On 2020-08-24 00:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I have recently found a lot of highway=path which clearly were tracks
> according to aerial imagery. A tool which would allow to filter for “paths by
> this mapper” (maybe in a similar timeframe) could speed up finding and fixing
> them.
sent from a phone
> On 23. Aug 2020, at 21:41, mmd wrote:
>
> That's a pretty dystopian view on the OSM future, if you ask me...
I did not mean to callout mappers, but it could help to highlight potentially
weak parts of the map where a resurvey could make more sense than in other
parts
Hi mmd
mmd skrev: (23 augusti 2020 21:38:45 CEST)
>On 2020-08-23 18:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> There is a lot of stuff that could be analyzed, immense. All the
>history is still available with all the user information...
>
>What's next? Do we want to invite "unreliable" mappers to an
Hi Martin
Martin Koppenhoefer skrev: (23 augusti 2020 18:27:58
CEST)
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 23. Aug 2020, at 13:55, pangoSE wrote:
>>
>> We could e.g. set a verification-needed
>> flag on objects edited in a changeset with "please review".
>
>
>while you can (already) add a fixme
On 2020-08-23 18:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> There is a lot of stuff that could be analyzed, immense. All the history is
> still available with all the user information...
What's next? Do we want to invite "unreliable" mappers to an exciting
two hours training course to improve their
On 8/22/20 03:12, pangoSE wrote:
> Maybe we should have some kind of system flagging objects that has not
> been edited for x number of years and rate all objects in the database
> according to this?
Even if something is edited, not everything on the object will
necessarily have been verified at
On Aug 22, 2020, at 11:38 PM, pangoSE wrote:
> Shawn K. Quinn" skrev: (23 augusti 2020 00:31:28 CEST)
>>
>> The big, huge difference between Wikipedia and OSM is that Wikipedia
>> does not allow original research at all, whereas OSM thrives on the
>> original research of everyone who
sent from a phone
> On 23. Aug 2020, at 13:55, pangoSE wrote:
>
> We could e.g. set a verification-needed
> flag on objects edited in a changeset with "please review".
while you can (already) add a fixme tag, I fear that creating a special feature
for less reliable information could lead
Hi Martin
Den Sat, 22 Aug 2020 19:30:23 +0200 Martin
skrev Re: [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !):
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 22. Aug 2020, at 10:15, pangoSE wrote:
> >
> > Here is yet another example of bad data in our database:
>
>
pangoSE skrev: (23 augusti 2020 08:38:45 CEST)
>
>Andy Allen (he runs http://www.thunderforest.com/ which has a nice
>vector map service by the way on a free limited tier) a former member
>of the operations working group and current co-maintainer of the rails
>website posted this a year ago:
Hi Shawn
"Shawn K. Quinn" skrev: (23 augusti 2020 00:31:28 CEST)
>On 8/22/20 03:26, pangoSE wrote:
>> I meant that a verification system does exist in Wikipedia and they
>> now require references on all statements to keep up the quality of
>> the articles which is sane IMO. We have no such
On 8/22/20 03:26, pangoSE wrote:
> I meant that a verification system does exist in Wikipedia and they
> now require references on all statements to keep up the quality of
> the articles which is sane IMO. We have no such system.
The big, huge difference between Wikipedia and OSM is that
On 8/22/20 03:20, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> Nobody claims OpenStreetMap data contains no mistakes.
There are a lot of cases where OSM data is better than that in Google
Maps, Mapquest, Bing Maps, etc. Unfortunately there are also a lot of
cases where the converse is true; in particular,
>it was one person in CA adding 400 unverified tags to rail service in chicago.
>
>one just 818 m, away from my home.
