Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental to the OSM database

[James Mast]

Well, I have to admit, I've only seen one problem with the armchair mapping 
with the smoothing in my local area of Pittsburgh, PA so far.

What happened was a long time ago, I cleanup up US-19 and separated segments 
that were divided and segments that had a 'Center Turn Lane' and tagged as 
such.  Well, it seems that MapRoulette happened to flag one of the segments 
where it transitioned from divided highway to un-divided w/ a Center Turn Lane 
and then back to divided for another major intersection.  The imagery in Bing 
clearly showed that there was a Center Turn Lane there and I had he un-divided 
segment tagged as such.  Instead of it being marked as a 'false positive' on 
the MapRoulette site, the user twinned this segment, even when the Bing imagery 
didn't justified it (Changeset 22050738 [1]).  (And yes, the imagery right now 
in Bing is still the same as when the change was made.)  When I discovered 
this, I promptly reverted that changeset in Changeset 22262496 [2].

So, as you can see, there are still a few flaws in the MapRoulette smoothing 
challenge.  And unfortunately, not everybody seems to acknowledge that there 
might be a false positive here and there and mark it as such.  Maybe a stronger 
warning could be given, but I don't know.  All I do know is that any time there 
is a 'Center Turn Lane' on a highway here in the USA, it stays as a single way 
and only becomes divided is when there is a physical item dividing the highway 
like a concrete divider.

Maybe this particular flag could have been avoided where it wouldn't flag 
one-way roads merging into a single way if the angle wasn't like a ~90 degree 
turn or larger as everything is the same right now as when it was unfortunately 
falsely 'smoothed'.

Any thought how this might be avoided in the future Martijn?

-James

[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22050738 
[2] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/22262496 
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?

[Andy Street]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:09:40 +0100
SomeoneElse  wrote:

> On 21/08/2014 22:36, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> >   This makes sense because you can have more than one route on
> > one way.
> 
> Some countries do this, but the UK (where the B3070 is) does not*, so 
> there's really no need for it.

That's not strictly true, we do multiplex routes but individual
sections of road are only ever referred to by a single route number
(usually the most significant route being carried by the road).

-- 
Regards,

Andy Street

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

Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?

[Andy Street]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:20:06 +0100
"Dave F."  wrote:
> http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159&_noCache=on
> 
> This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a
> waste of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways?
> 
> I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys
> taken over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete
> it?

IIRC route=road relations were suggested to fix the problem of
multiplexing (two or more numbered routes sharing the same
physical road). In this instance the B3070 appears to be a route
between Wareham and Lulworth Cove which multiplexes with the A352 at
Worgret Hill. Simply doing an Overpass query for ref=B3070 would be
insufficient to return all of the ways required to traverse the route
from start to finish, hence the need for a relation.

Ironically the the only section currently missing from the relation
(the A352) is the bit that makes the relation necessary!

-- 
Regards,

Andy Street

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

Re: [OSM-talk] online survey about the OSM community

[Richard Weait]

clickhole.com has reported that a Local Mapper has responded to
misguided surveys by deleting the campus data of the offending
institution and replacing it with amenity=kindergarten.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 23/ago/2014, alle ore 15:53, "John F. Eldredge" 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> So, an opening_hours tag on those roadways would make sense.


conditional access based on time would maybe be more suitable for roads


cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] online survey about the OSM community

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM, OSMR  wrote:

> We understand that as a member of multiple lists some OSM contributors may
> have received the survey invitation more than once and that may have felt
> like a disrespectful attempt to impose on one's personal time and inbox
> space.  That was definitely not our intent and although we tried to be
> judicious in our use of national mailing lists (where we only posted in
> about 10% of the lists), it is difficult to completely avoid duplicate
> invites to some members.  Simply posting the message on talk pages without
> having it mailed to members seems not to be an available option in the
> current OSM list setup.
>

So many of are frustrated by the limitations of our internal messaging
system. But if it were open to just anyone, our system administrator would
spend there valuable time blocking individuals that spammed us.

