Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

[Joel Holdsworth]

On 21/11/17 14:29, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:

   Steve,

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 04:34:18PM -0800, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
O> If the reltoolbox plug-in as as powerful as I am beginning to understand it 
may be (I appreciate the introduction, Gleb), and given my agreement that certain 
use cases (especially landuse) benefit greatly from multipolygonized boundaries 
(they do), I actually CAN imagine that the SCCGIS V4 landuse import data (in 2019 
or 2020) could become multipolygon.  This likely would involve a pre-upload 
translation of polygon data into mulitipolygon using the tool, then conflation 
(which has to be done anyway).  Except, we upload multipolygons as we delete 
existing polygons during the conflation-and-upload phase.
O>
O> I wanted to offer that bright spot of hope to anybody's lingering beliefs that I am 
"mule-entrenched" in my beliefs that existing polygons are always superior.  They are not.  
They make updates harder, but I think I can get over that, as I can be convinced that "once done, 
the time investment is worth it" for the future benefits that multipolygons bring.

Okay, I will withhold myself from touching polygons in the Santa Cruz County
for next couple of years, and let's see how your future experience with
SCCGIS goes on. We can get back to this question later in scope of Santa Cruz.

Meanwhile, do I understand that my initial understanding of strong consensus
against multipolygons in the USA overall was wrong reading? First few emails
in the thread made me think so.

I'd like to continue working on coastline, and map all remaining SMRs and
later maintain them. I also want keep using multipolygons in any regular
edits. Are there any objections?



I use multipolygons extensively for the land cover around Rocky Mountain 
National Park.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

[Joel Holdsworth]

A longer version (I'll try). I assume we all agree that overlapping
or not reaching polygons where there is adjacency on the ground is
wrong. So how can we properly express adjacency? The simple way is
to run two polygons through the same subset of nodes. The advanced
is to separate this subset into a single line, which will now
belong to two multipolygons. I will try to convince you that using
advanced is easier, when it comes to "heavy" objects, like landuse=
or natural=. Imagine someone has mapped a forest, with a good
detail, precisely following its border with a farmland. Now you
want to map this farmland. In the simple way you need to follow
all nodes your predessor had drawn, clicking all the nodes, be it
25 nodes or 100. In the advanced way, you don't. You instantly
reuse his line for your new polygon. This was a most typical example
of benefits that advanced multipolygons provide.




I use them for this all the time.

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

Re: [Talk-africa] [Talk-us] Open survey on participation biases in OSM

[Joel Holdsworth]

Zoe, I'm not surprised that most OSM contributors are blokes. But what would 
make you think that indicates any kind of bias? People choose what they want to 
give their time to. I really don't mind what demographics contribute - it 
doesn't matter, so long as it's open to all - which osm certainly is.

You should talk to a psychologist - they would be able to explain why the 
demographics are what they are, but that's academic as far as I'm concerned. 

