Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
At 2012-04-16 20:41, Toby Murray wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/16/2012 9:18 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is something you would have done anyway). Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad comment? Can I protect/bless a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by (in good faith) adding this tag? We have no idea what rules the OSMF will use. Well I won't claim that communication has been great but this statement is a little over dramatic. First of all: odbl=clean *will* be honored. ... On nodes as well as ways? As I wrote earlier, if I have tagged a way with a source that includes imagery, and removed the tiger:reviewed=no tag, it means I have aligned it to that imagery, including leaving nodes that are in the correct place alone (sometimes). Can I bless the nodes in the same way? Also there is this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F A nice empty page. Tough to argue with :) And of course the code is available for anyone to view... although I'm not going to claim that this is really good documentation on the matter: https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change Nor can you reasonably expect people to use this as a guideline. And I'm a programmer. There has been talk of the v0 rule which I believe is being implemented in the code. This means that the act of creating an object by a decliner doesn't automatically make it dirty. So if a way was created by a decliner with the tag name=Fred and then someone else added the tag highway=footway then after the bot gets done with it, the way will still exist but only have the highway=footway tag. If an accepting user changes the value of the name=* tag then it will be clean... except, see the next paragraph. However if all of the way's nodes are dirty and get removed then the way itself will have to go too since you can't have a zero-node way. I contend, though, that you should not have to change a node to make it clean. If one has tagged a source with an imagery (or GPS) value, they are saying that they vouch for the position of the way, including its nodes. Same applies to removing tiger:reviewed=no (or gnis:reviewed=no). The user is specifically claiming to have reviewed the position and tagging and approved it. Should that not be sufficient? Unfortunately neither badmap nor OSMI fully implement all of these rules so yes there is still far too much uncertainty. But there are some facts to be had. Why, then, is it acceptable for us to be sitting here with a dagger hanging over our heads, uncertain as to when and how it will fall? Shouldn't all of this be nailed down, followed by a reasonable notice period? Why is there a deadline other than we need to get it done for the long-term benefit of OSM? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: At 2012-04-16 20:41, Toby Murray wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/16/2012 9:18 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is something you would have done anyway). Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad comment? Can I protect/bless a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by (in good faith) adding this tag? We have no idea what rules the OSMF will use. Well I won't claim that communication has been great but this statement is a little over dramatic. First of all: odbl=clean *will* be honored. ... On nodes as well as ways? As I wrote earlier, if I have tagged a way with a source that includes imagery, and removed the tiger:reviewed=no tag, it means I have aligned it to that imagery, including leaving nodes that are in the correct place alone (sometimes). Can I bless the nodes in the same way? Yes. odbl=clean immediately removes any object from further processing by the bot. See comments on the first function: https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change/blob/master/tags.rb Also there is this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F A nice empty page. Tough to argue with :) Works for me. You can search for what is clean? and it should be the first result. And of course the code is available for anyone to view... although I'm not going to claim that this is really good documentation on the matter: https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change Nor can you reasonably expect people to use this as a guideline. And I'm a programmer. Agreed There has been talk of the v0 rule which I believe is being implemented in the code. This means that the act of creating an object by a decliner doesn't automatically make it dirty. So if a way was created by a decliner with the tag name=Fred and then someone else added the tag highway=footway then after the bot gets done with it, the way will still exist but only have the highway=footway tag. If an accepting user changes the value of the name=* tag then it will be clean... except, see the next paragraph. However if all of the way's nodes are dirty and get removed then the way itself will have to go too since you can't have a zero-node way. I contend, though, that you should not have to change a node to make it clean. If one has tagged a source with an imagery (or GPS) value, they are saying that they vouch for the position of the way, including its nodes. Same applies to removing tiger:reviewed=no (or gnis:reviewed=no). The user is specifically claiming to have reviewed the position and tagging and approved it. Should that not be sufficient? I don't disagree with your points although things get complicated in practice. I've seen people mass removing tiger:reviewed tags on any way that they happened to load into JOSM while mapping when they obviously didn't even look at it. Also, what if a