>
> The research we are pursuing is, we believe, of interest and its insights
> helpful to the OSM community in terms of understanding several issues that
> can help its organizational functioning and mission accomplishment (they
> address member perceptions, behavior, and profile).  Numerous OSM members
> have been extremely supportive of our work and virtually all of the survey
> takers show an interest in learning about the findings at the conclusion of
> the research, a fact that suggests there is value in this research.
>
> Yet in order to obtain statistically meaningful results, a certain number
> of responses is required and we have frankly not reached it yet (hence the
> renewed request for participation in some national lists).  Rather than
> resigning ourselves to the thought that voluntary participation is
> impossible to induce (which would largely suggest academic research to be a
> futile endeavor), we choose to believe that, given the opportunity, enough
> people will see the value of such research and sacrifice some personal time
> for the greater good (a behavior that we believe is not foreign to the OSM
> contributor base).  However, to reduce the irritation that apparently these
> invite messages can produce, we have limited the number of lists approached
> and will close the survey as planned at the end of August, regardless of
> the number of responses we will have received.
>

Many of us would like to see more research on the OSM community to help us
develop better way to communicate and identify areas of both improvement
and strengths. To that end, I like we'd like to be more of a partner in
your project rather than just being the subject. It is not surprising that
a large number of people completed the survey. By contributing to OSM we
are by nature a sharing group. But many of us would like more in return. It
would be nice to explain up front what the survey will return to us. Will
we be able to analyze the results? Will we have access to the data? Please
note, that we give you free and ready access to all of our data.

>
> There are clearly things that could be improved about this work – we
> agree, for example, that offering the survey in multiple languages would
> help obtain more globally representative samples and insights.  Yet in most
> academic research the tradeoff between ideal methodology and resource
> limitations is a salient concern, and that is definitely the case here.
>

Yes, multiple languages should be a high priority. I don't have the
numbers, but I suspect we have a very large percentage that are not English
speakers. The iD editor has well over 10 languages. I suspect that no focus
group was used to test the survey or you might have discovered that we
didn't like sections of the survey.

>
> Finally, it is even the exchanges noted on the talk pages and the
> [limited] negative feedback we have received that help us learn about how
> the community works internally and interacts with the “outside world” – we
> are thankful for all the interested members’ feedback.  To the others, we
> apologize (again).
>

I'd like to suggest that instead of being the "outside world" that you
become a member of our community. One that provides research that helps us
improve. Not everyone in our community is a mapper, they contribute in
other ways. Research would be a valuable addition.

Thanks for listening,
Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] online survey about the OSM community

[OSMR]

We understand that as a member of multiple lists some OSM contributors may have received the survey invitation more than once and that may have felt like a disrespectful attempt to impose on one's personal time and inbox space.  That was definitely not our intent and although we tried to be judicious in our use of national mailing lists (where we only posted in about 10% of the lists), it is difficult to completely avoid duplicate invites to some members.  Simply posting the message on talk pages without having it mailed to members seems not to be an available option in the current OSM list setup.

The research we are pursuing is, we believe, of interest and its insights helpful to the OSM community in terms of understanding several issues that can help its organizational functioning and mission accomplishment (they address member perceptions, behavior, and profile).  Numerous OSM members have been extremely supportive of our work and virtually all of the survey takers show an interest in learning about the findings at the conclusion of the research, a fact that suggests there is value in this research. 

 

Yet in order to obtain statistically meaningful results, a certain number of responses is required and we have frankly not reached it yet (hence the renewed request for participation in some national lists).  Rather than resigning ourselves to the thought that voluntary participation is impossible to induce (which would largely suggest academic research to be a futile endeavor), we choose to believe that, given the opportunity, enough people will see the value of such research and sacrifice some personal time for the greater good (a behavior that we believe is not foreign to the OSM contributor base).  However, to reduce the irritation that apparently these invite messages can produce, we have limited the number of lists approached and will close the survey as planned at the end of August, regardless of the number of responses we will have received.

 

There are clearly things that could be improved about this work – we agree, for example, that offering the survey in multiple languages would help obtain more globally representative samples and insights.  Yet in most academic research the tradeoff between ideal methodology and resource limitations is a salient concern, and that is definitely the case here.