Best Regards
Joel Holdsworth

On September 4, 2017 4:45:27 AM MDT, Zoe Gardner <zoegardn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dear OSM talk subscriber
>
> 
>
>I am a Research Fellow in the Nottingham Geospatial Institute at the
>University of Nottingham in the UK, interested in participation biases
>in geospatial crowdsourced projects such as OSM and other Volunteered
>Geographical Information (VGI) projects. My current research project is
>concerned with the way in which participation biases in OSM may
>potentially affect the usability of the data that is collected and
>subsequently what is available to location based service providers
>which use OSM as their primary geospatial database.
>
> 
>
>The project is motivated by recent research that has found a strong
>male bias in OSM participation. This has led to assertions that various
>geospatial knowledge could be under represented or poorly recorded on
>the map. However, the actual consequences of this bias remain little
>explored or reported. By collecting information about contributors to
>OSM, which can then be analyzed along with their editing patterns, the
>impacts of this bias might begin to be measured and therefore better
>understood. I have therefore published an online survey designed to
>collect information directly from OSM editors and I would like to
>invite as many of you as possible to participate. The survey is
>anonymous and takes a couple of minutes to complete.
>
> 
>
>If you are an OSM contributor and are interested in or would like to
>participate in the study, please click on the link below, which will
>take you to the Bristol Online Survey website where you will find more
>information and an opportunity to participate in the survey. As a small
>incentive, at the close of the survey in a few weeks’ time, 60
>respondents will be drawn at random to receive a £15 Amazon voucher.
>
> 
>
>To participate in the survey, click on the link below:
>
> 
>
>https://nottingham.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/osm-user-profiles
><https://nottingham.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/osm-user-profiles>
> 
>
>Please do think about participating. It is hoped that knowledge about
>the way participation biases impact on crowdsourced maps will enable
>new strategies to be developed to address any resulting voids in the
>geospatial information provided by amateur mappers. In turn this could
>strengthen the role played by platforms such as OSM in urban planning
>and sustainability and raise the profile of the important mapping work
>that you all do.
>
> 
>
>In the meantime, if you would like to know more about me, my research
>activities or the project, please visit my University webpage (link
>below) and do not hesitate to get in touch directly or via the OSM
>messaging service.
>
> 
>
>https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/engineering/people/zoe.gardner
><https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/engineering/people/zoe.gardner>
> 
>
>Thank you
>
>Zoe
>
> 
>
> 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-africa mailing list
Talk-africa@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-africa

Re: [Talk-us] Gender in OpenStreetMap

[Joel Holdsworth]

Could we have one eye colour, also? ;-)


On 05/09/17 17:03, Ian Dees wrote:

Hi all,

Let's continue the conversation on this new thread, keeping in mind that 
we all need to keep our mind open and have productive and positive 
conversation.


I reserve the right to add a moderated cooling off period if we get too 
hostile towards each other again.


-Ian


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




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

Re: [Talk-us] Open survey on participation biases in OSM

[Joel Holdsworth]

> A simpler explanation would be that women are simply interested in other
> past-times. And what's wrong with that?


*On average* women are simply interested in other past-times. And what's 
wrong with that?


--- groan that I have to put that caveat in, or people will twist your 
words.




On 05/09/17 14:32, Joel Holdsworth wrote:



The ultimate goal for OSM should be a project which everyone feels
welcome to be a part of, and which does not have a noticeable bias
towards either gender or any given race. Also, please realize just
because women are welcome to participate in OSM, does not necessarily
mean that some women will *feel* they are welcome.



But exactly how is the project unwelcoming? How could the "Edit" button 
be welcoming to men and not women?


I didn't even know the map had strip-clubs or childcare in it - and I've 
been contributing for 10-years, so this clearly isn't an explanation for 
the gender percentages we have.


A simpler explanation would be that women are simply interested in other 
past-times. And what's wrong with that?


Joel

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



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

Re: [Talk-us] Open survey on participation biases in OSM

[Joel Holdsworth]

The ultimate goal for OSM should be a project which everyone feels
welcome to be a part of, and which does not have a noticeable bias
towards either gender or any given race. Also, please realize just
because women are welcome to participate in OSM, does not necessarily
mean that some women will *feel* they are welcome.



But exactly how is the project unwelcoming? How could the "Edit" button 
be welcoming to men and not women?


I didn't even know the map had strip-clubs or childcare in it - and I've 
been contributing for 10-years, so this clearly isn't an explanation for 
the gender percentages we have.


A simpler explanation would be that women are simply interested in other 
past-times. And what's wrong with that?


Joel

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

Re: [Talk-us] [HOT] Surveys and studies

[Joel Holdsworth]

On 05/09/17 12:07, Charlotte Wolter wrote:

If someone named Allessanbdro were in charge, a study,
such as Zoe's, never would happen, Clearly, from the reactions
on the email lists, a gender topic is very threatening to a number
of members.


That's a quite a toxic statement.

It's hard to think of a project more egalitarian than OSM. Which is why 
people object to the gender-baiting. It's not because they feel 
threatened, it's because it's so divisive.


Joel

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

Re: [Talk-us] Open survey on participation biases in OSM

[Joel Holdsworth]

Because the very notion that it is relevant to study OSM by gender is 
divisive.