>
>>Saturday, August 22, 2020 12:32 PM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer <
>>dieterdre...@gmail.com >:
>>
>>sent from a phone
>>
>>> On 22. Aug 2020, at 10:15, pangoSE <
sent from a phone
> On 22. Aug 2020, at 10:15, pangoSE wrote:
>
> Here is yet another example of bad data in our database:
fix it ;-)
Of course OpenStreetMap contains errors, just like any other source, and
probably more, given that most contributors are laymen and have very few
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 11:02, pangoSE wrote:
> Hi
>
> Jo skrev: (22 augusti 2020 11:44:49 CEST)
> >On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 11:30 pangoSE wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Mateusz Konieczny skrev: (22 augusti 2020
> >> 10:51:49 CEST)
> >> >(1) Wikipedia may strongly encourage or mandate it in
Hi
Jo skrev: (22 augusti 2020 11:44:49 CEST)
>On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 11:30 pangoSE wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Mateusz Konieczny skrev: (22 augusti 2020
>> 10:51:49 CEST)
>> >(1) Wikipedia may strongly encourage or mandate it in theory, but
>there
>> >are
>> >still edits being made without any
Aug 22, 2020, 11:28 by pang...@riseup.net:
> Hi
>
> Mateusz Konieczny skrev: (22 augusti 2020 10:51:49
> CEST)
> >(1) Wikipedia may strongly encourage or mandate it in theory, but there
> >are
> >still edits being made without any citations
>
> Yeah I know, but the point is its really hard
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 11:30 pangoSE wrote:
> Hi
>
> Mateusz Konieczny skrev: (22 augusti 2020
> 10:51:49 CEST)
> >(1) Wikipedia may strongly encourage or mandate it in theory, but there
> >are
> >still edits being made without any citations
>
> Yeah I know, but the point is its really hard to
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 18:28, pangoSE wrote:
> Hi
>
> Mateusz Konieczny skrev: (22 augusti 2020
> 09:55:10 CEST)
> >"It a playground with half-ass quality more than an authoritative and
> >verified source of information (like e.g. Wikipedia)"
> >
> >I am not sure whatever you claim that
>
Hi
Mateusz Konieczny skrev: (22 augusti 2020 10:51:49
CEST)
>(1) Wikipedia may strongly encourage or mandate it in theory, but there
>are
>still edits being made without any citations
Yeah I know, but the point is its really hard to create a new article in WP
without references without it
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020, 09:28 pangoSE, wrote:
> Hi
>
> Mateusz Konieczny skrev: (22 augusti 2020
> 09:55:10 CEST)
> >"It a playground with half-ass quality more than an authoritative and
> >verified source of information (like e.g. Wikipedia)"
> >
> >I am not sure whatever you claim that
>
(1) Wikipedia may strongly encourage or mandate it in theory, but there are
still edits being made without any citations
(2) Wikipedia is explicitly forbidding original research, OSM is explicitly
encouraging it
The best edits are where people map things not mapped anywhere else,
or at least not
Hi again
Mateusz Konieczny via talk skrev: (22 augusti 2020
10:20:51 CEST)
>Nobody claims OpenStreetMap data contains no mistakes.
>
>Are you really expecting that we will be shocked by proof that
>some data somewhere is wrong?
No. Are you shocked by my constructive criticism and constructive
Hi
Mateusz Konieczny skrev: (22 augusti 2020 09:55:10
CEST)
>"It a playground with half-ass quality more than an authoritative and
>verified source of information (like e.g. Wikipedia)"
>
>I am not sure whatever you claim that
>Wikipedia is
>"playground with half-ass quality" or
Nobody claims OpenStreetMap data contains no mistakes.
Are you really expecting that we will be shocked by proof that
some data somewhere is wrong?
I would be able to post one mail per minute with examples of serious
mistakes, forever - even after my death, as it would be fairly easy to
Here is yet another example of bad data in our database:
Originalmeddelande
Från: Martijn van Exel
Skickat: 22 augusti 2020 00:33:24 CEST
Till: talk@openstreetmap.org
Ämne: Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution
Curious anecdote: some AllTrails user apparently
"It a playground with half-ass quality more than an authoritative and verified
source of information (like e.g. Wikipedia)"
I am not sure whatever you claim that
Wikipedia is
"playground with half-ass quality" or
"authoritative and verified source of information".
Though any of this claims
28 matches
Mail list logo
