > get from reading this paragraph without background information. No it is not. This press release is on the same level as "Cloudmade's OpenStreetMap Project" so many years ago. It would be nice if our communications working group had the capacity of rectifying such misinformation, or if companies could simply treat us more fairly in their never-ending quest for attention, but both are unlikely to happen. 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
Re: [Talk-at] minderwertige Importe
Hallo, so, der besprochene Revert ist jetzt fertig. Einige Changesets enthielten auch Änderungen außerhalb Österreichs, die sind auch mit unter die Räder gekommen, das schaue ich mir mal an, ob ich das wiederherstellen kann, aber in Österreich sollte jetzt erstmal wieder der Zustand von vor den letzten Großimporten hergestellt sein. Wenn jemand etwas findet, was übersehen wurde, bitte melden... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-de] Gesuch: Trufi Association sucht Mapper und Städte #öpnv
Hallo Christoph, On 19.07.19 10:22, Christoph Hanser wrote: > Mapper für die vielen Routen, die wir als KML oder auf Papier bekommen und > nach OpenStreetMap gebracht werden müssen. Die 1000 Routen für La Paz > kriegen wir z.B. leider nicht mit der eigenen Community in LP gestemmt. > Zusätzlich sammeln wir bald über die App Routen-Schnippsel, die man nach > OSM zu ganzen Routen mergen kann. Da müsst ihr aber vorsichtig sein, eine Route, die vor Ort nicht verifizierbar ist, hat in OSM nichts verloren. Da gibt es zwar immer Grauzonen (auch ein Bus in Deutschland fährt nicht immer den gleichen Weg), aber wenn ich höre "1000 Routen für La Paz auf Papier und KML" dann klingeln bei mir die Alarmglocken. Ihr müsst bedenken, dass Busrelationen was für Profis sind - eine Stadt, in der 1000 Busrelationen eingetragen sind, ist für einen örtlichen Anfänger praktisch nicht mehr editierbar. So löblich Euer Ziel sein mag, Ihr wärt maßgeblich dafür verantwortlich, dass La Paz für die dort wohnenden Mapping-Anfänger ein Buch mit sieben Siegeln wird, und ebenso jede andere Stadt, die ihr anfasst. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-at] minderwertige Importe
Hallo, On 18.07.19 07:58, ScubbX wrote: > Genügt es in dem Fall, wenn dich jemand darum bittet, oder soll das > Problem in einer Email an data@ erläutert werden? Ich kümmere mich darum, dass das in der DWG richtig dokumentiert wird, und führe den Revert durch. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] minderwertige Importe
Hallo, also bevor der Zirkus jetzt hier noch weiter geht und jeder, der irgendwelche Reverts macht, erstmal seinen Arbeitsvertrag vorzeigen soll, schlage ich vor, die DWG macht das. Da ist wenigstens klar, dass wir nicht für die fiese österreichische Regierung arbeiten... oder? On 7/12/19 08:52, vari...@mailbox.org wrote: > Man könne sogar zurück gehen bis > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69861349 -> ich habe mir gerade > noch ein paar ältere Changesets auch noch durchgeschaut. Die Anfrage > könnte man also anpassen an: > node["at_bev:addr_date"="2019-04-01"](user:"addresshistory*org")(newer:"2019-05-03T00:00:00Z");out; Was haltet ihr von folgendem Vorgehen: * alles, was seit dem oben genannten Changeset von addresshistory*org oder einem seiner anderen Accounts erzeugt wurde, wird gelöscht (Ways und Nodes), ausser, der Way wurde seither von einem *anderen* User verändert; * alles, was seit dem oben genannten Changeset von addresshistory*org oder einem seiner anderen Accounts verändert oder gelöscht wurde, wird zurückgeändert bzw. wiederhergestellt, ausser jemand anders hat es in der Zwischenzeit angefasst. Hierbei *könnte* es zu Problemen kommen in Fällen, wo ah*o etwas gelöscht und durch einen Import ersetzt hat, und jemand anders diesen Import dann nachgebessert hat; in solchen Situationen würden wir nun die Löschung rückgängig machen, das neu erzeugte Objekt aber bestehen lassen. Klingt das Vorgehen sinnvoll? Oder muss man weiter in die Vergangenheit gehen? Viele Grüße Frederik Ramm -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] Zweiter Benutzer von addresshistory*org mit edits?
Hi, On 16.07.19 09:37, vari...@mailbox.org wrote: > Es gibt offensichtlich einen neuen Benutzer, der oft nichts anderes > macht, als den Tag at_bev:addr_date=2019-04-01 zu löschen. Wurde auch > gefragt, warum er das gemacht hat ohne Antwort: Hab ihn gesperrt und um Wohlverhalten gebeten: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3012 Sollte es ein "multi" von addresshistory*org sein, der damit in perfider Weise versucht, unser Aufräumen zu torpedieren, wäre das natürlich ein Grund, sämtliche Accounts erstmal für längere Zeit auf Eis zu legen, aber ich glaube jetzt mal an das Gute im Menschen und gehe davon aus, dass "Landeskarte" jemand anders ist. (addresshistory*org listet seine "offiziellen" Zweitaccounts hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/addresshistory*org und solange die nicht benutzt werden, um Sperren oder Auflagen zu umgehen, ist dagegen nichts einzuwenden.) Viele Grüße Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [OSM-talk] Ways divided by paint?
Hi,
On 03.07.19 22:03, Jack Armstrong Dancer--- via talk wrote:
> I've always had the impression we should not create separate traffic
> lanes unless "traffic flows are physically separated by a barrier (e.g.,
> grass, concrete, steel), which prevents movements between said flows."
Yes, that's the standard operating procedure around here, albeit perhaps
with an added "easy" before movements. For example, if there's a small
raised curb with a little grass strip, it is still something you can
cross with your car or bike but it would be enough to make two separate
ways, whereas a simple line would not.
Way separation is not about the legal aspect ("do not cross this line")
but about the physical.
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
Re: [OSM-talk] Reordering and rewriting Good Practice wiki page
Hi, On 04.07.19 05:53, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I've reordered and reworded several sections of the Good practice > page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice I would prefer if far-reaching edits to essential pages that describe a community consensus would be made on a user page first so we can discuss, rather than applying the "be bold" motto here. While now discuss your changes, new users will see your version and think it is somehow agreed on, when indeed it is just your idea of how it should be. Of course this also applies to everyone else who added stuff before you. This is not to criticise the edits you made, just a matter of principle. In fact I find our edits make sense and generally improve the page. One pet peeve I often have on the Wiki, and I think it is something brought in by Wikipedia users, is over-use of linking. When I read a sentence like: "The name tag should ... not describe or label the feature" and there is a hyperlink behind "describe", then I expect that hyperlink to be pertinent to the situation being discussed (e.g. a link to a page that explains how a name would describe a feature). I would not expect a generic link to a definition of the word "describe" or, as you put it, a link to the tag "description" - that's not helpful here, unnecessarily disrupts the reading flow, and even confusing when someone clicks on it. 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
Re: [Talk-at] Österreich Open Data Adresslisten des Bundesamt für Eich und Vermessungswesen, gejammt.
Hi, On 6/26/19 1:36 PM, Johann Haag wrote: > Diese fatalistische Sichtweise teile ich nicht, Fatalistisch ist es, wenn man sagt: "OSM schafft das nicht, wir müssen Daten importieren". > Amtliche Daten sind > keineswegs schlecht, in OSM geben wir den Leuten die einmalige Chance > solche verbessern zu können, Amtlichen Stellen erhalten als Lohn einen > Rückkanal, ein Feedback ihrer Arbeit. Ich bin mir sicher, amtliche > Stellen werden keine OSM Korrekturen so einfach in ihr Amtliches System > übertragen. Wäre auch lizenzrechtlich problmatisch, der amtliche Datensatz würde so zu einem von OSM abgeleiten Werk. > OpenStreetMap liefert aber einen Hinweis, wo Amtliche > Stellen ihre Daten überprüfen sollten, und das ist auch für Gemeinden > und Städte sehr wertvoll. Das stimmt. Diese Hinweise kann OSM aber nur da liefern, wo wir genügend Mapper vor Ort haben, die die Daten überprüfen. Wenn man Daten importiert "weil ja nicht genug Mapper da sind", dann wird es auch keine nützlichen Korrekturen geben. Ein guter Ansatz ist es, die Importe *lokalen* Mappern zu überlassen, die sie zu einem Zeitpunkt ihrer Wahl durchführen können, wenn sie sich auch in der Lage sehen, eine gute Überprüfung der Daten durchzuführen. > OpenStreetMap ist selbstverständlich ebenso für Importe konzipiert. Nein (ausser das Wort wird in Österreich anders benutzt als hier), denn "für Importe konzipiert" bedeutet ja, dass bei der Gestaltung speziell auf Importe Rücksicht genommen wurde. > Weltweit gibt es unzählige Beispiele für erfolgreiche Importe. Ja, es gibt erfolgreiche Importe. Tendenziell werden die Importe umso weniger erfolgreich, je mehr sie von einem Eigenbrötler ohne Zutun der restlichen Community gemacht werden. Ein Import ist am erfoglreichsten, wenn er lokal begrenzt ist und eine Community gierig darauf wartet, mit den importierten Daten arbeiten zu können. Und ein Import ist am wenigsten erfolgreich, wenn eine Person sich ihre eigenen Regeln und Methoden zusammenbastelt ohne mit anderen darüber zu sprechen, und dann vom eigenen Wohnzimmer aus das ganze Land beglücken möchte. Viele Grüße Frederik Ramm -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] Das Umbenennen von Straßennamen, stört künftige OpenData Abgleiche
Hallo, On 26.06.19 07:41, Johann Haag wrote: > Wie man an der Anzahl an Edits in OpenStreetMap Österreich sieht, hält > sich hierzulande die Zahl an Craftmappern in Grenzen, umso wichtiger > sind automatisierte Verfahren. Das ist ein Trugschluss, dem sonst eher unsere amerikanischen Freunde aufsitzen, und zwar gleich doppelt: Erstens können Importe keine Mapper ersetzen, und zweitens ist Österreich von allen Ländern auf der Welt dasjenige mit den *meisten* Mappern pro 1000 Einwohner! (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/40246) Unser Ziel bei OpenStreetMap ist doch nicht, eine "tote" Datenbank zu schaffen, hinter der keine Leute stehen, die sie auch aktuell halten. Unser großer Vortreil gegenüber allen anderen Datenquellen ist, dass bei uns echte Menschen mit lokalem Wissen hinter den Daten stehen. Wenn wir "besser" sind als andere, dann nicht, weil man bei uns alles findet, was man bei den Amtlichen auch findet, sondern weil bei uns die Daten nochmal von Menschen gegengeprüft wurden - *mindestens* mal am Luftbild, idealerweise aber vor Ort. Datenimporte in Gegenden, wo keine Mapper dahinterstehen, die diese Daten dann auch pflegen, sind reine Kosmetik - sie lassen OSM gut aussehen, aber innendrin fault es. Wer für seinen Anwendungsfall dringend Bedarf an amtlichen Adressen hat, der braucht die deswegen nicht nach OSM zu importieren. Man kann sich z.B. einen Karten-Renderer hernehmen und zusötzlich zu OSM-Adressen auch die (aus einem Shapefile geladenen) amtlichen Adressen anzeigen. OpenStreetMap ist kein Sammel- und Verteilmechanismus für amtliche Daten. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-de] OSM Lizenzverstoß bei Kraichgau-Stromberg Tourismus e.V.