Who cares what the gender balance of contributors to OSM is? I don't. I 
didn't even know what the split was until this thread. Because it 
literally doesn't matter.


Even it were 99% women, it wouldn't matter. So long as everyone has a 
chance to contribute if they want to.


Some people are saying about how awful it is to have a gender bias in 
the mapped data. If it were 99% women, I would imagine there might be 
better detail about the women's toilets. In that case, I would add data 
about the men's. No one owes me an apology, or a commitment to change 
their mapping habits. The solution starts with me - "Be the change you 
want to see."


It's simple - whatever gender, race, social group you are, come and use 
OSM. If some data you care about is missing, get mapping!



Joel




On 05/09/17 12:14, Charlotte Wolter wrote:


My goodness, all this anxiety! Why are you feeling that
you have to justify what you map, just because someone is
studying it by gender?

Charlotte



At 10:10 AM 9/5/2017, you wrote:
On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 08:25:33 +0200 Marc Gemis  
wrote: > One of the discussion points on her diary entry was female 
hygiene > products found in women's toilets. How is a man going to map 
that, > without access to women's toilets ? > > The real question for 
me is are men more likely going to map shop=car > than 
shop=clothes;clothes=underwear/fashion/ ... (sorry for the > 
stereotyping) > will men map leisure=playground or amenity=pub ? > 
will a roman catholic map a mosque ? > will a non-dog owner map 
leisure=dog_park ? > > in short: will we map everything we see or do 
we map only our > interests ? Furthermore, do we really see everything 
or do we only see > (and map) things we are conditioned to ? > > This 
is not about buildings, addresses, roads and paths. They are

> pretty gender neutral I think. It's about POIs.

I know I map what I see (or more precisely, what my camera
captures). If it doesn't have a sign out front, I don't map it.
To take an example from the midwives vs. strip clubs debate,
the phone book lists seven midwives and/or midwife groups
in the Spokane area. Of those, three are attached to hospitals
and one to a community-health clinic, and so wouldn't have
signs. Two are operating out of private homes and don't have
signs (and I wouldn't map them if they did, just like I don't map
lawn care or computer repair businesses operating out of
private homes).
The last one is in the 95% of the city I haven't yet photo-mapped.
The phone book lists zero strip clubs in the Spokane area.
Despite that, I've found and mapped one strip club: it was on a
major street and had a clear sign out front.
Yes, there's a bias in my mapping, but it's a bias towards
"things identifiable from the street." I'm more likely to map a car
store than a clothes store, because car stores are generally
not found inside shopping malls. Playgrounds beat pubs,
because every playground is visible from the street.  And this
non-dog-owner didn't map the dog park, because it was
already mapped by the time I got started.

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


Charlotte Wolter
927 18th Street Suite A
Santa Monica, California
90403
+1-310-597-4040
techl...@techlady.com
Skype: thetechlady



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




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

Re: [Talk-us] Open survey on participation biases in OSM

[Joel Holdsworth]

Zoe, I'm not surprised that most OSM contributors are blokes. But what would 
make you think that indicates any kind of bias? People choose what they want to 
give their time to. I really don't mind what demographics contribute - it 
doesn't matter, so long as it's open to all - which osm certainly is.

You should talk to a psychologist - they would be able to explain why the 
demographics are what they are, but that's academic as far as I'm concerned. 