 

Finally, it is even the exchanges noted on the talk pages and the [limited] negative feedback we have received that help us learn about how the community works internally and interacts with the “outside world” – we are thankful for all the interested members’ feedback.  To the others, we apologize (again).



 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental to the OSM database

[Martijn van Exel]

Dave, 

You are challenging the existence of an established set of tools in the 
OpenStreetMap community with your hunches, so the burden of proof is on you. 
But I’ll at least debunk your assertions, please see below.

-- 
Martijn van Exel

"MapRoulette gets help to some of the remote, forgotten places."
If they're that remote do they need "helping". Who's going to go there? & again 
prove the edits in those locations are accurate & genuine.
If ‘who’s going to go there’ would guide the decision to make a map of it, we 
as a project as well as the world at large would be in a very bad place.



OK. First random from your site:
http://maproulette.org/#t=IT_WaterCrossings/IT_RXING_11.333811432368_43.474069354879
How can anyone who doesn't live in area (I tried to copy/paste the location but 
the info box disappeared!) possibly know which is correct?
The question is not ‘which is correct’. The challenge proposes there might be 
an incorrect situation as a waterway and a highway cross without having a 
bridge or tunnel tag. This is all right there in the description: 
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/187922/Screenshot%202014-08-23%2009.27.02.png

 The reason why this is a great MapRoulette challenge is that in most cases, 
you would be able to resolve this just from looking at Bing imagery. Here is 
another situation from the same MapRoulette challenge: 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/187922/Screenshot%202014-08-23%2009.30.30.png

In the case you point out, the situation is obscured by tree cover:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/187922/Screenshot%202014-08-23%2009.22.37.png

For those situations, you can just skip over the case:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/187922/Screenshot%202014-08-23%2009.22.47.png



http://maproulette.org/#t=osmose-8170-147-soccer/osmose-8170-147-soccer-None-d19295cc3e005283ae80b66bde86f474
Supposed missing soccer pitch in France. I mean, really?
Yes, there is. Just look at the aerial imagery. If you don’t know what a soccer 
pitch looks like, this challenge is not for you. Pick something else. Were you 
going to make a point about this?

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/187922/Screenshot%202014-08-23%2009.23.28.png___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental to the OSM database

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 2:20 AM, Lester Caine  wrote:

>
> http://openstreetmap.us/iD/release/#background=Bing&map=17.00/-83.15249/36.43657
> is the one I'm currently on and leaving as it's impossible to see any
> detail in iD ... how do people cope with the dark images?


Lester, I believe you can lighten the image in iD. Just select the layers
icon on the right side and select the level of brightness you desire.


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] online survey about the OSM community

[Stephan Knauss]

On 23.08.2014 16:14, JB wrote:

Hum, I was finally curious of what I would find there. I find this:
"It is important that OpenStreetMap keep the use of maps non-commercial."
Is this really a serious question, or a serious survey, or am I just
completly mistaking about OSM since the beginning, or is my English not
as good as I thought it was?


I consider this question quite clear. Is it of importance to you that 
OSM is focusing on non-commercial use.


What could be alternatives? OSMF itself could try to monetize maps. 3rd 
party companies could monetize OSM more than currently.


It's about your opinion. How important is the non-commercial aspect of a 
community project (here: OSM) to you?


This is not about the OSM license.


Stephan


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

Re: [OSM-talk] online survey about the OSM community

[JB]

Ok, then it is the last option, my english is not good enough for this 
survey. But in this case, I suspect it will also be the case for many 
many other non-english people…
Of course people should be able to make money out of OSM. But as pointed 
out previously, in some countries, it seems that OSM only evolves where 
money is involved.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation.
JB.


Le 23/08/2014 16:45, john whelan a écrit :

>"It is important that OpenStreetMap keep the use of maps non-commercial."

Either the survey doesn't understand about OSM or since it does have a 
subject matter specialist on board I'd be inclined to think its 
surveying the perception of the mappers.  I strongly suspect many 
think it is totally non-commercial and I've seen a number of 
businesses who didn't realise they could use the maps without payment.


