Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
Marc Gemis writes: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: The razed sections of the abandoned railway need not confuse anybody. Or are you requesting a exception for railways ? Yes, because a railway went from point A to point B, where you can see it at point A and point B, and the next quesion in any map user's mind is going to be Well how did it get from point A to point B, and is it possible to find any remains in-between? Since the answer will often be yes, it makes sense to leave them in OSM. I don't really understand this concern with deleting dismantled railroads from OSM. It doesn't make the database any smaller, since they'll still be there as a deleted way. In fact it makes the database larger to indicate that the way is deleted. I don't see how OSM is improved by deleting specialized data that isn't even visible on the general map! If you want to clean up the world, go outside with your GPS and pick up some litter. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
Marc Gemis writes: Sorry, but I'm not trolling. I just want to understand why the railway people should get a different treatment. Because there is a rendering of the data (openrailwaymap.org and the ITO specialist renderings), and because people CARE. If you're argument is to better understand why the landscape is like it is now, then that is also true for razed streets [1] where the road used to come closer to the buildings in the north of it, or razed buildings [2] where the open area in the forest used to be a holiday center. That sounds like an excellent idea! And those streets can be rendered on openrazedstreetmap.org and on openbuildings.org. Trouble is that there isn't really anybody who cares about that. But feel free to add razed streets (I do), and razed buildings. There's a few railway=rail sidings which would make more sense if you could see the buildings they used to serve. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
Sorry, but I'm not trolling. I just want to understand why the railway people should get a different treatment. If you're argument is to better understand why the landscape is like it is now, then that is also true for razed streets [1] where the road used to come closer to the buildings in the north of it, or razed buildings [2] where the open area in the forest used to be a holiday center. regards m [1] http://osm.org/go/0EpMcxF19--?m=way=36566343 [2] http://osm.org/go/0Esv3v5q?m=relation=2718260 On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: The razed sections of the abandoned railway need not confuse anybody. Will you allow razed buildings and razed streets as well in OSM ( just curious) ? What about previous swamps, forest, etc. that are now turned into ... ? Or are you requesting a exception for railways ? I thought that was perfectly clear: railways are an exception. Or maybe you're just trolling. There's very little else that's like an abandoned railway. Though if a airelway or pipeline were dug up in parts, I'd have the same conclusion: keep the man made linear feature intact until it's completely gone. - Editors can be MUCH smarter about hiding clutter. I see nothing at all wrong with hiding by default razed railroads, boundary relations, and even land use polygons. Anyone who needs/wants to edit those features could turn them on. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: The problem, as I see it, is that railroads are a contiguous whole. Yet some people seem to think that a railroad should be shopped up along its length, with part of it appearing in OSM (where you can see it on the ground), and part of it appearing in OHM (where it has been bulldozed away) Relations are completely broken. +10 on all this. It seems the deletion argument is related to clutter. I prefer to see the entire railroad in context. Michael DuPont wrote I still dont understand why we dont support multiple layers. It would seem to be the most logical thing to do and the api could support that so simple clients could download a different layers each time. There are editor solutions to this, short of layers. Nothing says an editor can't hide all boundary relations or abandoned railways, in order to ease editing. The razed sections of the abandoned railway need not confuse anybody. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
Hi, On 04/17/2015 07:30 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: What about previous swamps, forest, etc. that are now turned into ... ? Careful there with the swamp enthusiast community ;) 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] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: The razed sections of the abandoned railway need not confuse anybody. Will you allow razed buildings and razed streets as well in OSM ( just curious) ? What about previous swamps, forest, etc. that are now turned into ... ? Or are you requesting a exception for railways ? regards m ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
Richard et al., Thanks for starting an interesting thread. There do seem to be an increasing number of projects that live outside of OSM proper but that connect loosely with OSM data and services. By chance, I proposed a panel on this general topic for the upcoming SOTM-US conference. My own interest comes from public-transit data (which includes lots of temporal schedule information that doesn't belong and doesn't fit in OSM). Sounds like there are similarities to historical map data, and how that's handled alongside present-day OSM data. If any of you or others are interested, I'll past the proposal blurb below. Whether or not the panel is accept, I hope there will be enough interest for a BoF on this topic and ways to continue this discussion among those who attend SOTM-US in person. Best, Drew -- Proposal for a panel on peripheral data for SOTM-US 2015 OpenStreetMap is a giant datastore, with an extremely flexible data model. Its API accepts all additions. But, in fact, not everything belongs or fits in OSM. Some thematic data require more advanced modeling than OSM’s simple tagging scheme supports. To represent a building in full 3D requires a data model that supports solids, and to represent a public-transit network or traffic patterns requires a data model that handles space and time. Other types of data come from authoritative sources and may require cleaning, combining, and perhaps even legal review before they’re ready to be added to OSM. For example, street addresses and trailheads. Just as not every kind of data can fit into OSM, not every kind of data can easily be extracted from OSM. Storing data outside of OSM proper may also make that data more relevant to other users’ needs. For