Re: [OSM-dev] dev Digest, Vol 188, Issue 1

[Seth Deegan]

tabase-syncing abilities that MediaWiki cannot
> offer, would mean that the DB would never have to be physically touched
> again and ensure greater long-term DB management efficiency.
>
> *So why basically delete one of the primary functions of the Wiki and
> create a new system on openstreetmap.org <http://openstreetmap.org>?*
> I recently have got into the OSM community head-on in the past two months.
> I have never really contributed to Wikipedia or any other site that uses
> the MediaWiki website format so learning about how to contribute and get
> around the OSM Wiki took time (learning about the proposal process,
> Templates, talk pages, formatting, the list goes on and on...). It also
> made me realize that this could discourage new users from ever looking into
> the depths of OSM or even finding the Wiki at all. The WikiMedia interface
> is not the prettiest either. It can take time for new users to explore and
> find what they are looking for.
> (Also, this would mean moving the proposal process over to osm.org too)
>
> Therefore, I think creating a easily accessible, pretty, and
> easily-contributable interface on osm.org would strengthen the OSM
> community significantly. For example, a heading called "Features" could be
> added to the left "GPS traces". It would greet the user with the primary
> features of OSM (kind of like the "Map features" on the Wiki already does)
> and Feature pages would have a standard format that is consistent
> throughout the website (unlike Wiki pages where tables for values can be
> different, proposals can be different, etc.). Pages could also be "locked",
> or require a proposal before ever changing any of the contents of their
> page/feature. This would ensure the DB is secure and uniform with the
> community's agreement on Features (the database is directly synced and
> edited through changes on the website) and no "random edits' by users like
> on the current Wiki would have to tracked (since anyone can directly edit).
> There are other possible benefits that you could probably think of.
>
> Also, other pages on the Wiki would not be deleted. There are plenty of
> great pages on it that have nothing to do with the DB and work well in the
> open environment the Wiki has to offer.
>
> *Compiling and distributing the DB*
>
>1. One would probably use a Wiki bot like
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to get all of
>the features with Categories "approved" and "in-use" (and "depreciated"
> as
>well just to let possible future editors know what to get rid of) and
> add
>their Keys and Values, descriptions, what elements they are allowed on
>(nodes, ways, areas, relations), etc. to the DB.
>2. A team would have to go through all of their Key Values that don't
>have Wiki pages and add them to the DB along with their descriptions,
> etc.
>3. A team would compare the iD and JOSM present repo and xml file and
>create a "standard" matching list.
>4. When the DB is finished, iD and JOSM would use it as a dependency and
>an announcement would be made to data consumers that it is available for
>use.
>
> *Feasibility*
> This would probably be a huge undertaking and require a funding grant. A
> plan and dedicated team would be required to ensure all of the tasks are
> complete and put in-place. I personally think the benefits outweigh the
> costs, specifically from a developer point-of view. Also, I am not an OSMF
> member so I'm not sure how much say I would have in making this possible.
>
> *Questions?*
> Please reply. I like big OSM ideas and am not afraid to get shut-down as I
> have before with previous ideas. I am clearly a newer contributor, but I
> hope my ideas and work can foster progress for OSM.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Seth Deegan (lectrician1)
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20201115/a53d3e3b/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 22:59:47 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mateusz Konieczny 
> Cc: Dev 
> Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] Standardized feature/tag database idea &
> proposal
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
>
> Nov 15, 2020, 19:14 by jayands...@gmail.com:
>
> > Idea
> > Has anyone ever thought of creating an official database that stores all
> of the approved and in-use tags/features in OSM?
> >
> Yes.
>
> Depending on what one means by "database" OSM Wiki can be 

Re: [OSM-dev] Standardized feature/tag database idea & proposal

[Mateusz Konieczny via dev]

Nov 15, 2020, 19:14 by jayands...@gmail.com:

> Idea
> Has anyone ever thought of creating an official database that stores all of 
> the approved and in-use tags/features in OSM? 
>
Yes. 