Hi, On 25.06.19 17:02, Sven Geggus wrote: > Ich könnte mir eine Lösung mit "Kartendaten ©OpenStreetMap Mitwirkende" > Aufklebern vorstellen. Guerilla-Aufkleber-Aktion! > P.S.: Bitte keine eigenmächigen Aktionen! Och mönsch... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Règles d'éditions organisées / Directed editing guidelines
Hi, On 25.06.19 12:27, Christoph Hormann wrote: > Responsible mappers would invest a lot of work into > following the policy - mostly unnecessarily because since they are > responsible they would do the necessary things even without there being > a policy. Irresponible people however only do the absolute minimum of > the most lenient interpretation of the rules - often garnished with the > usual corporate communication redirection and avoidance strategies. I hope that people will continue doing their best to adhere to the new policy because as we go forward, we have a growing body of "good examples", and we can slowly but surely tighten the strings for those who try to get away with the "absolute minimum" and some corporate image-speak. I would ask everyone who is unhappy to see some players short-cut or even ignore the rules, to engage with these players, explain to them that the guidelines exist and that following them is a demonstration of good intentions vis-a-vis the community. Things like this take time. It has taken years until the ideas of "imports and mechanical edits need prior discussion" have caught on, but now you very frequently see people, all over the world, pointing a would-be data importer to the import guidelines. It is going to be like that with the organised editing guidelines too, and the fact that there's a "soft launch" doesn't mean people can get away with ignoring them forever. > My own conclusion meanwhile is that if there is to be any meaningful > regulation of organized mapping activities it has to come from the > local communities. While I won't dispute that local communities can and should have a lot of influence, I think you're speaking prematurely - perhaps you are just a bit too eager to see your "predictions" come true ;) I think that there's a lot of yet-untapped potential in enforcing these guidelines and adherence to the guidelines will improve. Of course this is something that also needs help from the community. If you see organised editing that goes wrong or causes damage, check if the project has been documented properly, point out the guidelines and the issues to the mappers, and expect that they will behave professionally and fix the problems. If they don't, report the situation to DWG and we'll repeat the request and take the measures needed to ensure compliance. Don't just sit there and sigh "it's just how I predicted, the world is ending and there's nothing I can do". 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
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM user diary etiquette
Hi, On 25.06.19 10:45, Harry Wood wrote: > Do you have the option of *editing* a diary entry to delete sections of > it, or even delete the whole text? No. This is something the admins can do by fiddling directly with the database, obviously, but there's no user interface for anyone but the author doing it. I guess that would not be too difficult to change, but that would then raise the question of whether we need to keep track of changes (who made what change when), and thereby potentially open a feature can of worms. Plus, since users can edit their own diary entries, they could of course always remove the note saying that something has been removed... you could argue this could become part of a constructive process but I don't know, it sounds complicated. > We could also say diary entries should "make sense", e.g. minimum > length. Not just some a few random words. "Hello I am and I am standing for election to of " ;) > We could also say diary entries should not be used a place to pose a > question, or engage in communication styles which obviously fit better > on other channels. For example I saw someone post a diary entry asking > if the tile servers were currently offline. He argued that this was the > best way to get attention, which may well be true, but it was an obvious > misuse of the diaries feature to my mind. Interestingly we have simply added the feature at some point, without telling people what to use it for. The term "diary" - and I don't know how it has been translated - seems to say that the idea was for people to record what they have experienced (while mapping, I guess?), rather than being a blog with general comments about the state of the world. But then again, simply putting the feature out there and see what people would use it for does have something very OSM-y to it. I think that many soft rules, like "you shouldn't use this to post a question", can also be developed and enforced by the community without a well defined process and without ever being written down. If someone posts a question and three others tell them that this was not a good idea, they will likely learn, and everyone else who reads the exchange will learn, too. 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
[OSM-talk] OSM user diary etiquette
Hi,
I am writing this with my DWG hat on.
The OSM user diaries are not routinely moderated but the DWG has the
technical means to hide comments or whole posts, and will make use of
these in extreme situations.
I am writing to inform you that there as been one such situation, where
a contributor time and time again over recent months used various
expletives and insults to belittle the work of others in the project.
He's been told to stop it numerous times; at one point when told that
insults don't get him anywhere he said that he disagreed, because he had
actually got a reaction to an insult. In another situation where he was
told that his message could be heard better if he weren't wrapping it in
so much bile, he responded "don't tell me what to do".
We first tried to only hide those comments that were absolutely
inacceptable ("viciuos brat", "violent little shit" etc.) but even those
messages that were factual were always seasoned with a sentence
explaining how this and that other person was an idiot, amateur, etc.,
so in the end we just hid a handful of blog entries altogether. We
wouldn't normally moderate someone for calling someone else an "amateur"
but if it's framed by constant, stronger abuse then that lowers the bar
considerably.
It is unfortunate because this means that quite a few useful comments
written by some of you - the main subject was ways of fighting diary
spam - were dropped too.
As I said, it's a rare exception for us to have to do this; these
messages, especially because they weren't one-off heat-of-the-moment
posts but a sustained onslaught, far surpassed in offensiveness anything
I've seen on this or any other OSM mailing list in recent years.
I won't say who the user is - those of you who were involved will
recognize it, and those who weren't probably shouldn't waste any time
with it.
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
Re: [Talk-at] Fwd: Re: Auslobung € 100.- für eine funktionierende TALK OSM- OAuth Verschränkung
Hi, On 6/24/19 16:26, Andreas via Talk-at wrote: > Für Mailman 3.0 dürfte es eine Einstellung für OAuth geben, bin mir aber > nicht sicher, ob das für Mailingliste auch geht. Da geht es glaube ich nur darum, dass Benutzer sich am Konfigurations-Interface anmelden, d.h. das ist für Admins oder Moderatoren, aber nicht für normale Nutzer. Mir erschliesst sich auch nicht ganz, wie das funktionieren sollte, und was das Ziel der Sache ist. Falls das Ziel der Sache sein sollte, dass nur noch Leute mit OSM-Useraccount posten können und dass man sehen kann, welchen Useraccount die Leute haben, so würde ich sagen: 1. Erstmal müsste der Mailinglistenbetreiber entscheiden, dass die "Politik" grundsätzlich so umgestellt werden soll; dafür müssten überzeugende Gründe vorgelegt werden. Bislang ist mir nur eine einzige Person auf der Welt bekannt, der das ganze wichtig ist (insbesondere, da eine Möglichkeit zur freiwilligen Verknüpfung mit einem OSM-Usernamen qua Signatur trivialerweise existiert). 2. Ferner ist OAuth normalerweise ja mit Web-Redirects gebaut. Wie soll das gehen? Ich sende eine Mail an talk-at, erhalte eine Mail zurück, in der steht, dass ich bitte erstmal einen Browser starten und darin auf einen Link klicken soll, um mich bei OSM anzumelden und die Mail zu bestätigen? Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass das von den Benutzern akzeptiert werden würde. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] Benutzernamen - Realnamenverschränkung im Forum veröffentlicht
Hi, On 23.06.19 11:49, vari...@mailbox.org wrote: > Weil ichs gerade gesehen habe: addresshistory glaubt wieder etwas gutes zu > tun, was aber die Mailingliste interessieren könnte: > TALK Telefonbuch und Verzeichnis der Foren - > https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66593 Ich sehe das relativ gelassen. Wenn es dazu führt, dass die Mailingliste dann von unserem Forenfreund endlich ernstgenommen wird, weil er zu allen Teilnehmenden den User-Account gefunden hat (das war ja immer sein Steckenpferd, dass die Mailingliste keine Autorität habe, weil Autorität vom Mappen komme und man nicht wisse, wer auf der Liste welcher Mapper ist)... Ich finde, wir sollten uns auf seine Daten-Beiträge konzentrieren: * genau schauen, was er macht * sofort revertieren/sperren, wenn es Murks ist oder nicht den Regeln entspricht Die Sperre https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2839 ist vor 8 Tagen abgelaufen. Seitdem hat er, zumindest mit diesem Account, keine Edits hochgeladen; schauen wir mal, ob er sich mit seinen nächsten Edits an die Anforderungen hält, und wenn ja, dann soll er in Gottes Namen sein "Telefonbuch" pflegen. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
[OSM-talk] Which global OSM mailing list for the "community index"?
Hi, in parts of the world for which no particular national/regional resources have been defined, the "id" editor will suggest to get in touch with "us" and/or other mappers through: * Reddit * Facebook * Telegram * Discord * Twitter * OSM help * OSM IRC channel * OSMF website (this list is defined in from https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index/tree/master/resources/world) Clearly one of the global mailing lists is missing here; I wonder which one it should be. "talk" has had participation from ~ 160 different community members in 2019 so far, "tagging" even ~ 200. Though maybe tagging is too specific and talk a better starting point for someone who wants to get in touch? For comparison, I would be interested in how many people have participated in the global venues that id currently links to. Are there public archives that would allow me to count that? I tried to gauge participation in help.osm in all of 2019 and came up with ~ 620 different people who either asked or answered at least one question. But help is a less "egalitarian" landscape than the mailing lists; a very large part of those 620 just ask one question and don't participate further, and a very small number of these 620 answer all the questions. The mailing lists have fewer people participating but those that do are more likely to engage in a bidirectional fashion. It would be interesting to quantify this in a more scientific manner. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed mechanical edit - addition of office=diplomatic to amenity=embassy with country=*
Hi, On 18.06.19 03:21, Warin wrote: > Following the successful proposal of introducing office=diplomatic to > eventually replace the amenity=embassy (which is used to not only tag > embassies but other diplomatic service) I am proposing to add the > approved tag office=diplomatic to all instances that have both the tag > amenity=embassy with the tag country=*. I don't think that this is necessary or helpful. When office=diplomatic was "approved", we did not discuss a mass addition to existing features. This is something that time can solve, we don't need an automatic edit for it. 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
Re: [Talk-us] Need someone in the south to review an edit
Hi, On 6/15/19 6:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > How are we handling the operation behind the zillion throwaway accounts, > where they make a new account for each client, edit one time, then > disappear, never replying to comments or direct messages? I think this is done by PeanutButterRemedy. 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
Re: [Talk-us] Need someone in the south to review an edit
Hi, On 6/15/19 4:29 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > I'm not against companies for hire mapping, but...do we have any > guidelines actually requiring them to accurately geocode what they're > bringing? Kind of feel like most of my dedicated mapping time is now > spent dealing with SEO spam and low quality brand location data. We have organised editing guidelines that cover these kinds of jobs. The guidelines set some quality expectations and also request that people explain what they are doing *before* they do it, allowing us to ask questions like "how do you intend to geocode stuff" etc. https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines It makes total sense to point out these guidelines to any commercial mappers you encounter; if nothing else, this will divide those who want to play by the rules from those who don't give a shit. Not following the organised editing guidelines is not a rule violation in itself, but if not following the guidelines leads to bona fide mappers like yourself saying "most of my dedicated mapping time is now spent dealing with SEO spam and low quality brand location data." then this is clearly a case where the guidelines need to be enforced, and I'm more than happy to block any and all organised mapping teams who willfully disregard the guidelines and cause trouble down the line because of that. The guidelines are fairly new and haven't "arrived" in the community the same way the import or automated edit rules have, but I hope that awareness about this is growing, and everyday hobbyist mappers will start pointing out these rules to organiesed editors they encounter. 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
Re: [Talk-us] Need someone in the south to review an edit
Hi, On 6/14/19 10:27 PM, Rihards wrote: > I zoomed in on one location, and the node was, judging by the imagery, > on a street (literally). I hope Brandify does not set locations from > Google address searches. I did that a few days ago when investigating this large deletion, and also found that many of the objects are bang in the middle of roads. Which means at the very least that their location has not been visually inspected by the uploader. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed mechanical edit - remove blatant duplicates (sustenance=fast_food on amenity=fast_food, atm=yes on amenity=atm etc.)
Hi, On 14.06.19 08:57, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > So in total I propose to remove [...] Makes sense to me. Please document it on the wiki as per the automated editing guidlines, "You should normally document your proposed edit at an English-language wiki page named "Automated edits/username" (where username is the OSM user name of the account that you will be using to perform the edits - think about this now so that you don't have to rename the page later), and add it to Category:Automated edits log." 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
Re: [talk-au] Maproullette challenge for feedback - Australian Brands without Wikidata
Hi,
I'm a member of the OSMF Data Working Group and we have been alerted to
this thread. Please let me say a few words of caution to avoid problems
down the line:
The "upgrade tags" functionality in the ID editor is highly
controversial in the community. The rules about "upgrading" are not the
result of a solid community process and many are contested.
While an individual mapper has the freedom to choose any tags they want,
they must also take full responsibility for what they are doing; the
editor does not take the responsibility away from them.
It is possible for someone without any knowledge of Australia to
participate in your challenge, log in, click the "upgrade tags" button
without ever seeing *what* tags are being upgraded (or understanding
why), and uploading the change.
This kind of edit would clearly fall under the rules for mechanical
edits and would have to be discussed in the community beforehand (i.e.
the Australian community would have to agree what mechanical changes
they want to apply to which objects). If anyone were to complain to DWG
about such an edit, DWG would likely have to revert all edits made as
part of this challenge for failing to follow the mechanical editing
guidelines; while it is *possible* to actually inspect every "upgrade"
iD is suggesting, it is equally possible to just hit the "upgrade"
button without caring at all and you can't see from the outside how much
diligence has been applied in committing a changeset.
There have already been instances where, even outside of a MapRoulette
challenge, innocent newbie editors who just clicked "upgrade" and
thought they were doing good, have been grilled by the community later
("why exactly did you change this tag on this object to this value"),
leading to a bad experience on all sides involved.