example, supporting data consumption in mobile apps, or supporting data collection with topic-specific editor apps. We’ll discuss “peripheral data” to OSM, both in terms of technical implementation and in terms of community impacts. If done well, data projects that are connected--but not subsumed--by OSM can advance open geo data. Let’s figure out together how that’s best done. proposed participants: - OpenAddresses [Ian Dees] - street address data - Mapillary [Jan Erik Solem] - street-front imagery - OpenTrails [Jereme Monteau] - recreational trails - Transitland [Drew Dara-Abrams] - public transit -- On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: so one of the things from recent discussion that concerns me are perceptions out there about projects parallel to OSM that are designed to complement it, specifically OHM. here is an outline of the view from OHM, and i'm interesting in understanding why some treat the whole project so dismissively (note that i'm a little bit of a late comer to OHM, i've been following it with interest since it started but only just recently started contributing directly.) OHM was created because of the perceived desire to start handling historic spatial data and characterize temporal aspects of it. the whole idea is that we accept that OSM is not a good place for this data, so why not create such a place? it's a real database, using the OSM software stack. it's live, and you can pan around in it and not see much because it's pretty sparse. but you can go see historic building footprints and addresses in lower manhattan right now. in fact, we just set up a list of projects that are going on in OHM to make it easier for folks to see what's up: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map/Projects the short summary is 1.it's real and operational 2.there's stuff in it 3.if you know OSM tools, you can join the party 4.we just set up overpass for it, still tweaking it, but overlaying interesting OHM data on OSM basemaps just got a bit easier a number of OHM oriented talk proposals were submitted for SOTM US, and some will probably make the program. i think the long term future of OSM will probably involve more OHM like projects to supplement OSM. my question is how will the core OSM community treat them? right now it seems very mixed. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ 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] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
Mike Dupont writes: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: If the two were layers in the same database, or if they have been tagged using railway=dismantled and railway=abandoned, then it's no problem to look at them, render them, edit them, analyze them I still dont understand why we dont support multiple layers. It would seem to be the most logical thing to do and the api could support that so simple clients could download a different layers each time. The problem is keeping them in synch. If you have a node that represents the same thing (e.g. the end of a bridge way), and it's in two layers, what happens when somebody downloads layer 1, and moves the node? How does it get updated in layer 2? Smarter people than me have thought about it and seen worse problems. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
There would be only one database. the layer would just be a filter that would not display the railways. if a railway is glued to a node which is moved in another layer, we would have to duplicate it, so no data can be accidentally changed if not visible. On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Mike Dupont writes: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: If the two were layers in the same database, or if they have been tagged using railway=dismantled and railway=abandoned, then it's no problem to look at them, render them, edit them, analyze them I still dont understand why we dont support multiple layers. It would seem to be the most logical thing to do and the api could support that so simple clients could download a different layers each time. The problem is keeping them in synch. If you have a node that represents the same thing (e.g. the end of a bridge way), and it's in two layers, what happens when somebody downloads layer 1, and moves the node? How does it get updated in layer 2? Smarter people than me have thought about it and seen worse problems. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: If the two were layers in the same database, or if they have been tagged using railway=dismantled and railway=abandoned, then it's no problem to look at them, render them, edit them, analyze them I still dont understand why we dont support multiple layers. It would seem to be the most logical thing to do and the api could support that so simple clients could download a different layers each time. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
On 4/4/15 8:29 AM, Mike Dupont wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com mailto:nel...@crynwr.com wrote: If the two were layers in the same database, or if they have been tagged using railway=dismantled and railway=abandoned, then it's no problem to look at them, render them, edit them, analyze them I still dont understand why we dont support multiple layers. It would seem to be the most logical thing to do and the api could support that so simple clients could download a different layers each time. i was thinking that it'd be pretty easy to set up a leaflet widget to display an OSM basemap with OHM railroad data as a vector overlay, but then it occurred to me that Russ is frequently mapping in areas with no cell signal so that won't work. but OsmAnd (which i think is what Russ uses for his offline maps) can import layers sourced elsewhere, so there may be a path there. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