user only reviewed/improved the geometry of a dirty way in one spot but the way is several miles long? This may not be the case for things you have touched but there are a lot of people who have done a lot of edits that are less rigorous. Unfortunately neither badmap nor OSMI fully implement all of these rules so yes there is still far too much uncertainty. But there are some facts to be had. Why, then, is it acceptable for us to be sitting here with a dagger hanging over our heads, uncertain as to when and how it will fall? Shouldn't all of this be nailed down, followed by a reasonable notice period? Why is there a deadline other than we need to get it done for the long-term benefit of OSM? Won't disagree with this either. Ideally the bot code would have been developed over the past year instead of the past month and then been available to make tools like OSMI and badmap that use the actual code to show what will happen. But that's now how things happened. I'm not trying to lay blame. I've been mostly a spectator to the process myself so I'm certainly not going to throw stones. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
Sure, Alan. I'll try to help by explaining a core of my process, and you and others can take it from there. Great job - thanks for this. I'm sure it helps. Appreciate the kudos. We might all share like this when asked. This is called a workflow and workflows with specific numbered steps are valuable/crucial nuggets of knowledge when somebody needs one to solve a specific problem AND a workflow HAS BEEN SHARED. So, ask, and, if you KNOW, share WHEN asked! 7) For ways (I'm not going to explain points), here is what I do: ... So, we're basically duplicating the existing way and then blessing it. Is this really sufficient - to verify the tainted geometry instead of re-drawing it? If so, why is it not sufficient that, in many, many cases, the original creator of the way has not accepted CT, but many other accepting mappers have afterwards aligned (i.e. moved nodes) and tagged (in my case, with sources of sat imagery, local photo survey, county records, and/or even GPS survey) it? Haven't I already blessed it? Can't the redaction bot look at the source tag and see this? Another point, at least in SoCal, is that many of our tainted ways are created by blars, who has not accepted the CT. However, these are TIGER-imported ways. They carry the TIGER tags. I'm sure they could be verified as having come from the TIGER import. They were no-doubt the result of having split an existing TIGER way. In this case, why is it not sufficient to see the TIGER tags on the way to consider it blessed along with all the other TIGER ways? Especially when tagged afterwards by accepting mappers with sources as above? 8) Repeat step 7 for all bad ways (or points) in the list of data loss that License Problems displays. I'd like to suggest step 8.5: Run the OSM validator. It will find all the intersections that were missed, and probably a bunch of other problems that may or may not have pre-existed. 9) Upload your re-mapping efforts. I agree that a step 8.5 to run JOSM Validator is well-indicated here. Thank you for that excellent suggestion. So, can someone from the redaction squad comment on the logic being used and the questions above? I don't know that they reply to this list. I believe they read it, but I have no proof of that. Finally, it is true that my suggested workflow duplicates an existing (tainted) way and then blesses it. Yes. The additional step of visually verifying with Bing Sat allows this to crystallize into a solidly legal footing: I can see it in Bing, therefore the duplication of something which was unlicensable is now licensable. In other words, re-drawing is not necessary (it is sufficient), but it is overkill (unless points are also tainted). Duplication + visual inspection via Bing seems sufficient to me, but it would be really, really good to get the redaction squad to directly address that point. Right here (talk-us) would be just fine. OSM's wiki would, too. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
At 2012-04-16 13:24, stevea wrote: At 2012-04-12 17:36, you wrote: I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days of re-mapping. If you are an editing maniac... Can you comment on your process? I see very little real, coordinated info about tools, concrete solutions, or teamwork. As a formerly quite active SoCal mapper, I'm basically just dead in the water, wondering how much of my hard work has just been discarded (e.g. speed-limits, lanes, turn restrictions, source references, carefully aligned geometries, etc.) and whether to bother trying to get it back. I can't possibly be alone (?). Sure, Alan. I'll try to help by explaining a core of my process, and you and others can take it from there. Great job - thanks for this. I'm sure it helps. 7) For ways (I'm not going to explain points), here is what I do: Select a bad way by double-clicking the way in the data loss list, Press 3 (JOSM's shortcut for the View menu's Zoom to selection verb (critical, as it centers JOSM), Copy (could be command-C or another keyboard equivalent, again I'm on a Mac), Either Paste-Delete or Delete-Paste ... Now, the new (pasted) bad way is there, and the old bad way is deleted, but the new one is just floating. There are two critical sub-steps here: first, use Bing Sat layer to visually verify. This makes the new way legal in the sense of I, the new editor of this way, have verified it. (I do this for motorways and streets I can see in Bing Sat layer, but not for POIs unless I personally know them). So, we're basically duplicating the existing way and then blessing it. Is this really sufficient - to verify the tainted geometry instead of re-drawing it? If