Therefore, please exercise utmost care when setting up any MapRoulette
challenges or anything that incites user to mass-"upgrade" tags. It is
entirely possible that once the community has a closer look at it, the
tags will have to be "downgraded" again because whatever iD thought to
be a good idea, is not actually a good idea in Australia.
Do not blindly assume that what the iD editor suggests as an "upgrade"
is actually an improvement.
We are not saying that what you are doing is wrong, but it is definitely
dangerous and should only be done with utmost care.
Bye
Frederik Ramm
OSMF Data Working Group
DWG Ticket#201906061022 (user complaint about MapRoulette challenge
involving mass iD "upgrades")
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL
Hi, On 09.06.19 20:00, Christoph Hormann wrote: > I applaud you placing the ball in the OSMF board's court on this matter > but i would not expect substantial actions from there. The board has received the message and I'm sure it will be discussed internally in due course. It might be worth noting that LWG are working on improved attribution guidelines (https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2019-01-10#Update_attribution_guidance) and perhaps it makes sense to delay any drastic action until these are ready. I don't expect any big changes (basic requirements of the license are not up for discussion) but perhaps some useful clarifications. > And with at the moment at least four out of seven OSMF board members > having ties to big organizational OSM data users/contributors ... well, > as we say in German: Eine Krähe hackt der anderen kein Auge aus. Be that as it may, but there's also another thing to keep in mind: The OSMF board doesn't have an army of eager workers at their fingertips whom we can task with something. As you know, there's always discussion about enlarging the organisation, hiring more staff, hiring an executive director (which OSM US have done with much fanfare) etc., and as you also know, I am usually against such "OSMF inflation". I don't know what your position is in these matters; but actually cataloguing license violations, sending the appropriate legal nastygrams to the appropriate legal entities in the appropriate countries and all that, is certainly something that can occupy one employee full time - an employee where the OSMF would likely depend on corporate members like Facebook to pay their salary. So we have to be careful with what we demand from the OSMF. As you rightly say, while the OSMF board's cooperation might be required for a few legal aspects, there are many potential avenues of "direct action" that people could take to, but apparently the issue is not *that* big for most. 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-at] minderwertige Importe
Hallo, nach wiederholten Beschwerden über die Importe von addresshistory*org habe ich hier eine Accountsperre verhängt https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2839 und den User aufgefordert, jeden einzelnen Import vorher an dieser Stelle hier zu diskutieren, insbesondere was die Datenquelle und die Methodik anbetrifft, damit Fehler künftig *vorher* gefunden werden können, statt dass zigtausende Nodes erst importiert, dann gelöscht, dann wieder neu importiert werden und so weiter. Das ist einfach schlampige Arbeit und macht uns allen mehr Arbeit als es nützt. Ich bin auch sehr gern bereit, von der DWG aus großzügig alle Edits der letzten Monate/Jahre dieses Accounts zu revertieren, wenn in der österreichischen Community ein grober Konsens bestehen sollte, dass der Schaden insgesamt größer als der Nutzen ist. Viele Grüße Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
[Talk-us] Anyone near Angeles National Forest (Mt Wilson Loop)?
Hi, the DWG has received a message from a hiker who said they were sent along some really dangerous firebreak trails in Angeles National Forest with AllTrails and wonders if we could re-evaluate our track classification - he says that a less experienced hiker might well have come to more harm than he did following the trail. The message has some details. I wonder if there's anyone near the area, or with knowledge of it, or contacts with knowledge, who would be willing and able to look into this? 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform
Hi, On 5/28/19 10:32, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense > approach for the community. (with my OSMF board hat on) I would like to make it clear that nothing of what I or any other OSMF board member has said in this thread or any other thread concerning the iD editor is an expression of a board opinion. The OSMF board only very briefly discussed the issue at the F2F in Brussels. We are looking into this but we are not making a public statement at this point. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform
Hi, On 27.05.19 12:07, Simon Poole wrote: > As I see it we can choose between [...] > - deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which > commits are integrated (IMHO too much work) I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the "default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus. It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough even for the community itself. Perhaps it is possible to have a forked iD that does not work by meticulously cherry-picking every new change that is added to iD (because that would be too much work), but instead - a bit like the mechanisms when building a Debian or Ubunutu package - we could have some patches that we routinely apply to iD before it goes live on our site. We could use this contentious "tag upgrade" as a test balloon to establish the new workflow: iD releases new version -> patch team applies existing patches -> community review -> if necessary, new patches are made -> patch team releses -> OSMF website deploys. Bye Frederik (*) Though the way they have let us know their disdain for what I feel is the community really isn't very mature and I think that Andy is right in pointing out that an apology is in order - https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6442 - unless of course the the iD project's Code of Conduct has some magic "does not apply to maintainers" feature. -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform
Hi, On 5/27/19 12:58, Christoph Hormann wrote: >> * Automated Edits code of conduct >> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct) >> : You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway >> to platforms. This is an automated edit. > it seems clear to me that any tool that leads mappers to unconsciously > perform automated edits could and should be blocked from write access > to the API and accordingly should not be available on osm.org. I guess that in cases where it's a widely accepted community decision instead of "fuck you stinking mailing list pseudo community, I'll do what I please and anyway my friends all like it", it can be acceptable. AFAIK many editors for example silently drop "created-by" and didn't hear anyone complain about that. 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
Re: [OSRM-talk] Interested in consulting for unique routing use case
Hi, On 5/20/19 17:18, Zannah Pierce wrote: > We are looking to find GIS/routing experts who can help solve the > problem of routing over custom, dynamic data. "100s of roads" is not something that requires powerful routing algorithms. Check out the Boost Graph Library if you're developing in C++, or pgrouting which does routing in a PostgreSQL database (and could easily be configured to route only on bits that conform to some WHERE uid=1234 query). You are unlikely to find a software-as-a-service API for that since it would mean you'd have to transfer the full graph to the search engine with every request - waste of time and resources. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ OSRM-talk mailing list OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
[OSM-talk] correct (scholarly) attribution?
Hi, if someone writes a scientific paper and wants to reference an OSM data set they used, what would be the correct way to do that? Typically such mentions contain author and name of the work, and publication place and year. Or maybe the web-like "retrieved on ..."? 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
Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki
Hi, On 4/22/19 11:59, Ilya Zverev wrote: > This attitude: “to do well we would need people responsible and there isn’t > any; you can do your thing without OSM infrastructure so why bother; nobody > died, stop your hype and comply” — is why we’re still with API 0.6 ten years > after it was introduced. I'm tired of this gatekeeper nonsense. Your "OSM must grow up" talk at SOTM in Aizu-Wakamatsu was full of examples where you personally would like OSM to change direction (or perhaps, start moving in a direction of your choice), and others didn't, and you framed all this as "stagnation" like you're doing here, again. Someone has made a decision to do something (delete a wiki page), you don't like it, and somehow you manage to accuse the spirit that led to the decision of being responsible for stagnation. In the next minute, when you suggest that something should be introduced and someone else says "not so fast, let's think of the negative effects first" you'll accuse them of being responsible for stagnation. It's just not credible any more, coming from you. All those evil gate keepers you're seeing everywhere, holding OSM back from realising its full potential, the old guard of secret power brokers that stands in the way of greatness, blah blah blah. It's just cheap rhetorics to give your personal vision more weight. Make your statement, say what you like or dislike, just like everyone else, without resorting to "SEE, THIS IS WHY THERE IS NO PROGRESS" at every opportunity. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] uselessness of brand:wikipedia and brand:wikidata tags (was Re: Bank of India (and other) Wikidata tags)
Hi, On 17.04.19 23:40, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I am not aware about even single case where brand:wikipedia > or brand:wikidata is useful. The general mindset of the Wikidata adherent is that every machine-readable link between obejcts or concepts improves the overall quality and usefulness of the data set, whether or not a concrete use case exists at this point in time or not. Mapping things without a concrete use case is fairly common in OSM; you don't generally have to demonstrate a use case before you can start mapping something. However, the ferocity and scope with which Wikidata links are forced on us are a concern for me. It started with tons of undiscussed mechanical edits that resulted in low-quality connections like the one that gave rise to this discussion, and has meanwhile found its way into our editors which happily add wikidata tags according to the same flawed logic, making the individual mapper complicit without them really knowing what goes on. We end up with tons of extra tags that add zero extra information and complicate the world for mappers. And I'm not even talking about our own wiki where they've started to wikidatify our tags as well. I'm realistic enough to accept that wikidata links are here to stay, but we have to rein in the "the more the merrier" thinking with regards to wikidata. 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-us] Anyone near Rockford, IL?
Hi, DWG have received a rather detailed report about some potential mis-naming (or missing names) of streets in Rockford IL but I think this would be best handled by a local. Any volunteers I could forward the issue to? Thanks 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
Re: [OSM-talk] problems with differential update?
Hi, On 4/11/19 21:26, Roland Olbricht wrote: > Could it have been that the file triggered an arcane bug in a gz library > from the Java universe? Yes, that's exactly the problem - these files decompress fine with gzip, just not with Java. 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
[OSM-legal-talk] OSM for training ML machines
Hi, is it a community consensus that, when someone uses OSM to train their machine learning "black box", the internal data structures built during learning constitute a derivative database? Or are there people who argue that somehow the "black box" can ingest OSM data at will and still remain 100% intellectual property of its operator? Further, assuming that we have a system that has ingested OSM by deep learning and we say that this means its internal database is ODbL, what would this mean for the output later produced by the same machine? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[Talk-de] Besorgt über den iD-Editor
Hallo,
ich benutzte "iD" selbst nur selten, aber es ist klar, dass dieser
Editor ein Aushängeschild von OSM ist - ein Großteil der Neu-Mapper
lernt OpenStreetMap durch iD kennen.
Umso besorgter bin ich darüber, dass die Entwicklung von iD praktisch
komplett in den Händen von zwei hauptberuflichen Programmierern liegt
(Bryan, der von Mapbox bezahlt wird, und Quincy, der auch bezahlt wird,
aber nicht sagt, von wem). Was die beiden in den Editor einbauen,
steuert die Richtung mit, in die das Projekt wandert - die immer stärker
fortschreitende Integration mit Wikidata ist eins von vielen Beispielen,
oder die zahlreichen gut gemeinten Tagging-Vorschläge, die Einbindung
einer "Validation"-Plattform eines kommerziellen Anbieters, das mit
niemandem abgestimmte "ich möchte, dass jemand meine Änderungen
prüft"-Häkchen, die Konsolidierung von "Brands" (neuerdings mit
Firmen-Icons...), geplante Vereinfachungen von Datenimporten und so weiter.
Nach dem, was ich beurteilen kann, ist die meiste Arbeit, die in iD
fliesst, solide und relativ un-kontroverse Ingenieursarbeit - da werden
Algorithmen optimiert, das User Interface verbessert, Bugs gefixt. Und
iD erhökt durchaus positives Feedback aus der Community (z.B.
https://twitter.com/iandees/status/344426994024448). Zugleich
äussern sich die Entwickler gern auch mal geringschätzend über das Wiki
oder Tagging-Diskussionen und nehmen sich eben das Privileg heraus, neue
Features einfach einzubauen, die sie gut finden, nach dem Motto "wir
machen was WIR für richtig halten", und da frage ich mich bei
Vollzeit-Angestellten natürlich manchmal, inwiefern das eben auch das
ist, was der Arbeitgeber bzw. dessen Geldgeber wollen. Gleitet uns, der
OSM-Community, hier die Kontrolle über unser eigenes Projekt aus der
Hand, weil wir die "Doocracy" ("wer macht, entscheidet") unüberlegt auch
für Firmen anwenden, die "machen lassen"? Kann man für den Jahrestarif
von zwei Vollzeitgehältern praktisch das Tagging in OSM komplett an sich
reissen?
Müssen vielleicht jetzt schon Grenzen gezogen werden, weil es sonst
irgendwann zu spät ist?
Oder läuft das Ganze eher noch unter "dem geschenkten Gaul schaut man
nicht ins Maul" und unterm Strich ist es ja ein guter Editor?
Selbst wenn man sich die neoliberale Kapitalistenmütze aufsetzt und den
Firmenbeiträgen zujubelt - müsste man dann nich auch kritisch darauf
hinweisen, dass hier der Markt verzerrt wird, weil wir eine Firma zum
Maintainer gemacht haben und so der Marktzugang für eine andere Firma,
die in eine andere Richtung ziehen will, erschwert wird?