On 4/3/2015 9:17 AM, Richard Welty wrote: i think the long term future of OSM will probably involve more OHM like projects to supplement OSM. my question is how will the core OSM community treat them? right now it seems very mixed. I think it's a great idea. There may be some definition about when to add things to OHM. For Ghost tracks for example, should it be added when - The track is not operational? The bleachers are dismantled? The track is torn up? When the banked oval no longer leaves a depression in the terrain? When the variation in tree growths no longer take the shape of the oval? When an archeologist digging in the area would not reasonably expect to find any racing artifacts? OHM would be something to get used to. Now I'm all too happy to obliterate all items in a construction zone when the bulldozers and wrecking ball arrive on site. I'm not sure any random buildings would be of interest to OHM unless they had some special significance. I can see Russ's point that even if the dismantled tracks are moved to OHM, it breaks the relation and continuity of railroad track analysis. I hope that we can postpone railway deletions until we have had a chance to explore the issues and come up with some solutions. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: so one of the things from recent discussion that concerns me are perceptions out there about projects parallel to OSM that are designed to complement it, specifically OHM. here is an outline of the view from OHM, and i'm interesting in understanding why some treat the whole project so dismissively (note that i'm a little bit of a late comer to OHM, i've been following it with interest since it started but only just recently started contributing directly.) OHM was created because of the perceived desire to start handling historic spatial data and characterize temporal aspects of it. the whole idea is that we accept that OSM is not a good place for this data, so why not create such a place? i think the long term future of OSM will probably involve more OHM like projects to supplement OSM. my question is how will the core OSM community treat them? right now it seems very mixed. If you are asking for an opinion, then this is the kind-of thing that is a detriment to OSM. Whereas I try to use OpenSeaMap tags where I can for the limited features that sea map applies, I won't go out of my way to add data to OSH. My main concern is that OSH defuses mapping resources that are already sparse in the US. That we couldn't find a set of tags to keep the data in the main OSM database is part of the problems of OSM as a project. There's still plenty to do but OSM the project is moribund. Regards, Greg ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
Richard Welty writes: [OHM is] a real database, using the OSM software stack. it's live, and you can pan around in it and not see much because it's pretty sparse. The problem, as I see it, is that railroads are a contiguous whole. Yet some people seem to think that a railroad should be shopped up along its length, with part of it appearing in OSM (where you can see it on the ground), and part of it appearing in OHM (where it has been bulldozed away). If the two were layers in the same database, or if they have been tagged using railway=dismantled and railway=abandoned, then it's no problem to look at them, render them, edit them, analyze them. But that's not how it works. The databases are completely separate from each other. An edit in one isn't made in the other. So let's say that I'm out doing field work with my GPS (Hi, Frederik!!), and I see that the railroad that I *thought* was distinct from the highway, actually *is* the highway. Not dismantled, it's now the road. So I have to go into OHM, delete it from there, go into OSM, and add the highway to the railroad's relation. Oh. Crap. Relations are completely broken. Relations only work within the same database. It becomes impossible to give a single referent to a railroad, even if a substantial portion of it is still visible, or even still has tracks. Look at the West Side Railroad on the east side of Syracuse. There are still tracks in Canal Street. Very well, that's in OSM tagged disused. Further down Canal Street there are no tracks. So in OHM tagged dismantled. East of Canal Street you can see the embankment, so in OSM tagged abandoned. I realize that some people just don't care about railroads. I'm 57, I know what a foamer is, I try not to be one. All I want is to be left alone with my model railroad to share with my fellow foamers. All I ask is that you not delete abandoned railroads from OSM. Please, if anybody thinks I'm being ridiculous, going overboard, suggesting a strawman that nobody actually wants, please say so. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
so one of the things from recent discussion that concerns me are perceptions out there about projects parallel to OSM that are designed to complement it, specifically OHM. here is an outline of the view from OHM, and i'm interesting in understanding why some treat the whole project so dismissively (note that i'm a little bit of a late comer to OHM, i've been following it with interest since it started but only just recently started contributing directly.) OHM was created because of the perceived desire to start handling historic spatial data and characterize temporal aspects of it. the whole idea is that we accept that OSM is not a good place for this data, so why not create such a place? it's a real database, using the OSM software stack. it's live, and you can pan around in it and not see much because it's pretty sparse. but you can go see historic building footprints and addresses in lower manhattan right now. in fact, we just set up a list of projects that are going on in OHM to make it easier for folks to see what's up: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map/Projects the short summary is 1.it's real and operational 2.there's stuff in it 3.if you know OSM tools, you can join the party 4.we just set up overpass for it, still tweaking it, but overlaying interesting OHM data on OSM basemaps just got a bit easier a number of OHM oriented talk proposals were submitted for SOTM US, and some will probably make the program. i think the long term future of OSM will probably involve more OHM like projects to supplement OSM. my question is how will the core OSM community treat them? right now it seems very mixed. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
On 4/3/15 10:40 AM, Greg Morgan wrote: If you are asking for an opinion, then this is the kind-of thing that is a detriment to OSM. Whereas I try to use OpenSeaMap tags where I can for the limited features that sea map applies, I won't go out of my way to add data to OSH. My main concern is that OSH defuses mapping resources that are already sparse in the US. That we couldn't find a set of tags to keep the data in the main OSM database is part of the problems of OSM as a project. There's still plenty to do but OSM the project is moribund. umm, by OSH do you mean OHM? i'll reply as if you did. basically, the folks contributing to OHM are largely OSMers who want to do historical mapping. the current consensus in OSM appears to be that historical data doesn't belong in OSM (there are OSM participants who disagree, but they seem to be in the minority). so if we want to map history we need another place to do it. as for defusing mapping resources, are you telling us that we shouldn't do OHM because you think we should work on OSM? because this is a volunteer project after all... richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