so, why is it not sufficient that, in many, many cases, the original creator of the way has not accepted CT, but many other accepting mappers have afterwards aligned (i.e. moved nodes) and tagged (in my case, with sources of sat imagery, local photo survey, county records, and/or even GPS survey) it? Haven't I already blessed it? Can't the redaction bot look at the source tag and see this? Another point, at least in SoCal, is that many of our tainted ways are created by blars, who has not accepted the CT. However, these are TIGER-imported ways. They carry the TIGER tags. I'm sure they could be verified as having come from the TIGER import. They were no-doubt the result of having split an existing TIGER way. In this case, why is it not sufficient to see the TIGER tags on the way to consider it blessed along with all the other TIGER ways? Especially when tagged afterwards by accepting mappers with sources as above? 8) Repeat step 7 for all bad ways (or points) in the list of data loss that License Problems displays. I'd like to suggest step 8.5: Run the OSM validator. It will find all the intersections that were missed, and probably a bunch of other problems that may or may not have pre-existed. 9) Upload your re-mapping efforts. So, can someone from the redaction squad comment on the logic being used and the questions above? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
At 2012-04-16 13:52, stevea wrote: At 2012-04-12 17:36, you wrote: I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days of re-mapping. If you are an editing maniac... Can you comment on your process? I see very little real, coordinated info about tools, concrete solutions, or teamwork. As a formerly quite active SoCal mapper, I'm basically just dead in the water, wondering how much of my hard work has just been discarded (e.g. speed-limits, lanes, turn restrictions, source references, carefully aligned geometries, etc.) and whether to bother trying to get it back. I can't possibly be alone (?). I almost forgot: in step 7 of my previous message, the Delete step may inform you that you are deleting from a relation. This is especially true of motorways, which are often described with relations. If this is the case, go ahead and confirm the deletion from the relation, making note of WHICH relation(s) this element is a member of. Glad you mentioned that - it's something I've spent a lot of time on. Be sure to note the role of the object in the relation as well. In the case of turn restrictions, traffic-control, and housing relations, the role is as important as the object's presence, and will break the relation without it. So, we're left with: I can't even find any info on the redaction. What is the plan? Where is it now? How can I see what it's doing? Shouldn't there be a big, bold link to this kind of info on the wiki main page? Can someone involved comment? -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On 4/16/2012 8:56 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: So, we're basically duplicating the existing way and then blessing it. Is this really sufficient - to verify the tainted geometry instead of re-drawing it? Only if the nodes are clean. Another point, at least in SoCal, is that many of our tainted ways are created by blars, who has not accepted the CT. However, these are TIGER-imported ways. They carry the TIGER tags. I'm sure they could be verified as having come from the TIGER import. They were no-doubt the result of having split an existing TIGER way. In this case, why is it not sufficient to see the TIGER tags on the way to consider it blessed along with all the other TIGER ways? Especially when tagged afterwards by accepting mappers with sources as above? Because the OSMF is lazy and wants us to do the work in identifying false positives :) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is something you would have done anyway). Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad comment? Can I protect/bless a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by (in good faith) adding this tag? Any ways that I have tagged with source=some_imagery;survey;image means I have aligned against imagery and personally photo-surveyed at least one street-name sign along it. It would certainly help to be able to just add odbl=clean to such ways that are complained about by the plugin instead of having to delete and re-add them, fix the intersections, and fix the relations. I'm also more likely to get it done, since it multiplies my productivity many times. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On 4/16/2012 9:18 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is something you would have done anyway). Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad comment? Can I protect/bless a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by (in good faith) adding this tag? We have no idea what rules the OSMF will use. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