Und wenn man zu dem Schluss käme, dass hier ein Problem vorliegt, wie
könnte eine Lösung dazu aussehen?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Fantasy mapper returns
Hi, On 27.03.19 16:54, Dave F via talk wrote: > Could a block be put on him before he causes more disruption please? Done. You can also write to d...@osmfoundation.org directly next time if you're specifically asking for moderator action. 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-us] Gated communities
Hi, DWG have been contacted by a resident of a gated community in Florida. They were unhappy about our routing which apparently leads people through an unmanned "residents only" gate where they won't get in, instead of to the manned main gate. I wonder how to deal with this, firstly from a "what is correct on the ground" perspective, but then also from a "what is useful routing-wise" perspective. Should all roads inside the gated community be access=private? What tags should be applied to (a) the main gate where visitors and delivery services are expected to report, and (b) resident-only gates? 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
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove is_in:continent in USA
Mateusz,
as far as I am concerned, *all* is_in tags are unnecessary at best and
potentially misleading, and could be removed. I'd prefer adding these
tags to the auto remove list in editors though, rather than running
mechanical edits to remove them.
I strongly object to doing this in a *recurring* fashion for two reasons:
1. I don't want us to go down the wikipedia route where we have an army
of bots running to "clean up" contributions. If there's a consensus that
a tag is unnecessary then put it in the major editors.
2. I am in favour of mapper freedom. It is ok to recommend not using a
certain tag, but it is a whole different game to automatically and
regularly remove certain tags from the database so that even if someone
made the conscientious decision to use a tag, they are *still*
overruled. If you intend to run a bot like that in regular intervals
(which I would recommend not to do), then you need to provide a
mechanism for individual mappers to ask the bot to keep its hands off
something ("matkoniecz:bot=no" or so).
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
Re: [Talk-ca] Building Import
Hi, On 15.03.19 16:23, Danny McDonald wrote: > I think many people on this list fundamentally misunderstand the way OSM > operates. Most OSM contributions are made by individuals who see a > gap/mistake in the data and fix it. True! > It is not a "community process" > where contributions are made by a group of "local mappers" (although > this sometimes happens). True! As long as we're talking normal, everyday, "manual" mapping. Like, 100 edits a day, or maybe 1000 edits on a good day. For things that go beyond a little mapping by the individual, we tend to have processes, e.g. for imports, for automated edits, for organised edits. The general idea behind the discuss-these-things-first rules is not that one mapper is better than another, but quite the opposite: One mapper alone can actually make stupid mistakes or suffer from bad judgement, something that the larger community can help against. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [OSM-talk] Your thoughts on osm.org
Hi, On 3/12/19 5:58 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Imagine the openstreetmap.org home page, but without the map. I assume there would be a map, just that it would be a click away, right? > What would the home page be about instead? What would be on it? The page would be about the map-making community of course! About people. Smiling faces inviting you to go out and map your neighbourhood ;) 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
Re: [OSM-talk] General OSM Talk
Hi, On 10.03.19 15:10, Kate Chapman wrote: > It has been about a year since I've given one of these talks. Is there > anything new that you think is especially important or interesting I > should be sure to not miss? I have the impression that something that has been going on quietly, without much fanfare, is how many mappers now participate in quality assessment as part of their daily routine. The tool landscape is scattered - you have the old(er) cohort of general QA tools like Osmose, OSM Inspector, and even Keepright is still around, but you also have a newer generation including OsmCha and "OSM Suspects" and other more niche applications, and quite a few people are actually using these services. QA used to be the domain of a few committed individuals but meanwhile there's a proper "long tail" of QA contributors. 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
[OSM-talk-fr] Les contours de la Bretagne
Bonjour talk-fr, someone has reported these two changesets https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/66342909 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/66285978 and said: "Cet utilisateur a rédifini les contours de la Bretagne incluant le département de la Loire Atlantique. Si ce sujet est bien débattu, et n'a actuellement aucun impact sur le tracé des contours administratifs régionaux. OpenStreetMap n'a pas à recevoir des données qui proviennent d'un choix personnel et qui ne sont pas une réalité administrative et politique du département de Loire-Atlantique." Could you have a look at these changes and tell me if they need to be reverted? (Or revert them yourselves if you want.) Merci Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
Hi, On 3/5/19 9:37 AM, althio wrote: > As a test bench last month, we (people from OpenStreetMap France) have > tried to go the other route: > "let us display as much information as reasonably possible within > attributions, for data, tiles, hosting and display (in French)". A long, long time ago in a galaxy far away, OSM power mapper, hacker, and OSMF founding member 80n produced a slippy map where each (linear) feature on the map actually showed the name of the last editor, rendered directly below the road or river. He was very fond of proper attribution & share-alike, and left the project when we switched to ODbL. With today's interactive options, it would indeed be possible to show the authors of individual features when hovering ;) 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
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
Hi, On 01.03.19 16:04, Andy Mabbett wrote: > Poppycock. The rest of us are trying to have a serious conversation here. Please adapt or leave. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
Hi, what I write below is my own opinion and not that of the OSMF board, just as Mikel's opinion is his own and not that of the OSMF board. On 01.03.19 02:51, Mikel Maron wrote: > 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. ) You make three points here, one that there's no rules we could enforce, and then you say even if we could shame people into adhering to rules that we cannot enforce, we shouldn't do that either, and that the reason for this largesse was that "we have won". I disagree in all three points. 1. I think that we can set up rules - not mere "recommendations" - that we can enforce. 2. I think that we should shame people into following our rules if they don't do it voluntarily. 3. I think that we should be firm in asserting our place in the geo data world, and as long as other players in the field use intellectual property regulations to their advantage, we should too. As long as Google only give you their maps if you in turn acquiesce to being tracked, so should we only give people our maps if they are willing to follow our rules. This has nothing to do with "having won". > We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation. Frankly, I wouldn't believe you even if you were a lawyer. But you aren't! > We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation can > only be formulated through the OSMF We would have to find a way to exclude corporate interests from formulating that recommendation though, or we'd be like a supermarket that lets its customers set the price. I.e. no board members or working group members working for any business affected by a decision should participate, and neither should the "advisory board" on which corporate interests are represented. The fact that the resulting sub-group of the OSMF would be quite small is food for thought! 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
Re: [OSM-talk] HTTPS all the Things (Automated Edit)
Hi, when I first read about this planned edit, I was critical too; I thought, "ah, another eager youngster wanting to make the world a more secure place by telling everyone else how they ought to conduct their business". But if I haven't totally misunderstood this, then the proposal will only replace a http:// by a https:// pointer if the site operator himself has added that redirect in their web server configuration. So yes, the SSL certificate might be invalid or self-signed, but if the operator has configured his server to redirect everyone to that broken certificate then visiting the site with http will not improve your existence in any way. Had this suggested edit been "I'll simply try port 443 and if that's open I'll re-write the http URL to https" then it would of course not be acceptable. But I struggle to find any problems with the suggestion, other than my general reservation against any automated edit - it will make the object "look fresh" when indeed it hasn't been touched. In the worst case, an object might have a wrong web site URL, that points to the web site of something completely different, and this bot would happily edit the web site, still pointing to something completely different. But it wouldn't exactly worsen the situtation... 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
Re: [OSM-talk] HTTPS all the Things (Automated Edit)
Hi,
On 26.02.19 12:47, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> So when http://domainname.com redirects to
> https://some-other-domainname.com <http://domainname.com>
> no edit will be made, right?
The logic for this appears to be here
https://gitlab.com/b-jazz/https_all_the_things/blob/master/src/httpsosm.py#L132-137
which reads:
if any((website.replace('http://', 'https://', 1) == new_location,
website.replace('http://', 'https://', 1) + '/'
== new_location, website.replace('http://',
'https://www.', 1) == new_location,
website.replace('http://', 'https://www.', 1) + '/' == new_location,
website.replace('http://www.', 'https://', 1)
== new_location,
website.replace('http://www.', 'https://', 1) + '/' == new_location)):
element['tags']['website'] = new_location
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
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot edits on the OSM wiki
Christoph, you recognize yourself that your position is a bit extreme about this. Personally, I have an issue with Wikipedia which, at least in some less-frequently visited corners of the project, often looks more like a bot playground than a collaborative project by humans. This negative impression (page last edited by a human a year ago, and after that, 10 edits by bots) also informs my skepticism towards mechanical edits in OSM. But: If you engage in the collaborative writing of a document with others, and one of them decides to replace all occurrences of "Open Source Software" with "Free and Open Source Software" (for example), by using a search-and-replace mechanism in the chosen editing platform, would you also object to that? And then further, assuming your answer is "well that's ok if the edit makes sense", what if Mediawiki had a global search-and-replace function, where you click on a button, and fill in a form. Would this also make you disengage from the platform altogehter? From there, it's only a small step to "bot edits", they're basically nothing else than a global search-and-replace, it's just the way the Mediawiki software is built that people use the "bot API" for things like this. You mention a potential "two class system" but frankly, does this not already exist, with one class being those who understand and use templates to the full extent of their capabilities, and the other class not daring to touch them? I think that "bot edits" should certainly be discussed and controlled, and not be used to unilaterally introduce features that one person likes, but many of the same effects of bot edits can even today be achieved by making changes to templates - you can change the appearence of 100s of pages with a little templating magic. I don't really understand how you can be fundamentally opposed to one and accept the other. I think it would benefit the wiki if we stopped allowing everyone to pursue their personal hobby horses - wit recent motorcycle stuff, or wikidata features added, or a lot of verdy_p's work - and request that more discussion happens before edits are made. But I don't think that "bot or not bot" is the big question. 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Know any nonprofits that have relocated from UK to elsewhere?
Hi, On 2/20/19 21:00, Dave F wrote: > Would you care to state the reasons? Even before Brexit, there were two issues that often popped up: 1. The fact that the UK doesn't have a form of incorporation that is well suited to a nonprofit like ours. Every nonprofit, even the relatively new CIC (which OSMF is not, but OSM-GB is), falls under the relatively heavy-handed rules of the Companies Act which is written to (also) govern big corporations, and it shows. In our concrete case, for example, the Companies Act requires that every member can request the details (including residential address) of every other member, including former members of up to 10 years ago. This may be ok for an average UK organisation, but many OSMF members found this inappropriate. If you're from China where mapping is frowned upon, would you want your identity available to the party executive who also joins? Hence we created the "associate member" category. But "associate" members are second-class members in the eyes of the companies act and may not, for example, vote on AoA changes. Additionally, any member decision-making that does not happen at a physical meeting of members is difficult to model with the Companies Act. The way we currently run our AGM and election is essentially by declaring that when you vote through OpaVote, what you really do is ask someone to proxy-vote for you at a meeting that physically happens somewhere. Other countries - e.g. Germany, Switzerland but I'm sure there are more - have forms of incorporation for associations that are easier to handle, and more amenable to being international and online. I'm happy to hear examples to the contrary; it would be great if I had misunderstood things. I've read the relevant bits of the UK companies act multiple times, albeit with non-lawyer eyes. 2. Compared to at least Germany where I know the procedure, but likely also compared to quite a few other countries, it is exceptionally hard to get and retain charity status in the UK. This, however, would help in acquiring donations world-wide. I always say "we're a nonprofit but we're not a charity" which is true, but many funding sources are only available to charities. The looming Brexit adds to this a healthy dose of GDPR lunacy (personal data about EU citizens being processed in a non-EU state!) as well as the huge question whether our ODbL can even be enforced if we're incorporated in a country that doesn't recognize "sui generis" database protection. It is of course totally unclear if Britain leaving the EU would mean they ditch database rights, but they might. Finally, with most of our income in EUR, using the GBP currency for our official accounting does meanwhile seem a bit quaint, and again the currency ups-and-downs that accompany Brexit have undesirable consequences. Of course, moving the organisation would open a huge can of worms and it's certainly not something to be undertaken lightly - if ever. Other options exist, like creating subsidiary organiations elsewhere, or simply stick with it. Nonetheless, it can't hurt to know your options. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Know any nonprofits that have relocated from UK to elsewhere?
Hi, even before the whole Brexit brouhaha, the OSMF occasionally thought about perhaps moving the organisation elsewhere (most likely to another EU country but all options are open in theory). Brexit might give us a few more reasons to look into this - nobody knows. Do any of you know of nonprofit organisations - doesn't have to be in our sector - that started life in the UK and later moved elsewhere, for whatever reason? If so, it would be great to hear about it; maybe the OSMF could ask them about their experiences and collect some facts that might inform our own course in the future. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-us] Anyone interested in fixing Pine Mountain Trail, FDR state park, GA?
Hi,
DWG has received a message from someone at the "Pine Mountain Trail
Association Board", pointing out several mis-named trails and offering
to explain further in a telephone call ("CALL ME, not email me, not text
me"). He's also offering to send a trail map which may be used to take
correct names from.
He's mixing up OSM and AllTrails and it is not clear whether he refers
to particular AllTrails issues or genuine OSM issues, though with
AllTrails using OSM data it is likely that at least some of the issues
are OSM. He also complains about incorrect mileage shown but that is
most likely an AllTrails issue.