Cheerio John


On 23 August 2014 10:14, JB > wrote:


Hum, I was finally curious of what I would find there. I find this:
"It is important that OpenStreetMap keep the use of maps
non-commercial."
Is this really a serious question, or a serious survey, or am I
just completly mistaking about OSM since the beginning, or is my
English not as good as I thought it was?
Sorry for the interruption,
JB.


Le 23/08/2014 15:48, moltonel 3x Combo a écrit :

On 23/08/2014, john whelan mailto:jwhelan0...@gmail.com>> wrote:

In an ideal world the way to get a proper random sample
would be to select
OSM mappers randomly then message them.  Hopefully you'd
get better than
90% response rate to keep it statistically meaningful.
Reality is you might be lucky to obtain a 2% response.  So
the next best
thing is OSM-talk and hopefully he'll get the 1,000
responses which he
needs to make it statistically meaningful.

Remember that we're sending emails and that the task can be
automated,
so a 2% response rate isn't really an issue. And it's much
better to
individually contact a uniformly random sample than to globally
contact a biased sample (only a particular kind of contributor
follows
mailing lists). As a added bonus of contacting individually, you
already know the person's mapping profile.

Here are a few proposed guidelines to keep things in check
though :
  * treat a survey like an import: it should be
community-reviewed and
accepted before going ahead. Be transparent, be usefull, be well
writen, be multilingual, etc.
* set target request and response counts ahead of time, and stop
sending requests whenever one of the counts is reached
* provide a way to opt-out any future survey via you osm account

Any other do's and don't ?

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



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




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

Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?

[colliar]

Am 23.08.2014 15:53, schrieb John F. Eldredge:
> I have seen park roads that were accessible to the public only during
> specified daylight hours. Using them after park closing time would
> likely lead to trespassing charges. So, an opening_hours tag on those
> roadways would make sense.

access:conditional= no @ (sunset-sunrise)

or

foot:conditional= no @ (sunset-sunrise)

depending on other access restrictions.



cu colliar




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] online survey about the OSM community

[john whelan]

>"It is important that OpenStreetMap keep the use of maps non-commercial."

Either the survey doesn't understand about OSM or since it does have a
subject matter specialist on board I'd be inclined to think its surveying
the perception of the mappers.  I strongly suspect many think it is totally
non-commercial and I've seen a number of businesses who didn't realise they
could use the maps without payment.

Cheerio John


On 23 August 2014 10:14, JB  wrote:

> Hum, I was finally curious of what I would find there. I find this:
> "It is important that OpenStreetMap keep the use of maps non-commercial."
> Is this really a serious question, or a serious survey, or am I just
> completly mistaking about OSM since the beginning, or is my English not as
> good as I thought it was?
> Sorry for the interruption,
> JB.
>
>
> Le 23/08/2014 15:48, moltonel 3x Combo a écrit :
>
>> On 23/08/2014, john whelan  wrote:
>>
>>> In an ideal world the way to get a proper random sample would be to
>>> select
>>> OSM mappers randomly then message them.  Hopefully you'd get better than
>>> 90% response rate to keep it statistically meaningful.
>>> Reality is you might be lucky to obtain a 2% response.  So the next best
>>> thing is OSM-talk and hopefully he'll get the 1,000 responses which he
>>> needs to make it statistically meaningful.
>>>
>> Remember that we're sending emails and that the task can be automated,
>> so a 2% response rate isn't really an issue. And it's much better to
>> individually contact a uniformly random sample than to globally
>> contact a biased sample (only a particular kind of contributor follows
>> mailing lists). As a added bonus of contacting individually, you
>> already know the person's mapping profile.
>>
>> Here are a few proposed guidelines to keep things in check though :
>>   * treat a survey like an import: it should be community-reviewed and
>> accepted before going ahead. Be transparent, be usefull, be well
>> writen, be multilingual, etc.
>> * set target request and response counts ahead of time, and stop
>> sending requests whenever one of the counts is reached
>> * provide a way to opt-out any future survey via you osm account
>>
>> Any other do's and don't ?
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] online survey about the OSM community

[JB]

Hum, I was finally curious of what I would find there. I find this:
"It is important that OpenStreetMap keep the use of maps non-commercial."
Is this really a serious question, or a serious survey, or am I just 
completly mistaking about OSM since the beginning, or is my English not 
as good as I thought it was?