From: Alan Mintz [mailto:alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 6:18 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s. At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is something you would have done anyway). Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad comment? Can I protect/bless a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by (in good faith) adding this tag? Any ways that I have tagged with source=some_imagery;survey;image means I have aligned against imagery and personally photo-surveyed at least one street-name sign along it. It would certainly help to be able to just add odbl=clean to such ways that are complained about by the plugin instead of having to delete and re-add them, fix the intersections, and fix the relations. I'm also more likely to get it done, since it multiplies my productivity many times. If you've verified all of the tags on it from ODbL compatible sources (e.g. a survey you did), you can add odbl=clean and the way will be kept. The nodes may be deleted if they were created by a decliner. In this case what I generally do is select all the dirty nodes in the way and delete them, then re-trace the way. If all blars did was split the way then the nodes will still be clean. If he refined the geometry then the geometry will be reverted to what it was before. What I've been doing a lot of is going to a dirty way, deleting all the tags and then copying all of the tags from CanVec (Canadian equivalent of TIGER, but more reliable), pasting them to the way and adding odbl=clean. You have to be careful that you don't remove other clean data (mainly cycle route information here). To check that I open up the history (Ctrl-H) and see who added it. Generally it's not a decliner, so I can keep the tag. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
I just saw this post on the rebuild list, so you guys might want to be a tad careful when you're doing cleaning work by creating a new way and keeping the old tainted nodes in it. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/rebuild/2012-April/000206.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On 4/16/2012 11:04 PM, James Mast wrote: I just saw this post on the rebuild list, so you guys might want to be a tad careful when you're doing cleaning work by creating a new way and keeping the old tainted nodes in it. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/rebuild/2012-April/000206.html Frederik is slightly exaggerating, in that it's OK to do so if all the contributors of any data you're keeping have agreed to the CT, even if you yourself have not surveyed or traced it. (Otherwise we'd have a major problem whenever a way is split.) In fact I believe Frederik has done this sort of copy-paste into a new object when the history of a relation has become too large. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/16/2012 9:18 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is something you would have done anyway). Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad comment? Can I protect/bless a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by (in good faith) adding this tag? We have no idea what rules the OSMF will use. Well I won't claim that communication has been great but this statement is a little over dramatic. First of all: odbl=clean *will* be honored. If it is abused, it will need to be handled just like any other form of copyright vandalism we have dealt with in the past. Before adding it to a way you might need to delete tags that were added by a decliner unless you can personally verify the information in the tag from a license clean source in which case you might want to add a note tag explaining this (I have used odbl:note=*) Also there is this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F And of course the code is available for anyone to view... although I'm not going to claim that this is really good documentation on the matter: https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change There has been talk of the v0 rule which I believe is being implemented in the code. This means that the act of creating an object by a decliner doesn't automatically make it dirty. So if a way was created by a decliner with the tag name=Fred and then someone else added the tag highway=footway then after the bot gets done with it, the way will still exist but only have the highway=footway tag. If an accepting user changes the value of the name=* tag then it will be clean... except, see the next paragraph. However if all of the way's nodes are dirty and get removed then the way itself will have to go too since you can't have a zero-node way. Tag changes that are trivial will not affect the license status of an object. Looking at the code right now I see it is checking specifically for abbreviations/expansions. So a decliner changing Main St to Main Street will not make a way dirty. On the flip side, I believe an accepting user doing the same to a dirty tag won't make the tag clean. Unfortunately neither badmap nor OSMI fully implement all of these rules so yes there is still far too much uncertainty. But there are some facts to be had. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:26 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 April 2012 03:30, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world. So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been. It also will remain tainted, only the bot will not know about it and consider it untainted. So it's a way to trick the bot and potentially put the OSM Foundation under legal risk. This is why the remapping effort before the bot run is finished, is a Really Bad Idea. It is both more time costly and it is provoking users to cause incompatible IP to be preserved over the license change, often unconsciously. See all the ideas of using the incompatible IP to create the new compatible IP, such as using the tainted coastlines data to remap small islands. (RichardF said he does not agree it's a bad idea, but he wouldn't explain which point he disagrees with or why) Cheers I was assuming that there was an additional data source, such as aerial photos and/or GPS traces, which could be used to judge the accuracy of the tainted node. As I understand the way the bot judges taintedness, if you delete a tainted node, then insert a replacement node in the same location, the new node is also considered tainted even though it was added by someone who agreed to the new license terms, and even though that might be the correct location to mark the corner