Would someone be interested in taking up the matter, making the phone
call, potentially receiving a trail map and fixing what needs to be
fixed in OSM, if anything? Then I'd forward the message. I'm not posting
it because it contains telephone numbers and names.
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-GB] Notice from Bedford Borough Council about Church Lane, Yielden
Hi, Bedford Borough Council has sent a letter to the OSMF regarding the "Application for the Stopping Up of Public Vehicular Rights over Part of Unclassified Road U6 (Church Lane; Yielden) in the Parish of Melchbourne and Yielden, in the Country Of Bedfordshire". They write: "You will recall that on 18 January 2018 either you or a local representative of your organisation was consulted on a proposal to stop up public vechicular rights..." and "I can now tell you that the Court Hearing is scheduled to take place on tuesday 05 February 2019 at 09:30 at the Luton and South Bedfordshire Magistrates' Court". The letter also includes details of the application and a map sketch and a text for a draft order to be signed by the judge(s). I don't know who of you was consulted by the council and in what form, but now you know about the hearing ;) Also happy to forward the letter if anyone is interested. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm Treasurer OpenStreetMap Foundation Name & Registered Office: OpenStreetMap Foundation St John's Innovation Centre Cowley Road Cambridge CB4 0WS United Kingdom A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Registration No. 05912761. -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Google deletes map of Kurdistan - can we do better?
Hi, On 10.01.19 22:36, Andreas Vilén wrote: > However there > doesn't seem to be any map that covers the entire area. I don't know what you mean. Of course OSM covers the entire area? 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Property extents
Hi, On 10.01.19 01:18, Warin wrote: > Even if it were open .. does OSM want it? Parcel boundaries have generally been undesirable in OSM in the past, mostly because to a lack of on-the-ground verifiability. The advice has always been: If there's a fence, map the fence, not the boundary. If there's no fence, then you don't know there's a boundary. If someone needs the boundaries they can use them them from the open data source themselves. That doesn't mean that people have not imported parcels of course. I think that in a discussion on talk-us, someone once claimed that it can be important to know for a rambler if they're on public or private land because they're more likely to get shot on private land. Hope this is not so much of a concern in the UK ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-de] Hackweekend Karlsruhe 23/24 Februar
Hallo, am 23./24. Februar gibt es wieder ein Hackweekend in Karlsruhe. Details hier auf der Wikiseite: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Karlsruhe_Hack_Weekend_February_2019 Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.
Hi, On 1/5/19 9:49 PM, Dave F wrote: > I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes > (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area > edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a heads up. It sounds as if you are belittling those who "like to get upset" but at the same time you're writing your message in a combative and uncooperative tone that is increasing the likelihood of someone getting upset! > Yes, it has been discussed a couple of times on Tagging, & once on > OSM-carto when deciding on the icon to use. It would be good if you could link to these discussions instead of just claiming they were had, for the benefit of those who joined between "a few years ago" and now. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-de] Hat der Renderer Probleme?
Hallo Hartmut, On 04.01.19 15:52, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: > und neue Carto OSM Versionen installiere ich normalerweise auch sehr > Zeitnah. Ich hatte bei der Weihnachts-Druck-Aktion neulich ein bisschen das Problem, dass der Carto-Stil nicht richtig mit dem Scale-Faktor zusammen arbeitet. Die Entscheidung, ab wann Fontgrößen für Flächen erhöht werden sollen, scheint unabhängig vom Scalefaktor getroffen zu werden. Eigentlich würde man ja erwarten: Bild in 1000 x 1000 bei Scalefaktor 1 = identisch mit einem Bild 2000 x 2000 bei Scalefaktor 2, wenn ich das letztgenannte dann runterskaliere. Stattdessen hat das 2000 x 2000-Bild aber an einigen Stellen zu große Beschriftungen, oder Beschriftungen, die das 1000 x 1000-Bild gar nicht hat. Kennst Du das Problem, oder hast eventuell dafür sogar eine Lösung? Ich hab in der Vergangenheit oft einfach von Hand am Style geschraubt, bis es passte, aber das kann man nicht mahchen, wenn man regelmässig updaten will... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Language used in OSM forum/wiki/mailing list
Hi, On 21.12.2018 10:36, Naveen Francis wrote: > Is there any policy on the language used in OSM talk/forum/wiki ? > I was going through Thailand OSM forum Generally, you should only appeal to authorities if you cannot resolve the matter in the community. If you find that someone in the discussion is using an inappropriate tone, get involved, post a message yourself, tell them that you feel offended by something they said, and ask them to be more polite. If you cannot do that, or if it doesn't help, then the next step would be writing to the moderator(s). The Thailand forum is moderated by user stephankn. The moderator can edit posts or block people from contributing to the forum. What is or is not abusive will often depend on the usual tone of exchange in a region, therefore it is desirable to have rules interpreted by people familiar with the local customs. Discussing the tone on the Thailand forum on the international talk mailing list is probably much less helpful than the two suggestions I have made above. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Grab using OSM Data for route preview
Hi, On 19.12.2018 09:33, Ervin Malicdem wrote: > I just hoped before they were given a seat as part of OSMF's ADVISORY > board, these issues had been handled. 500 euros seems to clear all that > history so soon. A seat on the advisory board requires at least a "gold" level membership which costs EUR 1 per year. I agree that we should hold our corporate members to even higher standards than the average company out there, both in terms of attribution (Grab's not the only corporate member taking a cavalier attitude to that) and also in terms of how they are contributing data to OSM, if any. 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-de] Weihnachtskarten
Hallo, in der Geofabrik haben wir vor einigen Monaten einen neuen A0-Drucker gekauft. Damit dauert ein A0-Ausdruck (genauer "Super A0", 91x129 cm) weniger als fünf Minuten statt vorher anderthalb Stunden. Um das mal gehörig auszunutzen, möchten wir allen Leserinnen und Lesern hier auf der deutschen Mailingliste und im deutschen Forum anbieten, dass wir Euch kostenlos eine große Karte von einem Gebiet Eurer Wahl ausdrucken und zuschicken. Das Angebot gilt nur bis morgen (Dienstag) mittag. Wir drucken alle Aufträge in der Reihenfolge, in der sie reinkommen, und nur so lange, bis wir am Dienstag abend nach Hause gehen. Da bringen wir dann auch gleich alles zur Post. Wenn ihr eine Karte zugeschickt haben möchtet, brauchen wir von Euch: * den Ausschnitt, am besten mit Koordinaten unten links/oben rechts, oder ihr zeichnet auf tools.geofabrik.de/calc ein Rechteck und schickt uns den URL. * das Papierformat - wenn nichts angegeben ist, drucken wir "Super A0" * den Kartenstil - wir können Standard-OSM-Carto (Daten aktuell, Stil auf dem Stand von vor ca. 1/2 Jahr) oder den deutschen OSM-Stil. * die Adresse, wo es hingehen soll. Wir verschicken nur an deutsche Adressen, sonst wird der Spaß zu teuer! Das ganze per Email an weihnachtsdr...@geofabrik.de Alternativ könnt ihr auch eine Karte auf der "get-map.org"-Seite von Hartmut erzeugen (https://print.get-map.org/) und uns dann nur den Link schicken. Wir drucken die Karte, falten sie, und verschicken sie in einem Umschlag im Format B4. Wir übernehmen alle Kosten, auch das Porto. (Wer die Karte unbedingt gerollt und nicht gefaltet haben will: Das geht auch, aber dann müsst ihr uns eine DHL-Paketmarke "Paket bis 5kg" mit Eurer Empfänger-Anschrift PDF generieren und zuschicken; das Porto von EUR 5,99 zahlt dann ihr. Bitte beachten: Die (quaderförmige) Packung passt in keine Packstation.) Die Aktion ist als Dankeschön für die unermüdliche Arbeit der Mapperinnen und Mapper in OSM gedacht. Bitte verzichtet darauf, das ganze in sozialen Medien weiterzuverbreiten - bis sich das rumspricht, ist die Queue eh voll, und es gibt nur lange Gesichter. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects
Hi, On 12/12/18 6:15 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Sure, in the UK, you could do that and I know people who have done so. If > you invent a street name here in Charlbury and then post a letter to it, > Carla the post-lady will ask around until she finds out where the street is > (or until she sees the sign you've erected), and then she'll deliver you the > letter. A working postcode will speed the process up but isn't absolutely > necessary. And then it will go into OSM, and all the firefighters use OSM nowadays anyway because their official maps are outdated. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
Hi, On 11.12.2018 11:16, Andrew Hain wrote: > A question both to the current board and the candidates: Do you support > normal levels of Board transparency on this issue? Just as a "data point" in this discussion: There are people out there who are happy to issue death threats to anyone who is seen to be deciding something not in their favour. I'm not saying that this should automatically top any transparency requirements, and there hasn't been a board decision to limit transparency about this, but when discussing transparency in matters like this you have to take into account that transparency *can* occasionally mean that bullying becomes easier, and that people who would otherwise have voted yes or no suddenly vote abstain just to keep out of trouble. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects
Hi, On 11.12.2018 10:37, Tomas Straupis wrote: > 1. Non-physical objects are mapped by observing/verifying their > REFLECTION in physical world. ... > Opinion 1 would mean that we should remove all(most?) non-physical > objects: country, state, county, city, suburb, national/regional park > boundaries (and a lot more) as most of that is unobservable on the > ground and sometimes reflection of small part of them on the ground is > misleading/outdated. I think that we should not have a "fundamental" approach here but one of pragmatism. Non-physical (non-observable) things should definitely be the exception in OSM, and it is my opinion that each class of non-physical things we add needs a very good reason for adding them. For example, certain historic facts are very well documented, sometimes even by old maps or photographs, but we don't want them in OSM if they are not visible on the ground any more. I think that this is the right approach, and we normally don't want things that are not visible on the ground. We are making an exception, though, for some types of boundaries because we think they are important enough to warrant this exception. Not only important for map users, but also for the mapping process itself - for example, boundaries could be important for our own statistics or for knowing whether or not you are even allowed to go somewhere. "Let's delete all boundaries" would certainly be an overreaction; "let's require a very good reason for boundaries to have them in OSM" is better. But "let's map things according to documents" is IMHO worse, and you haven't even touched on the question of authority (whose documents do you believe). You are right in saying that most current boundaries in OSM are actually copied from documents, but we only do that where everyone agrees that the documents actually depict the situation on the ground. As soon as they are out of touch with the situation, we won't consider documents a useful source any more. Also, I think you are too fast in discounting the verifiability of boundaries. Even in the absence of actual marked lines, fences, or walls, you will often find the "reflections" that you speak of if you look a bit closer: Which government do I pay my taxes to? Which police department is responsible for my area? Which local authority do I get my food stamps from, whatever. 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-at] Wege auf privatem Gelände
Hallo, wie ist denn in Österreich die Rechtslage: Wenn der Besitzer eines Grundstücks - sagen wir mal jetzt nicht ein Reihenhausgarten, wo man noch mit PRivatsphäre argumentieren könnte, sondern ein Wald oder größere landwirtschaftliche Fläche - nicht möchte, dass die Wege auf seinem Land eingezeichnet werden: Müssen wir uns daran halten? Oder kann der Grundbesitzer zwar den Zugang zu seinem Land beschränken, nicht aber, was man vom Luftbild abpinselt? Ein Grundbesitzer hat in persönlicher Kommunikation (wg. einer DWG-Beschwerde) davon gesprochen, dass das ungenehmigte Mappen von Wegen auf Privatgrund ein "Eingriff in das Privateigentum" sei. In Deutschland hat das rechtlich keinen Bestand - wie ist aber die Situation in Österreich? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
[Talk-de] Illegale Feuerstelle
Hallo, im Rahmen einer Beschwerde bei der DWG kam die Frage auf: Was tun mit einer offensichtlich in Gebrauch befindlichen Feuerstelle an einem Ort, an dem das Feueranzünden verboten ist? Im konkreten Fall ist das eine Feuerstelle im Wald. Ein Mapper hat die gesehen und eingetragen; jemand anders beschwert sich nun, dass Leute hier durch OSM zu Gesetzesverstößen animiert werden können. Taggt man die mit access=no? informal=yes? legal=no? illegal=yes? Oder wie ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Boundary Kreise und Kreisfreie Städte
Hi, On 27.11.2018 17:42, Florian Lohoff wrote: > Jetzt hat sich mir die Frage gestellt wie ich bei admin_level=6 > von boundaries unterscheiden kann ob es sich um einen Kreis oder eine > Kreisfreie Stadt handelt. Ganz einfach(tm): SELECT osm_id, name, CASE WHEN 0 = (SELECT count(*) FROM planet_osm_polygon b WHERE b.boundary='administrative' AND b.admin_level='8' AND st_contains(a.way, b.way)) THEN 'kreisfreie Stadt' ELSE 'Kreis' END as typ FROM planet_osm_polygon a WHERE a.boundary='administrative' and a.admin_level='6'; Die Erweiterung des Problems auf Stadtstaaten sei dem Leser zur Übung überlassen ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?