Best Regards
Joel Holdsworth

On September 4, 2017 4:45:27 AM MDT, Zoe Gardner <zoegardn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dear OSM talk subscriber
>
> 
>
>I am a Research Fellow in the Nottingham Geospatial Institute at the
>University of Nottingham in the UK, interested in participation biases
>in geospatial crowdsourced projects such as OSM and other Volunteered
>Geographical Information (VGI) projects. My current research project is
>concerned with the way in which participation biases in OSM may
>potentially affect the usability of the data that is collected and
>subsequently what is available to location based service providers
>which use OSM as their primary geospatial database.
>
> 
>
>The project is motivated by recent research that has found a strong
>male bias in OSM participation. This has led to assertions that various
>geospatial knowledge could be under represented or poorly recorded on
>the map. However, the actual consequences of this bias remain little
>explored or reported. By collecting information about contributors to
>OSM, which can then be analyzed along with their editing patterns, the
>impacts of this bias might begin to be measured and therefore better
>understood. I have therefore published an online survey designed to
>collect information directly from OSM editors and I would like to
>invite as many of you as possible to participate. The survey is
>anonymous and takes a couple of minutes to complete.
>
> 
>
>If you are an OSM contributor and are interested in or would like to
>participate in the study, please click on the link below, which will
>take you to the Bristol Online Survey website where you will find more
>information and an opportunity to participate in the survey. As a small
>incentive, at the close of the survey in a few weeks’ time, 60
>respondents will be drawn at random to receive a £15 Amazon voucher.
>
> 
>
>To participate in the survey, click on the link below:
>
> 
>
>https://nottingham.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/osm-user-profiles
><https://nottingham.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/osm-user-profiles>
> 
>
>Please do think about participating. It is hoped that knowledge about
>the way participation biases impact on crowdsourced maps will enable
>new strategies to be developed to address any resulting voids in the
>geospatial information provided by amateur mappers. In turn this could
>strengthen the role played by platforms such as OSM in urban planning
>and sustainability and raise the profile of the important mapping work
>that you all do.
>
> 
>
>In the meantime, if you would like to know more about me, my research
>activities or the project, please visit my University webpage (link
>below) and do not hesitate to get in touch directly or via the OSM
>messaging service.
>
> 
>
>https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/engineering/people/zoe.gardner
><https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/engineering/people/zoe.gardner>
> 
>
>Thank you
>
>Zoe
>
> 
>
> 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Key:man_made... Outdated language?

[Joel Holdsworth]

On 10/03/17 14:52, Brian Stromberg wrote:

Wow.

I think it at least merits a discussion. Yes, it's a political decision
but not so ridiculous as to dismiss it as part of a feminist plot.


Not a feminist plot. Just a very tired game to see played out over and over.

I've seen it played in a lot of activity spaces: Open Source, Gaming, 
Astronomy, Magic the Gathering, Historical Re-enactment.




I would also point out that using a gender-specific term like "man" does
more to maintain division than anything else.


"Man" is not a gender specific term.

And there is no division, except among those wish to make an issue of it.


Joel

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

Re: [Talk-us] Key:man_made... Outdated language?

[Joel Holdsworth]

Fair enough --- but please be clear that this form of discussion is 
highly divisive in and of itself, and should be treated as such.


It is pointless in the sense that renaming "man_made=" to "human_made=" 
will not help the development of the map in any way. Bike-shedding about 
this only wastes time. It generates a political issue where there need 
be none.


Joel


On 10/03/17 14:45, Ian Dees wrote:

Please keep discussion on topic and positive.

Discouraging further discussion by applying labels such as "pointless"
to someone's opinion makes this list less open to those that believe it
is an important thing to discuss.

Thanks,
Ian
(Your friendly talk-us moderator)


On Mar 10, 2017 16:38, "Joel Holdsworth" <j...@airwebreathe.org.uk
<mailto:j...@airwebreathe.org.uk>> wrote:

No.

"Man" has been a general term for humanity in the English language
since time immemorial.

It is only feminists who wish to divide humanity along gender lines
who have a problem with "man" as a term of reference. Such
argumentation is deliberately divisive, and serves no purpose.

There is no need for the change, or a pointless discussion about
such a change.

    Please lets get on with making an awesome map.

Best Regards
Joel Holdsworth



On 10/03/17 14:27, Joshua Houston wrote:

Hi,

It occurred to me that "man_made" is an outdated term that should be
phased out from OpenStreetMap language. The philosophy of
OpenStreetMap
is very inclusive and that should be represented even in the way
data is
tagged. I'd like to propose to change the key from "man_made" to
"human_made" and start a discussion on it. Many parts of society are
trying to implement a more inclusive language, NASA for instance has
changed "manned missions" to "crewed missions". I think it is an
important goal to make OSM inclusive whenever there is a choice.

Thanks!