of a polygon. Any new (version 1) node created by someone who has accepted the new terms is clean and will be in the ODbL planet. The only exception might be if it is an untagged node that is a member of a dirty way that gets deleted. Although I'm not totally sure about this. If this doesn't happen, we will end up with probably millions of orphaned nodes. Also, the only way to replace a node with the exact same location is to copy/paste it. It is virtually impossible for a human to place a node at exactly the same location. And shifting nodes by a few inches just to make it show up clean in OSMI is definitely not ok. If a node is off and needs to be corrected, then fine. But if you are moving it just to clean it, delete it instead, along with any surrounding dirty nodes and recreate it based on imagery or GPS or whatever you normally use to map. This is why I delete all dirty nodes in a way and then use the w mode in JOSM to recreate the geometry from clean sources. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world. Probably not. Every source we rely upon is wrong in one way or another. And differing sources never agree completely. So you might move a node in a way that agrees-less with aerial imagery. Try another zoom level; the imagery probably won't agree with itself at z-1. Or check a GPX track; it'll be different again. So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been. Again, probably not. If you really don't want to move a node, you can delete it and create a new one. Or contact the mapper and see if they'll agree to CT/ODbL :-) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On Apr 13, 2012 6:31 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world. So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been. Not necessarily. There are an infinite number of correct locations for centerline nodes for ways. Moving them slightly along the centerline will resolve this. Polygon corners are trickier, but not insurmountable, moving the polygon a centimeter should do it... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On 14 April 2012 03:30, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world. So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been. It also will remain tainted, only the bot will not know about it and consider it untainted. So it's a way to trick the bot and potentially put the OSM Foundation under legal risk. This is why the remapping effort before the bot run is finished, is a Really Bad Idea. It is both more time costly and it is provoking users to cause incompatible IP to be preserved over the license change, often unconsciously. See all the ideas of using the incompatible IP to create the new compatible IP, such as using the tainted coastlines data to remap small islands. (RichardF said he does not agree it's a bad idea, but he wouldn't explain which point he disagrees with or why) Cheers ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 April 2012 03:30, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world. So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been. It also will remain tainted, only the bot will not know about it and consider it untainted. So it's a way to trick the bot and potentially put the OSM Foundation under legal risk. This is why the remapping effort before the bot run is finished, is a Really Bad Idea. It is both more time costly and it is provoking users to cause incompatible IP to be preserved over the license change, often unconsciously. See all the ideas of using the incompatible IP to create the new compatible IP, such as using the tainted coastlines data to remap small islands. (RichardF said he does not agree it's a bad idea, but he wouldn't explain which point he disagrees with or why) Cheers I was assuming that there was an additional data source, such as aerial photos and/or GPS traces, which could be used to judge the accuracy of the tainted node. As I understand the way the bot judges taintedness, if you delete a tainted node, then insert a replacement node in the same location, the new node is also considered tainted even though it was added by someone who agreed to the new license terms, and even though that might be the correct location to mark the corner of a polygon. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On 4/12/2012 11:13 PM, James Mast wrote: It seems that they are just starting a new way and connecting each old node to the new way without at least moving the old node, which means if Lar created the node and nobody has moved it since, it still will get deleted and mess up the highway alignment. My first plan of action after the removal bot is to revalidate all interstate geometry. In my Interstate remapping, I didn't bother with all nodes to be removed, and I'll just go in and correct that later. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
I don't know who's doing that work in Columbia on the Interstates, but they are doing it wrong unfortunately. While the ways aren't tainted anymore, all of the nodes are still. Meaning that once the bot gets unleashed, the highways will still get fucked-up. It seems that they are just starting a new way and connecting each old node to the new way without at least moving the old node, which means if Lar created the node and nobody has moved it since, it still will get deleted and mess up the highway alignment. Doh! In my haste to untaint ways, it is entirely possible this is exactly what I am doing, too. I'm using a rapid editing technique which does untaint ways, but which after reading your comment, it appears I am leaving points still tainted. OSM Inspector is helpful in seeing the error of my ways (uh, of error of the POINTS) and I fear that I am not the only one making this mistake. Thank you