Depending on what one means by "database" OSM Wiki can be considered as one.

Wikidata copy ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_items ) is definitely 
one.
How your proposal differs from data items?

>
> Reasoning
> This could allow the editors (iD and JOSM, StreetComplete, GoMap!) and data 
> consumers (osm-carto,. Mapbox etc.), to easily stay up-to-date with new 
> features, without requiring their developers to browse the Wiki etc.
>
I see no benefit whatsoever of data items (from perspective of someone involved 
in making 
StreetComplete and was active in osm-carto development).

Browsing Wiki, Taginfo, reviewing how tags are actually used and so on would be 
definitely needed.

>
> Examples
> Both iD and JOSM have their own preset file/repo and are independent of each 
> other. Creating a database that could be used as a dependency of both that 
> would store these feature presets and their fields means:
>  - Both are up-to-date and in-sync
>  - Adding new presets could be done automatically by retrieving and parsing 
> data from the DB. 
>
There is a good reason why presets are created manually and not pulled from 
unreviewed
dataset (note that JOSM and iD have separate presets despite that pulling from 
another preset
would be technically possinle)

> Creating applications that use OSM data can be hard and time-lengthened by 
> requiring developers to browse the Wiki to find all of the features and their 
> keys and values. Having a database that they could easily get the keys they 
> want, their values, etc. would > significantly>  allow greater OSM developer 
> potential.
>
I am unsure what would be difference.

> Specifics
> The specifics as to how this database would be arranged such as to where 
> presets/fields/tags/features go has not been thought of yet. I just wanted to 
> ask if this has ever been proposed before. If someone would like me to make a 
> DB layout to help them better understand what I'm proposing, I'd be happy to 
> do so. 
>
> My pre-DB construction proposal 
>
> Before any type of database is made, one would would > construct a dedicated 
> page structure on > openstreetmap.org >  > that 
> would display and be in-sync with all of the Features from the DB in a format 
> similar to the Wiki, and then > remove all of the features from the Wiki 
> altogether.
>
> Why?>  If you see in > Compiling and distributing the DB>  below, a Wiki bot 
> is going to be required to get all of the pages for all of the 
> already-standard features. Most of the features' pages do have a similar 
> structure as to how they are arranged (template that shows what elements they 
> use, Keys' values and their descriptions are stored in a table, etc.), 
> however these pages would be > impossible>  to parse thoroughly with a 
> computer and are going to require team of humans to get all of their data. 
>
> New features that are proposed and approved after the database would be 
> created would require them to be hand-added. Making a standard way to propose 
> and approve new features on a new part of the website with formatting 
> constraints and database-syncing abilities that MediaWiki cannot offer, would 
> mean that the DB would never have to be physically touched again and ensure 
> greater long-term DB management efficiency.
>
> So why basically delete one of the primary functions of the Wiki and create a 
> new system on > openstreetmap.org > ?
> I recently have got into the OSM community head-on in the past two months. I 
> have never really contributed to Wikipedia or any other site that uses the 
> MediaWiki website format so learning about how to contribute and get around 
> the OSM Wiki took time (learning about the proposal process, Templates, talk 
> pages, formatting, the list goes on and on...). It also made me realize that 
> this could discourage new users from ever looking into the depths of OSM or 
> even finding the Wiki at all. The WikiMedia interface is not the prettiest 
> either. It can take time for new users to explore and find what they are 
> looking for.
> (Also, this would mean moving the proposal process over to > osm.org 
> >  too)
>
> Therefore, I think creating a easily accessible, pretty, and 
> easily-contributable interface on > osm.org >  would 
> strengthen the OSM community significantly. For example, a heading called 
> "Features" could be added to the left "GPS traces". It would greet the user 
> with the primary features of OSM (kind of like the "Map features" on the Wiki 
> already does) and Feature pages would have a standard format that is 
> consistent throughout the website (unlike Wiki pages where tables for values 
> can be different, proposals can be different, etc.). P

[OSM-dev] Standardized feature/tag database idea & proposal

[Seth Deegan]

*Idea*
Has anyone ever thought of creating an official database that stores all of
the approved and in-use tags/features in OSM?