Joshua Houston


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



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




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




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

Re: [Talk-us] Key:man_made... Outdated language?

[Joel Holdsworth]

No.

"Man" has been a general term for humanity in the English language since 
time immemorial.


It is only feminists who wish to divide humanity along gender lines who 
have a problem with "man" as a term of reference. Such argumentation is 
deliberately divisive, and serves no purpose.


There is no need for the change, or a pointless discussion about such a 
change.


Please lets get on with making an awesome map.

Best Regards
Joel Holdsworth


On 10/03/17 14:27, Joshua Houston wrote:

Hi,

It occurred to me that "man_made" is an outdated term that should be
phased out from OpenStreetMap language. The philosophy of OpenStreetMap
is very inclusive and that should be represented even in the way data is
tagged. I'd like to propose to change the key from "man_made" to
"human_made" and start a discussion on it. Many parts of society are
trying to implement a more inclusive language, NASA for instance has
changed "manned missions" to "crewed missions". I think it is an
important goal to make OSM inclusive whenever there is a choice.

Thanks!

Joshua Houston


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




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

Re: [Talk-us] U turn restrictions in areas

[Joel Holdsworth]

 2) Is there a known tagging scheme for this? Area based traffic
 resctrictions?
 
 
 No, but it would be handy, because there's literally no way anybody's
 tagging this for every approach of every intersection with a traffic
 light, HAWK or half-signal in Oregon that doesn't have an explicit
 exception.

Someone could make a robot-script to put them everywhere.

Joel

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

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Joel Holdsworth]

 Therefore,
 tagging them as protected areas is appropriate (not withstanding the
 fact that not much in a National Forest seems protected based upon my
 visit to a section of the Roosevelt National Forest yesterday).

+1 agree with everything you say.

Also, come help me map the land-cover! - I've been doing quite a bit
over the past couple of week, but there's a lot to map, and I've only
seen so much of it on the ground.

Joel

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

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Joel Holdsworth]

Yeah I posted a question about this last week: 
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/44763/tagging-us-national-forests

To me landuse=forest is pretty clearly incorrect. It should be 
boundary=protected_area,protect_class=6 and the rendering rules should be 
patched  to make it appear similar to leisure=national_park.

Joel

On 16 August 2015 20:10:17 GMT-06:00, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
Hi,

The new rendering of forests broke cases where a lake is inside a
forest
and the lake is not mapped as an inner section of the surrounding
forest
polygon.

I posted this issue in the carto issue tracker:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1754

But after some discussion I realized that this may be a side effect of
a
different problem, namely how we tag national forests. In the US, these
seem to be tagged as landuse=forest which is only partly true: within a
National Forest, many different land uses can occur, only one of them
being
forest.

So should we just not tag National Forests as landuse=forest?

Martijn van Exel
skype: mvexel




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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Joel Holdsworth]

 This whole discussion going back more than a year ago has
 been dominated by very European concepts of what is a forest.

I think that's the problem.

In europe (and for that matter the whole of OSM) forest == trees. Every
square foot of a landuse=forest area should be covered in trees.

Here in the US, there is a thing called a US Nation Forest which is an
administrative area, which has a lot of trees in it, but also scrub,
grass, rivers, bare rock etc.

The main issue is that we need to separate the administrative border
from the land-cover, so that land-cover drawing is not prevented.

Making boundary=protected_area render similarly to the outline of
leisure=natural_park would be a good starting point, and that should be
a simple mod to make.

Joel

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

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Joel Holdsworth]

I did the same to the Roosevelt National Forest a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/40.6167/-105.3240

Hopefully we can patch the rendering rules to display
boundary=protected_area

Joel


On 17/08/15 15:44, Martijn van Exel wrote:
 I removed the landuse=forest from the national forest relations in
 Utah: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33392465.
 
 The map will look very white :( but at least it's not wrong anymore.
 



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

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

[Joel Holdsworth]

 It worked before, it can work this way again.

It worked to some degree, but it was rather a road-block to adding more
detail. It won't every be possible to produce a detailed image like this:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/49.1850/7.9723

...when the whole administrative area is clobbered with green.

Joel

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