for calling this to our attention. This makes what is simply tedious border on the realm of utterly overwhelming. EVERY SINGLE POINT? Ugh! (Why does so much have to be difficult?) SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:27 AM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: I don't know who's doing that work in Columbia on the Interstates, but they are doing it wrong unfortunately. While the ways aren't tainted anymore, all of the nodes are still. Meaning that once the bot gets unleashed, the highways will still get fucked-up. It seems that they are just starting a new way and connecting each old node to the new way without at least moving the old node, which means if Lar created the node and nobody has moved it since, it still will get deleted and mess up the highway alignment. Doh! In my haste to untaint ways, it is entirely possible this is exactly what I am doing, too. I'm using a rapid editing technique which does untaint ways, but which after reading your comment, it appears I am leaving points still tainted. OSM Inspector is helpful in seeing the error of my ways (uh, of error of the POINTS) and I fear that I am not the only one making this mistake. Thank you for calling this to our attention. This makes what is simply tedious border on the realm of utterly overwhelming. EVERY SINGLE POINT? Ugh! (Why does so much have to be difficult?) I think I saw a little of this along a coastline last night as well. In this case all nodes connecting coastline ways were clean and some in the middle of the way were clean too. So I just selected a way, ran the licesnse plugin against it, selected all dirty nodes and deleted them. Then I used the improve way accuracy mode in JOSM (w) to retrace any missing nodes to fit the geometry to bing imagery. Same technique might be useful for interstates too. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
Agreed. I am spending some cozy times with I65 in Alabama, next on my list is US 78. Better late than never. Cleaning up lots of bridge trouble too (missing grade separations). For those interested, I identified ~12000 points of highway Trouble for the US (here is the blog post - https://oegeo.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/detecting-highway-trouble-in-openstreetmap/direct link to the OSM XML file - http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/highwaytrouble/candidates-us.osm ). I find that I clean up much of these Trouble items while remapping, but if you want to help clean up the interstate and US highway network after that, this may be a good start. Martijn On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:36 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: Hey, us, vaguely northamerican OSMers: nice work so far! I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days of re-mapping. If you are an editing maniac (like me in the last few days) you have discovered that BADMAP lag makes you move onto another region. I have chased myself over much of San Diego and patched up the old home town. Its freeways now emerge as navigable. The Bay Area shapes up nicely. Greater Southern California shows vast improvement, and yet there is still so much more to do. We are so many people, loving what we do so hard. Just a pat on the back and bit of cheer-leading. Now get back to work! (Oops, I mean the fun of OSM). SteveA California __**_ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- martijn van exel geospatial omnivore 1109 1st ave #2 salt lake city, ut 84103 801-550-5815 http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:27 AM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: I don't know who's doing that work in Columbia on the Interstates, but they are doing it wrong unfortunately. While the ways aren't tainted anymore, all of the nodes are still. Meaning that once the bot gets unleashed, the highways will still get fucked-up. It seems that they are just starting a new way and connecting each old node to the new way without at least moving the old node, which means if Lar created the node and nobody has moved it since, it still will get deleted and mess up the highway alignment. Doh! In my haste to untaint ways, it is entirely possible this is exactly what I am doing, too. I'm using a rapid editing technique which does untaint ways, but which after reading your comment, it appears I am leaving points still tainted. OSM Inspector is helpful in seeing the error of my ways (uh, of error of the POINTS) and I fear that I am not the only one making this mistake. Thank you for calling this to our attention. This makes what is simply tedious border on the realm of utterly overwhelming. EVERY SINGLE POINT? Ugh! (Why does so much have to be difficult?) I've been working in Seattle. An undecided (and probably long gone) mapper touched a large segment of the area. Looking at CLEANMAP, Seattle looks much better after hours of work by many people. However if every tainted point get deleted, the map will look like a mess. For those that don't know Seattle, it is a city of hills. So roads bend. Deleting points means hundreds of ways straightened. Ouch. This is not only difficult but a LOT of work! What I would suggest is that we get a snapshot of what the world will look like after the bot is done. I wonder if Simon Poole would be interested in creating a version of CLEANMAP that would show the result of the bot deleting tainted points? Clifford ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: I've been working in Seattle. An undecided (and probably long gone) mapper touched a large segment of the area. Looking at CLEANMAP, Seattle looks much better after hours of work by many people. However if every tainted point get deleted, the map will look like a mess. For those