Hi,
On 23.11.2018 01:42, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> One idea (perhaps this should go into a separete thread):
There already is a separate thread over on the tagging list started just
a couple of weeks ago. I suggest that would be a good place to continue
the discussion.
Being able to map different claims is certainly interesting, in so far
as they are verifiable (which surprisingly often is not the case). But
all that's already been mentioned over at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/040333.html
I fear that this is only "kicking the can down the road" though because
we'd likely have - just as we have with names - one "default" set of
boundaries where we say "that's the one you get if you don't ask for any
particular one", and the fight would then be on which one that is going
to be. And judging from how this decision is blown out of proportion
("OMG OSM SUPPORTS TERRORISTS!") I am sure that people would display
exactly the same outrage when discussing which one of a large set of
mapped claims gets the "default" flag.
> I especially appreciate 4.2 -- the fact that this decision is very bad for
> the data users --
I think you have misread Victor's 4.2 which essentially says that data
users currently have to make up their own boundaries anyway and that
therefore this decision does not *help* them. He does not say that it is
good or bad, just that it does not improve an already-bad situation.
As for whether
> DWG has gone too far into the political landscape - something I hope it did
> not intend to do.
let me quote from the DWG statement - again:
"The Data Working Group takes no stance on if Russia's control is legal
or not, as that is not within our scope."
The DWG has simply applied a policy that has existed in OSM since before
Crimea's annexation. That policy was written by LWG and approved by the
OSMF board in 2013 and has been applied many, many times since and it
has generally worked well for OSM. It certainly can be discussed and
improved but that needs to be on a general level, and not tacking on an
"Ukraine exemption" to the rule.
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-us] Forest Routes
Hi, apparently you have something in the US called "Forest Routes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Highway which even has its own kind of shield! (Yes I know, there are *many* shields. I've followed the discussions!) Is there some common understanding of how to map these, if at all? I've looked around a bit and found some roads marked "ref=FS" but these were few and far between. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?
Hi, On 20.11.2018 09:13, Tomas Straupis wrote: > How can I ask students to contribute to the map, which makes such a > damaging statement and has data which cannot be used to produce maps? *You* are making the statement, and publicly misinterpreting OSM's motivations. In doing so, it is *you* who damages the reputation of the project. Think about it! If you ask students to contribute to the map and at the same time say "btw they are in favour of evil Russian aggression" then of course students (at least in Lithuania) will give it the thumbs-down. But if you patiently explain the "on-the-ground rule" and that using this rule has many positive effects but sometimes also means you have to do something you don't like - then I guess people could be made to understand. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?
Hi,
On 20.11.2018 07:15, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> It would also be nice to know how members of DWG voted, to have more
> information on their attitudes towards Russian aggression.
The attitudes towards Russian aggression do not matter. DWG is not a
body that rules about justice in the world, DWG implements existing
policies.
The policy that Simon has linked to has been in force since September
2013:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf
Nobody can dispute that Russia has on-the-ground control over Crimea.
Immediately After the invasion of Crimea, there was some edit warring in
OSM going on, with some people over-eager to map the territory as being
part of Russia and others reverting it. That's why DWG issued a
resolution at the time calling for people to hold still until the dust
has settled.
The dust has now settled over Crimea, and whether you like it or not,
Russia controls the territory. After being asked about this multiple
times - last discussion was here on this very list a month ago:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-October/081553.html
- there was really not any doubt that a correct implementation of the
"Disputed Territories" policy means that Crimea needs to be mapped as
part of Russia.
I would like to point out that the recent DWG resolution contains the
following two passages:
> The Data Working Group takes no stance on if Russia's control is legal or
> not, as that is not within our scope.
and
> The boundaries of Crimea shall be indicated as disputed
I don't think that any of this can be construed as "siding with Russia",
and it wasn't "silently" either.
The reason why the LWG recommended the "disputed territories" policy and
why board accepted it in 2013 is that we want OSM to show facts not
fiction. If you pass Russian border patrols when entering a territory
and Russia decides whether you can enter or not, then it is effectively
Russian territory, and it would not be useful for anyone to claim
otherwise.
OSM is not a political map and time and time again we've rejected
politically motivated complaints - about how we should depict Cyprus
differently, about how legally the official language in country X was Y,
about the status of Taiwan, or the West Bank, or islands in the sea
south of China, the boundary of India which the Indian government thinks
contains a lot more ground than they effectively control: What counts
for OSM is what's on the ground, and not what the UN or the EU or the
government of the day would like to see.
Nobody wants war, nationalists, big nations bullying smaller ones, or
territories being occupied by force. But OSM has decided to try, as good
as we can, map the world as it really is.
This should not be blown out of proportion. If you construe this as "OSM
sides with Russia" then it is you who makes a false accusation.
> PRACTICAL1: this will make it impossible to create a correct
> political map using OSM data.
It is already impossible to create a correct political map in many
countries, e.g. India. It cannot be our aim to placate governments the
world over, especially when their views are conflicting as is usual in
areas of dispute!
> PRACTICAL2: It is also EXTREMELY damaging to OpenStreetMap
> reputation. Now all opponents of OSM will be able to point fingers at
> this decision - "OSM recognises Crimeas annexation". And it now makes
> us all participate in Russian (ruled) project.
Only if people like you misinterpret what we do as "recognising" the
annexation by ignoring the sentence that I quoted above ("takes no
stance on if Russia's control is legal or not"). Help us by explaining
that we map reality not politics, instead of demanding that we switch to
mapping politics.
> PRACTICAL3: While there are some talks about using OSM instead or
> alongside of commercial GIS solutions in the context of EU INSPIRE
> directive, such intentions will be seriously damaged by OSMF/DWG
> actions, because Europe has a very clear position of not recognising
> Crimeas annexation.
I don't see why we should change what and how we map just to be more
palatable to EU uses. I think we're already deviating from official EU
viewpoints e.g. in our naming of (the country of) Macedonia or certain
aspects of Cyprus mapping.
If someone is unhappy with OSM boundaries (and I repeat that they are
marked as "disputed") then they can add their own boundaries to the data
set, like e.g. openstreetmap.in is doing.
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
Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)
Thank you all for the helpful discussion. I have now split California in a northern and southern part along the recommended counties. Let's see how long it takes until the parts grow too big again! 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
Re: [Talk-at] OSM Wochennotiz Aktualität & Richtigstellung
Hallo Friedrich, die wöchentliche Erinnerung an die Erscheinung der Wochennotiz ist kein Spam. Du führst diese Diskussion offenbar nicht ernsthaft, drehst Deinen Diskussionsgegnern das Wort im Munde herum, und hast kein Interesse an einem konstruktiven Austausch. Ich werde daher nicht weiter mit Dir in diesem Thread diskutieren. Die Wochennotiz darf hier weiter an ihr Erscheinen erinnern. Jeder, dem das nicht passt, darf sich abmelden oder diese Nachrichten ignorieren. Wer sich aus persönlicher Mimosität aus der Kommunikation mit der Community verabschiedet, kann daraus selbstverständlich nicht das Recht herleiten, künftig alles, was qua Community-Konsens eine Diskussion mit der Community erfordert, auch ohne Diskussion durchzuziehen. Power-Mapper zu sein gibt einem nicht das Recht, den Mit-Mappern mit ständiger Nörgelei auf die Nerven zu gehen. Danke für die Aufmerksamkeit. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] OSM Wochennotiz Aktualität & Richtigstellung
Hallo, On 09.11.2018 10:44, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 09.11.2018 09:52, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Ich bin Mitglied des Vorstands der OSM Foundation, die diese >> Mailingliste betreibt, und erkläre in dieser Rolle: Das Versenden von >> wöchentlichen Erinnerungen über das Erscheinen der "Wochennotiz" ist von >> uns ausdrücklich toleriert und stellt eine zulässige Nutzung unserer >> Mailingliste dar. Nutzer, die diese Erinnerungen nicht wünschen und >> nicht willens oder in der Lage sind, eigene Maßnahmen zur Aussortierung >> der Mail in ihrer Mailsoftware zu ergreifen, werden gebeten, ihr >> Abonnement zu beenden. > > Wo sollen dann zukünfig Österreich-Themen wie z.B. Imports diskutiert > werden? Du kannst nicht von jemandem verlangen, eine Diskussion in jener > Mailingliste zu führen, von der du ihn gebeten hast das Abonnement zu > beenden. Wenn jemand sich von Teilen/Aspekten der Community (hier: wöchentlicher Newsletter) so gestört fühlt, dass er sich der Community insgesamt entziehen muss, weil es ihm nicht gelingt, mit den Teilen/Aspekten, die ihn stören, anders umzugehen, dann ist diese Person ungeeignet, einen Import mit der Community zu diskutieren, und kann daher auch keinen Import durchführen. In keiner Community läuft alles perfekt. Es gibt immer Dinge, die einen stören. Ich selber bin auf so vielen OSM-Mailinglisten, dass ich die Erinnerung an die "weekly" irgendwie 6x in verschiedenen Sprachen bekomme. Das nervt mich auch ein bisschen, aber ich markiere es als gelesen und denke nicht länger drüber nach. Wer nicht in der Lage ist, zugunsten des großen Ganzen über solche kleinen Sachen hinwegzusehen, der wird in OSM nur Probleme haben (und selbst ein Problem für seine Mit-Mapper sein). Ganz bestimmt wollen wir nicht, dass so jemand einen Import durchführt. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-at] OSM Wochennotiz Aktualität & Richtigstellung
Hallo, On 09.11.2018 09:30, Marcus MERIGHI wrote: > Doch, muss ich, weil Du einfach schickst! Wohin darf ich die Rechnung > schicken? Ich glaube, da liegt ein Missverständnis vor. Es gibt drei Parteien in diesem Szenario. Partei 1 ist die OSM Foundation, die die Mailingliste betreibt. Partei 2 ist die Person, die eine Mail auf die Liste schickt (hier: Andreas), und Partei 3 ist die Person, die aus freien Stücken die Liste abonniert hat (hier: Marcus). Wenn die Person, die die Liste abonniert hat (Marcus), mit dem Inhalt der Liste unglücklich ist, muss sie das mit dem Betreiber der Liste (OSMF) ausfechten. Die OSMF kann dann entweder Schritte ergreifen, um Spam einzudämmen, oder sie kann Marcus sagen "sorry, auf unserer Liste ist das erlaubt und wenn es Dir nicht passt, kannst Du dich ja abmelden". Derjenige, der Mails an die Liste sendet (Andreas), sendet ja niemals direkt an den Abonnenten (Marcus), daher kann der Abonnent auch keine "Rechnung" an den Sender schicken. > Nachdem Du mir ohne meine Zustimmung Nachrichten in die Inbox schickst! Wie gesagt, der technische Absender ist die OSM Foundation, nicht Andreas, und die Zustimmung zum Erhalt einer von der OSM Foundation kontrollierten E-Mail-Menge hast Du mit Deinem Einschreiben auf die Liste gegeben. Ich bin Mitglied des Vorstands der OSM Foundation, die diese Mailingliste betreibt, und erkläre in dieser Rolle: Das Versenden von wöchentlichen Erinnerungen über das Erscheinen der "Wochennotiz" ist von uns ausdrücklich toleriert und stellt eine zulässige Nutzung unserer Mailingliste dar. Nutzer, die diese Erinnerungen nicht wünschen und nicht willens oder in der Lage sind, eigene Maßnahmen zur Aussortierung der Mail in ihrer Mailsoftware zu ergreifen, werden gebeten, ihr Abonnement zu beenden. Nutzer, die nicht willens oder in der Lage sind, eigene Maßnahmen zur Aussortierung der Mail in ihrer Mailsoftware zu ergreifen, aber auch nicht ihr Abonnement beenden möchten, und die stattdessen gern auf dem Rechtsweg gegen solche Erinnerungen vorgehen möchten, können ihre Beschwerde schriftlich richten an: OpenStreetMap Foundation St John’s Innovation Centre Cowley Road Cambridge CB4 0WS United Kingdom Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-at mailing list Talk-at@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-at
Re: [Talk-de] Gutachten [war: Re: POIs - Details - Gerichtsurteil ]