*Reasoning*
This could allow the editors (iD and JOSM, StreetComplete, GoMap!) and data
consumers (osm-carto,. Mapbox etc.), to easily stay up-to-date with new
features, without requiring their developers to browse the Wiki etc.

*Examples*
Both iD and JOSM have their own preset file/repo and are independent of
each other. Creating a database that could be used as a dependency of both
that would store these feature presets and their fields means:
 - Both are up-to-date and in-sync
 - Adding new presets could be done automatically by retrieving and parsing
data from the DB.

Creating applications that use OSM data can be hard and time-lengthened by
requiring developers to browse the Wiki to find all of the features and
their keys and values. Having a database that they could easily get the
keys they want, their values, etc. would *significantly* allow greater OSM
developer potential.

*Specifics*
The specifics as to how this database would be arranged such as to where
presets/fields/tags/features go has not been thought of yet. I just wanted
to ask if this has ever been proposed before. If someone would like me to
make a DB layout to help them better understand what I'm proposing, I'd be
happy to do so.

*My pre-DB construction proposal *
Before any type of database is made, one would would *construct a dedicated
page structure on openstreetmap.org  *that would
display and be in-sync with all of the Features from the DB in a format
similar to the Wiki, and then *remove all of the features from the Wiki
altogether.*

*Why?* If you see in *Compiling and distributing the DB* below, a Wiki bot
is going to be required to get all of the pages for all of the
already-standard features. Most of the features' pages do have a similar
structure as to how they are arranged (template that shows what elements
they use, Keys' values and their descriptions are stored in a table, etc.),
however these pages would be *impossible* to parse thoroughly with a
computer and are going to require team of humans to get all of their data.

New features that are proposed and approved after the database would be
created would require them to be hand-added. Making a standard way to
propose and approve new features on a new part of the website with
formatting constraints and database-syncing abilities that MediaWiki cannot
offer, would mean that the DB would never have to be physically touched
again and ensure greater long-term DB management efficiency.

*So why basically delete one of the primary functions of the Wiki and
create a new system on openstreetmap.org ?*
I recently have got into the OSM community head-on in the past two months.
I have never really contributed to Wikipedia or any other site that uses
the MediaWiki website format so learning about how to contribute and get
around the OSM Wiki took time (learning about the proposal process,
Templates, talk pages, formatting, the list goes on and on...). It also
made me realize that this could discourage new users from ever looking into
the depths of OSM or even finding the Wiki at all. The WikiMedia interface
is not the prettiest either. It can take time for new users to explore and
find what they are looking for.
(Also, this would mean moving the proposal process over to osm.org too)

Therefore, I think creating a easily accessible, pretty, and
easily-contributable interface on osm.org would strengthen the OSM
community significantly. For example, a heading called "Features" could be
added to the left "GPS traces". It would greet the user with the primary
features of OSM (kind of like the "Map features" on the Wiki already does)
and Feature pages would have a standard format that is consistent
throughout the website (unlike Wiki pages where tables for values can be
different, proposals can be different, etc.). Pages could also be "locked",
or require a proposal before ever changing any of the contents of their
page/feature. This would ensure the DB is secure and uniform with the
community's agreement on Features (the database is directly synced and
edited through changes on the website) and no "random edits' by users like
on the current Wiki would have to tracked (since anyone can directly edit).
There are other possible benefits that you could probably think of.

Also, other pages on the Wiki would not be deleted. There are plenty of
great pages on it that have nothing to do with the DB and work well in the
open environment the Wiki has to offer.

*Compiling and distributing the DB*

   1. One would probably use a Wiki bot like
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to get all of
   the features with Categories "approved" and "in-use" (and "depreciated" as
   well just to let possible future editors know what to get rid of) and add
   their Keys and Values, descriptions, what elem