that don't know Seattle, it is a city of hills. So roads bend. Deleting points means hundreds of ways straightened. Ouch. This is not only difficult but a LOT of work! What I would suggest is that we get a snapshot of what the world will look like after the bot is done. I wonder if Simon Poole would be interested in creating a version of CLEANMAP that would show the result of the bot deleting tainted points? Well that's the thing... there is no actual data about what things will look like because the code is still being worked on: https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change The tools we have now are an approximation. Cleanmap/badmap only shows renderable objects. So you only see the status of ways, not their individual constituent nodes. OSMI is probably as close an estimate as we have right now. However just because an object is tainted doesn't mean it will always disappear. It might just revert to an older version. So nodes might move or lose tags. So yes, it's kind of messy :( Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
Well guys, as far as I know, as long as the non-CT user didn't add any tags to the node, all you have to do is move said node to a new coordinate and it should then be considered un-tainted. That's what I was told and that's what happens on the OSM Inspector. Plus, if you're using the License Change plugin in JOSM, you can see with that what nodes are considered tainted when you're cleaning a way. At least I don't have to worry about I-81 in TN getting axed. I rebuild it from the ground up, and the only parts that could be considered tainted in any way are the ramps from I-40 or I-26 as I just retraced them and kept the nodes, but the nodes were all moved from their original locations. --James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote: Well guys, as far as I know, as long as the non-CT user didn't add any tags to the node, all you have to do is move said node to a new coordinate and it should then be considered un-tainted. That's what I was told and that's what happens on the OSM Inspector. Plus, if you're using the License Change plugin in JOSM, you can see with that what nodes are considered tainted when you're cleaning a way. At least I don't have to worry about I-81 in TN getting axed. I rebuild it from the ground up, and the only parts that could be considered tainted in any way are the ramps from I-40 or I-26 as I just retraced them and kept the nodes, but the nodes were all moved from their original locations. --James One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world. So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
Hey, us, vaguely northamerican OSMers: nice work so far! I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days of re-mapping. If you are an editing maniac (like me in the last few days) you have discovered that BADMAP lag makes you move onto another region. I have chased myself over much of San Diego and patched up the old home town. Its freeways now emerge as navigable. The Bay Area shapes up nicely. Greater Southern California shows vast improvement, and yet there is still so much more to do. We are so many people, loving what we do so hard. Just a pat on the back and bit of cheer-leading. Now get back to work! (Oops, I mean the fun of OSM). SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:36 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: Hey, us, vaguely northamerican OSMers: nice work so far! I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days of re-mapping. If you are an editing maniac (like me in the last few days) you have discovered that BADMAP lag makes you move onto another region. I have chased myself over much of San Diego and patched up the old home town. Its freeways now emerge as navigable. The Bay Area shapes up nicely. Greater Southern California shows vast improvement, and yet there is still so much more to do. We are so many people, loving what we do so hard. Just a pat on the back and bit of cheer-leading. Now get back to work! (Oops, I mean the fun of OSM). +1 I have noticed several people's remapping efforts in my live edit viewer. Over towards the east, I see long stretches of interstate around Columbia, SC have vanished from badmap. Thanks to Paul's efforts on highlighting coastline problems, that is mostly clean now. There is still a bit of work to do in Washington. The Pacific coastline should be clean now (I reimported most of it from NHD) but some bays and Puget Sound in particular are still problematic. It's kind of disconcerting not actually knowing when the license bot will be set loose. Before April 1 I was going all out. Now I have relaxed a little but am still doing a few edits each night. We'll get there eventually. Whether or not it happens before or after the bot does its work remains to be seen :) Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:56:49 -0500 From: toby.mur...@gmail.com To: stevea...@softworkers.com CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s. I have noticed several people's remapping efforts in my live edit viewer. Over towards the east, I see long stretches of interstate around Columbia, SC have vanished from badmap. I don't know who's doing that work in Columbia on the Interstates, but they are doing it wrong unfortunately. While the ways aren't tainted anymore, all of the nodes are still. Meaning that once the bot gets unleashed, the highways will still get fucked-up. It seems that they are just starting a new way and connecting each old node to the new way without at least moving the old node, which means if Lar created the node and nobody has moved it since, it still will get deleted and mess up the highway alignment. -- James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