Hallo, On 09.11.2018 09:00, sepp1...@posteo.de wrote: > Ich hätte nur ganz gern vorher eine klare Positionierung, wozu OSM den > Betreiber/Verantwortlichen einer Firma oder einen personenbezogenen > Datensatz an sich, tatsächlich benötigt oder zu verwenden gedenkt. Wer wäre denn Deiner Ansicht nach diese Entität "OSM", die etwas "zu tun gedenkt" und Auskunft über diese von ihr gehegten Pläne geben kann? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] osm2pgsql diff application with filtered OSM data
Hi, On 08.11.2018 15:34, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > My question is this; given that not everything in the diff will be in my > database (as I filter out what I don't need during the import process), > will osm2pgsql apply the diff successfully or will it complain that not > all features in the diff are in my database? It will apply the diff as far as possible, but it will also add a lot of unwanted/unnecessary stuff from the diff to the database which you would then have to filter out again. There's also a danger that you will miss some things. For example, consider a rural garage (shop=car_repair) mapped as a way with four nodes; you filter that out because you're not interested. Half a year later the shop closes, and a tourism=hostel opens instead. Assuming you are interested in this kind of POI, the diff that you process contains the way with the new tags, but not the nodes since these have not changed. The hostel will not appear in your osm2pgsql database because the geometry cannot be built due to lack of nodes. One way to avoid this downloading the full files, filtering them, and then generating a diff by comparing the filtered file to the last filtered file, and importing *that* diff. 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
[OSM-talk-nl] Caribbean Netherlands
Hi, in the "split up Netherlands on Geofabrik download server" thread the topic of the "ABC" and "SSS" islands was brought up. I'll have to think about that. Things are a bit disorganised on the download server when it comes to overseas territories. For example, the Canary Islands have their own entry under "Africa" because that's where they belong geographically, even though politically they are of course a part of Spain. Once I split up Spain I'll probably have to add them under Spain with the other subdivisions. Guadeloupe, which is geographically in Central America, already has its own entry under "France" (which can be confusing since the france.osm.pbf does *not* contain Guadeloupe - just as the netherlands.osm.pbf is also confined to the European part of the country). The groupings "ABC" and "SSS" seem to be rather informal; other options would be to group everything in one and call it... well... "Nederlandse Antillen" is not an official term any more, is it? And "Caribisch Nederland" is just three of the six islands? One could also have separate files for each but they would be *really* small. Is the ABC/SSS grouping the obvious choice? I somewhat dislike the splitting of Saint Martin/Sint Maarten. I figure that for all practical purposes, a map user would want to load a file that contains both parts of the island, and it would be cumbersome to have to pick the two halves out from underneath the Netherlands and France (especially as there will be some overlap so combining the two files can be difficult). I'm open to suggestions on this. I would guess the Dutch and the French are rather relaxed about the Saint Martin/Sint Maarten split but who knows, maybe it's a hot political issue ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Splitting up Netherlands on Geofabrik Download Server
Hi, On 11/7/18 23:25, Pander OpenTaal wrote: > While we are at it, I have tried contacting Geofabrik on this, but it > never landed. Perhaps posting it here will help. I've fixed the spelling problems, but it's not time to split up Belgium yet. I explained that to someone @opentaal.org (unsure if it was you, he didn't use the name Pander): Czechia, Spain, Austria, Australia, Brazil, Sweden, China, India, Indonesia and a few second-level territories of Canada, Russia, and Italy are each larger (in terms of data size) than Belgium and will have to be split before we split up Belgium, at least that's how things look like at the moment... who knows what data imports are in the works ;) I'll start a different thread about the Caribbean. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Splitting up Netherlands on Geofabrik Download Server
Hi, On 11/07/18 11:02, Colin Smale wrote: > Frederik, are the 12 files taken from the same snapshot? Are they > guaranteed to be "in sync" with each other? Yes, they're all generated from the same snapshot. It could theoretically happen that if you download all 12 one after the other, if you're very unlucky, the update happens somewhere in between and then you get 6 old and 7 new files, but you can protect yourself against that by using the file names that end with a time spec (drenthe-181106.osm.pbf instead of drenthe-latest.osm.pbf). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Splitting up Netherlands on Geofabrik Download Server
Hi, I've implemented the split now: http://download.geofabrik.de/europe/netherlands.html From tomorrow on, this should also generate daily diffs for each province. I'm already using the 2019 area definitions for Utrecht and Zuid-Holland so they are "wrong" for the next 2 months but I hope that's not too bad. Please let me know if you spot any problems! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
Re: [Talk-de] POIs - Details - Gerichtsurteil
Hallo, On 07.11.2018 07:31, sepp1...@posteo.de wrote: > Erfasse ich nun zusätzlich > eine natürliche Person mit Namen als Betreiber/Opperator, habe ich > widerrechtlich nach DS-GVO einen Datensatz zur Person erstellt und > entsprechend verknüpft und genau das ist NICHT ZULÄSSIG. Darauf will ich > hinaus! Ja, das haben wir alle verstanden, dass das Deine Ansicht ist. Wir sind uns nur nicht darin einig, dass dies die einzig mögliche Interpretation der Gesetzeslage ist. > Die "Augenarztpraxis Dr. Sommer" kann und soll durchaus in einer Karte > auftauchen (um mal beim Beispiel zu bleiben), es ist aber für OSM > absolut nebensächlich und NICHT ERFORDERLICH, eine natürliche Person mit > diesem Datensatz zu einem physischen Objekt zu verknüpfen! Es ist halt kein Schwarz-Weiss, sondern ein Spektrum. Auf der einen Seite: "Bürobedarf Emma Müller". Für Dich ein klarer Fall, Eintragung erlaubt. Dann: "Bürobedarf Office8000, Inh. Emma Müller". Für Dich, wenn ich Dich richtig verstanden habe, ein "von mir aus kann man das eintragen"-Fall, immer alles im "name"-Tag. (Normalerweise würden wir als "name" das taggen, was wir sehen - der tatsächliche Firmenname kann manchmal ja auch schon von der Beschilderung abweichen. Es kann also sein, dass über der Tür "Bürobedarf Office8000, Inh. Emma Müller" steht, im Handelsregister aber "Office8000 OHG" oder so. Das Mitnehmen des Inhabernamens wäre, wenn ich Dich richtig verstanden habe, Deiner Ansicht nach aber zulässig, weil der Inhaber offenbar "seinen Laden so nennt", was durch das Schild über der Eingangstür bewiesen wird.) Dann: "Bürobedarf Office8000" groß über der Tür, "Inhaber: Emma Müller" auf einem separaten, kleineren Aufkleber neben der Tür. Für Dich macht diese Konstellation dann den Inhabernamen zu einem klaren, IN GROSSBUCHSTABEN ausgeführten Datenschutz-No-No, und da, denke ich, scheiden sich dann die Geister - *besonders* in Konstellationen, wo andere Rechtsvorschriften die öffentliche Anbringung des Personennamens erfordern. > Es ist m.M.n. völlig unerheblich für OSM, ob Geschäftsinhaber aufgrund > anderer gesetzlicher Verpflichtungen oder freiwillig ihren Namen ans > Schaufenster kleben (müssen) oder ein Impressum auf einer Webseite > bereit stellen (müssen). Wenn es ein Gesetz gibt, dass sagt, dass Du Deinen Namen ans Geschäft schreiben musst, dann könnte man ja sagen, es besteht ein berechtigtes öffentliches Interesse daran, dass jeder weiss, dass Du der Inhaber bist. Nichts anderes drückt so ein Gesetzt ja aus, oder? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)
Tod, generally, the Geofabrik OSM PBF extracts are available across the size spectrum from continent to smallest extract, so the California OSM PBF extract will not go away (sorry if I was unclear about that). But my assumption was that there might be a need for smaller files because the whole-California file has meanwhile reached a size where it takes a while to process. The only thing that *does* go away when I split something in smaller files is the free shape downloads - these are only available for the "leaves" of the tree, i.e. the smallest regional units. On 06.11.2018 13:58, Tod Fitch wrote: > In any case, I assume a good description of the extract boundaries will > be provided Heh, I had hoped that by asking here, I'll be able to find a self-explaining split where everyone knows immediately from the name what's in it. Apparently not so easy ;) Best Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)
Hi, On 06.11.2018 11:53, Vivek Bansal wrote: > 2. I would certainly love smaller more regularly updated extracts! I'm > not sure how much my team would pay for it though. The downloads are free of charge. Maybe I should check with the Interline folks, I don't want to step on their toes with anything. > 3. I think the most common analysis patterns rely on regions greater > than each county, but smaller than just NorCal and SoCal. The 6 > californias here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias > is pretty close to what I would suggest (except i'd have the Bay Area 9 > county region to be one group, perhaps the 7th California?). I don't > know of any spatial files with this breakdown. Creating the split bounds is probably the least difficult part of the puzzle. Reason I'm asking the locals is that I want to create a split that is as useful as possible so thank you for the pointer - is the "six Californias" idea well-known enough that someone in, say, Napa County would immediately know to look for themselves in "North California" and not in "Jefferson" or "Central California"? While I don't *like* overlapping areas, it would be *possible* to have them if it matches what people expect to find. I could do SoCal+NorCal+Bay Area, or the 6 Californias plus Bay Area, or whatever. 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
Re: [Talk-de] POIs - Details - Gerichtsurteil
Hi, On 06.11.2018 10:33, sepp1...@posteo.de wrote: > Wenn Du ein Abgeordnetenbüro mappen willst, tue das als Büro und > Abgeordnetenbüro in der Beschreibung. Der Name des Abgeordneten hat dort > von Dir eingetragen nichts zu suchen, es sei denn, Du holst Dir vom > Abgeordneten die schriftliche Bestätigung dies zu tun und hinterlegst > diese als file in der Datenbank. Gibt es möglicherweise für Personen des öffentlichen Interesses Ausnahmen vom Schutz der persönlichen Daten? > völlig egal ob der Koch > nicht kochen kann oder die Bedienung Doppel-D und bauchfrei trägt! Deine Freude an blumigen Formulierungen in Ehren, aber vielleicht können wir jetzt mit der Diskussion von Körbchengrössen aufhören. Beim ersten Mal hab ich ja noch nichts gesagt. > Dafür gibt es das Handelsregister oder aber die > Webseite des Ladens, auf der der Betreiber selbst die Informationen > bereit stellt und zwar genau die, die er bereit stellen möchte! Oder die gesetzlich von ihm bereitzustellen verlangt werden. (Bis 2009 musste übrigens jeder, der eine "offenen Verkaufsstelle" hat, den Namen des Geschäftsinhabers "mit Familiennamen und mindestens einem ausgeschriebenen Vornamen" sichtbar aussen anbringen. Heute ist das nicht mehr vorgeschrieben. Wenn es dennoch - freiwillig - gemacht wird, könnte daraus dann auf eine Einwilligung zur Nutzung dieser Information geschlossen werden?) > Heißt die Firma "Max Mustermann Hausmeisterservice" ist das der > Firmenname (Punkt) - daran gibt es überhaupt nichts zu rütteln. Eine > Firma ist keine natürliche Person Äh, das ist so nicht richtig. Eine Firma ist nur der Name, unter dem jemand am Geschäftsleben teilnimmt. Eine Firma kann zu einer juristischen Person gehören oder zu einer natürlichen. Die Firma Max Mustermann Hausmeisterservice kann von Max Mustermann als Einzelunternehmer geführt werden, oder inzwischen von seinem Schwager Egon Exempel. Verbärge sich dahinter eine juristische Person, so müsste dies mit einem Zusatz "GmbH" oder "AG" (es gibt noch ein paar weitere) kenntlich gemacht werden. > Meine ganz persönliche Meinung dazu ist, dass das Persönlichkeitsrecht > des in dem Fall rechtlich zu mappenden Firmeninhabers stärker als die > Verpflichtung aus dem Handelsregister ist, denn Persönlichkeitsrechte > sind im Grundgesetz verankert. Nicht jedoch deren genaue Ausgestaltung nach DSGVO! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk-nl] Splitting up Netherlands on Geofabrik Download Server
Hi, On 06.11.2018 10:46, Bas Couwenberg wrote: > I already have the changes for the municipal changes on January 1st > ready, this includes the changes to the province borders. > > AFAIK Frederik uses the boundary relations to create the poly files, so > those will just need to be refreshed when the boundaries change. Not really, my clipping boundaries are curated manually so any refresh will also have to happen manually - because I don't want people to be surprised with sudden changes. It sounds like a good idea to wait until the change is done - or actually, perhaps it would not hurt if I simply implement the future boundaries on the download server right now. Which of the provinces are due to change? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[OSM-talk-nl] Splitting up Netherlands on Geofabrik Download Server
Hi, the Netherlands are currently the largest .osm.pbf file on the Geofabrik download server for which there are no split regions. Hence I would like to split it up, and my question to you is which is more useful: 1. split into 4 regions North, West, South, East? 2. split into 12 provinces? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-nl mailing list Talk-nl@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-nl
[Talk-us] California is too big ;)
Hi, on the Geofabrik download server, we usually split up countries into sub-regions once their single .osm.pbf has gone over a certain size. The aim is to make it easy for people to work with data just for their region, even on lower-spec hardware where it might be difficult to handle huge files. Every once in a while I check the list of not-yet-split countries and split up the largest of them. The current top of the list is 1. Netherlands 2. California 3. Indonesia 4. Spain 5. Czech Republic 6. Brazil 7. Ontario 8. Norway 9. Austria 10. India Hence the next country I'll split up is the Netherlands, but after that, for the first time ever, a second-level entity (California) will be larger than all not-yet-split countries. So I wonder: 1. is there already a site where someone interested in only a subset of California can download current data and potentially also daily diffs? 2. is there a demand for this? 3. what would be a sensible way to split California - in 58 counties, or maybe just go with SoCal and NorCal for now? 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
Re: [Talk-de] POIs - Details - Gerichtsurteil
Hallo, On 01.11.2018 19:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Haben Firmen denn auch Privacy Rechte? Bei einem nicht gewerblich > registrierten POI kann ich es sehen, dass man den Betreiber nicht nennen > will, aber wenn die Person gleichzeitig eine Firma ist? Der Begriff "Firma" ist jetzt etwas schwierig in dem Zusammenhang, er beschreibt ja nur den Namen, unter dem ein Unternehmen tätig ist. Eine Kapitalgesellschaft (AG, GmbH etc.) ist eine eigene juristische Person und hat kein Recht auf Privatsphäre (in der DSGVO ist das z.b. explizit in lit.14 ausgedrückt). Unsicher bin ich mit bei Personengesellschaften (GbR, KG) oder Freiberuflern (Handwerkern, Ärzten), wo Person und Unternehmen im Grunde identisch sind. Bislang haben wir immer nach dem Grundsatz gehandelt, dass alles, was jemand zur Werbung um Kundschaft auf ein Schild schreibt, auch verwertet werden kann. Ich bin aber nicht sicher, ob das haltbar ist, und die Internet-Recherche nach allem, was mit Datenschutz und Privatspähre zu tun hat, ist leider inzwischen fast unmöglich geworden ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-ca] Nova Scotia imports, and boundary=land_area
Hi, On 10/30/18 19:15, wambac...@posteo.de wrote: > last week there was a (short) discussion at talk-ca about > https://osm.org/user/Darthmouthmapper Now known as "Darthmouthmapmaker", though not currently making any maps because of https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2312 I hope he will explain himself here. I will also consider reverting some of the most unusual contributions in so far as I can determine them algorithmically. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [OSM-talk] Mobile Application for optimizing OSM ski area data
Hi, On 26.10.2018 14:22, Valentina Böhm wrote: > What would you recommend regarding authentication? Is it ok if users of > my app are committing data on my behalf or should all users have their > own OSM account? Using a central account for aggregated user contributions is discouraged; if some of your users commit vandalism or add data from illegal sources, it becomes very difficult to separate the good from the bad. Also, other OSM mappers might want to contact the user who has added or changed something. > If users have their own account, is it possible and ok if I prepare the > data with my algorithm and commit the data on their behalf? This is possible with OAuth authentication, and other programs like wheelmap or StreetComplete already do something similar. Although I am a little worried when you say "prepare the data with your algorithm" - you should always make sure the user has full control over what they submit, you should not submit something that might come as a surprise to the user later. > I’m also interested in feedback about the idea. Are there similar > projects? What do you think of my idea? "Topical" editors - software that allows specialist contributions in niche areas - can be a valuable addition to the OSM editing landscape, so in general I think it sounds like a good idea! Best 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea
Hi, On 23.10.2018 11:06, Christoph Hormann wrote: > I think that would not be verifiable. Different political fractions > often even have different opinions on the extent of their country. OSM > is not a place to record a spectrum of opinions Agreed. I would be tempted to say, however, that if a country requires a certain boundary depiction by law, like e.g. India and China do, then that's the same level of verifiability like that country's internal boundaries for which we also rely on what the "official" take is. At least the current laws regarding the Indian border are much more than "an opinion of a political faction". Having said that - Portugal still officially claims Olivença but it seems to be more a folkloristic thing than an actual dispute, and the average Portuguese would probably be astonished if a map were to actually depict Olivença as part of Portgual. This means we'd have to start which claims are serious and which are just for old times' sake ;) 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea
Hi, the Crimea issue is currently being discussed in DWG. Regarding the wider question of boundaries, here is our policy on disputed boundaries https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf This policy is not likely to change any time soon. It would however be interesting to develop a tagging scheme that lets us not only record "this border is disputed" but also "this is the extent of country X according to country Y", which we currently don't have. 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
Re: [Talk-de] Androhung von Benutzersperren für Verklebe-Ideologie
Hallo, On 23.10.2018 07:47, rainerU wrote: >> 2. Du kannst den Wald auch entlang der Straße - mit Verkleben - in zwei >> Teile teilen. > > Das verleitet dazu, diese analog auch auf auch Straßen am Waldrand > anzuwenden und dort die Straße mit dem Wald und der angrenzenden Wiese > zu zu verkleben. Will man dem Verkleben Einhalt gebieten dann müsste die > Regel konsequenterweise so lauten: > > 2. Du kannst den Wald auch entlang der Straße in zwei Teile teilen. > Teile dabei nicht am Weg auf sondern auf einer Seite der Straße am > Waldrand. Das erleichtert es, später einmal die Fläche von Straße, > Seitenstreifen und Straßengraben zu mappen. Naja, die Idee hierbei wäre ja (daher der Zusammenhang mit der "groben Ersterfassung"), eine *schnelle* Aufteilung eines Waldstücks - eventuell sogar ohne Rückgriff auf ein Luftbild - zu erlauben: Hier ist eine Straße quer durch den Wald, das Waldpolygon wird langsam nicht mehr handhabbar, ich habe aber weder Zeit noch Lust, zwei Waldränder abzupausen. Teile ich (a) das Waldpolygon daher einfach 50 Meter von der Straße weg in zwei, das ist gängige Praxis, da kann keiner meckern, oder teile ich (b) das Waldpolygon entlang der Straße und werde dann wegen der verklebten Straße kritisiert? Ich würde in dieser Situation, wenn "Waldränder abpausen" keine Option ist, (b) favorisieren, aber wenn man, wie Du vorschlägst, (b) ablehnt, dann wird das zu (a) führen. Das hatte Christoph ja angemerkt und das war der Grund, warum ich diese Ergänzung vorgeschlagen hatte. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Androhung von Benutzersperren für Verklebe-Ideologie
Hallo, On 10/22/18 20:40, sepp1...@posteo.de wrote: > Wie schauts aus mit meinem Vorschlag, die Verkehrsfläche als solches zu > mappen und zu verkleben? Das ist derzeit eine Nischen-Aktivität und wird es auch noch lange bleiben. Vieles ist ungeklärt, z.b. ob es in der Fläche noch eine Linie geben soll für die Strasse, wo dann die Eigenschaften drangemappt werden, und so weiter. Der Versuch, irgendeine Aussage über das Mapping von Strassen als Flächen in so eine Empfehlung einzubauen, wird dafür sorgen, dass Leute sich um Nebensachen streiten und die ganze Sache zerfasert. Man sollte das also nur dann weiter verfolgen, wenn man verhindern möchte, dass es zu einer Einigung kommt. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Androhung von Benutzersperren für Verklebe-Ideologie
Hallo, On 10/22/18 11:27, Christoph Hormann wrote: > Ich sehe ein gewisses Problem bei der Regel 2 in dem Fall, dass es > grundsätzlich als korrekt angesehen wird, wenn die Linie über die > Fläche gezeichnet wird - was zumindest bei kleineren Straßen und Tracks > im Wald allgemein anerkannt ist. Da wir gleichzeitig die etablierte > Regel haben, dass Waldflächen und ähnliches in kleine, handhabbare und > ggf. ohne Multipolygone mapbare Stücke aufgeteilt werden können und > sollten, würde diese Regel im Grunde bedeuten: Man darf aufteilen, aber > niemals entlang einer Straße. Das wäre dann ein bisschen schräg. Man könnte das ja auch als oneway-Regel ähnlich wie das mit der groben Ersterfassung formulieren: 1. Du kannst eine Straße quer durch einen Wald malen. 2. Du kannst den Wald auch entlang der Straße - mit Verkleben - in zwei Teile teilen. 3. Wenn dann jemand kommt und das schön entklebt, ist das ok. 4. Du kannst niemals einen entklebten Wald entlang einer Straße wieder verkleben. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Androhung von Benutzersperren für Verklebe-Ideologie
Hi, On 10/21/18 16:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Aus meiner Erfahrung sehen das die meisten so, aber vermutlich mit dem > Hintergedanken des Minderheitenschutzes, kann man sich z.B. in Deutschland > bisher nicht auf ein Schema einigen und bevorzugt, beide Varianten zu > empfehlen. Ich hab mal ins Blaue geschossen mit einem Entwurf: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/Fl%C3%A4chenverklebung sowas in der Art könnte man ja mal fertigschreiben und dann abstimmen und dann hat die leidige Diskussion vielleicht ein Ende... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-ca] Nova Scotia imports, and boundary=land_area
Hi, there's a mapper in Canada - Darthmouthmapper - who seems to: 1. import data from a source he calls "Nova Scotia Open Data" - I am not aware of any imports discussion, and the source specification is not precise enough to determine the legal status of that. Judging from past changeset comments, whatever imports procedure is used must have a number of flaws. 2. import administrative boundaries 2a. as a mesh of closed ways (where most people would prefer relations), 2b. with, among other things, the tags "_Shape_Area_=yes", "addrcountry=Canada" (no colon!), "addr:postcode" (which is not generally used for objects that do not represent an address), and "type=land_area" (which is not generally used on closed ways). 2c. The combination of a level-8 admin boundary and place=village is also unusual (eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/616463020) but I cannot judge if this is normal in Canada. This is also used in residential areas https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/636390857 - is this area really a "village"? 3. use a ton of is_in tags which are highly unusual nowadays 4. occasionally change existing relations (not ways) from type=boundary to type=land_area (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8417484/history) 5. add addr:postcode and addr:province to place=village nodes 6. revert corrections applied to this by other users, claiming that "The video and instructions state these can be part of the ways" A number of people have complained in the past http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=698649 but many of the issues seem to be present still. Before I ask him to fix this -- are any of the behaviours / mapping techniques outlined above somehow usual in Canada? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-de] Androhung von Benutzersperren für Verklebe-Ideologie
Hi,
On 10/19/2018 09:32 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> kannst Du das spezifizieren? Wenn es ums Verkleben geht, soll man neue Mapper
> freundlich begrüßen und höchstens in einem Nebensatz das Verkleben
> ansprechen? Oder ist jeder Hinweis darauf verboten, wenn es um Neulinge geht?
Also, ich würde mal sagen, man soll es generell unterlassen, in einer
Changeset-Diskussion Zeugs zu diskutieren, das mit der konkreten
Änderung nichts zu tun hat.
Ansonsten würde ich sagen, das *absichtliche* Verkleben von Flächen und
Wegen, die man selbst nicht neu gemappt hat, sollte nach wie vor
kritisiert werden dürfen.
Aber wenn jemand neue Daten beiträgt und dabei ein bisschen "klebt", ist
das noch kein Grund für eine freundliche und erst recht nicht für eine
unfreundliche Ermahnung. Und wenn jemand dann trotzdem solche
Changeset-Kommentare schreibt, und ein Dritter das merkt, dann soll der
sich bitte an die DWG wenden statt auch noch in die Diskussion
einzusteigen und den Verteidiger der Entrechteten zu spielen.
Und wer in dieser Aussage eine Lücke findet und meint, er könnte immer
noch seine verklebe-politischen Ideen pushen, indem er z.B. die Mapper
per persönlicher Nachricht anschreibt oder ihnen gefaltete Zettelchen
unter die Windschutzscheibe klebt ("Du hast ja nur von
Changeset-Diskussionen gesprochen"), der kriegt dafür auch nicht den
Innovations-Award - einigen der Spezialisten in der aktuellen Diskussion
scheint das sog. "rule lawyering" ausgesprochenen Spass zu bereiten.
Mittelfristig wäre es gut, wenn wir in dieser Sache zu einem Konsens im
Projekt oder zumindest mal in Deutschland kommen könnten. So schwer kann
das doch nicht sein?
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-de mailing list
Talk-de@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