Sorry for the interruption,
JB.


Le 23/08/2014 15:48, moltonel 3x Combo a écrit :

On 23/08/2014, john whelan  wrote:

In an ideal world the way to get a proper random sample would be to select
OSM mappers randomly then message them.  Hopefully you'd get better than
90% response rate to keep it statistically meaningful.
Reality is you might be lucky to obtain a 2% response.  So the next best
thing is OSM-talk and hopefully he'll get the 1,000 responses which he
needs to make it statistically meaningful.

Remember that we're sending emails and that the task can be automated,
so a 2% response rate isn't really an issue. And it's much better to
individually contact a uniformly random sample than to globally
contact a biased sample (only a particular kind of contributor follows
mailing lists). As a added bonus of contacting individually, you
already know the person's mapping profile.

Here are a few proposed guidelines to keep things in check though :
  * treat a survey like an import: it should be community-reviewed and
accepted before going ahead. Be transparent, be usefull, be well
writen, be multilingual, etc.
* set target request and response counts ahead of time, and stop
sending requests whenever one of the counts is reached
* provide a way to opt-out any future survey via you osm account

Any other do's and don't ?

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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] online survey about the OSM community

[Stephan Knauss]

On 23.08.2014 15:17, Christian Quest wrote:

OSM is already very english centric and having a survey that is only
available in english won't help understand the OSM community worldwide,
just a part of it.
It would be interesting to have the same survey being done in another
language and compare the results...


Understanding the US part might be of great interest already.

I recently finished watching the recordings of the SotM US conference 
which was held earlier this year.


My impression is that OSM in the US is dominated by businesses who see 
OSM as a way to make money. Some give back quite much in the sense of 
tools and services, but still: It's done by "paid" community members.


Where are the mappers who are not employed by a company using OSM or are 
using OSM for their freelance work? Where are the altruistic mappers who 
do the actual work of mapping?


I for myself don't get paid for participating in OSM nor do I 
participate in OSM for making some business. In fact I'm paining money 
to partiipate in addition to my time invested.


My impression is that many of the European OSM projects adn contributors 
belong into this category.


So having some research done what is actually driving mappers in the US 
is certainly of great interest.


First impression might be that it's a lot more money driven over there.
Ever heard of getting some monetary reward for working on any of the 
European quality tools like OSM inspector or osmose? In the US you are 
mapping for winning a price (see telenav contest)


I'm highly interested in the results of the survey. Given the focus of 
many questions in the survey it might provide answers to this specific 
question.


Stephan


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

Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?

[John F. Eldredge]

I have seen park roads that were accessible to the public only during specified 
daylight hours. Using them after park closing time would likely lead to 
trespassing charges. So, an opening_hours tag on those roadways would make 
sense.


On August 23, 2014 4:55:15 AM CDT, Christian Quest  
wrote:
> Deleting, deleting...
> 
> First we should try to understand the meaning, the purpose of any data
> that
> has been contributed by someone else that we don't understand.
> 
> I understand the purpose and meaning of the first two relations. Each
> of
> them describe a route, so the type=route / route=road looks ok to me .
> The second one does not provide much more info than the members
> already
> provide, but let's consider it will improve in the future with for
> example
> an operator=* tag.
> 
> For the third one, I don't understand it.
> It is a big list (collection if your prefer) of roads, and  I don't
> understand the opening_hours tags.
> What is this supposed to describe ?
> 
> Does this mean nobody can drive on these roads except during the
> opening_hours ?
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-08-23 11:18 GMT+02:00 Werner Hoch :
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, den 21.08.2014, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Dave F.:
> > >
> http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159&_noCache=on
> > >
> > > This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a
> waste
> > > of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways?
> > >
> > > I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys
> taken
> > > over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete it?
> >
> > They are used to describe infrastructure, too. Currently there are
> 85000
> > relations of that kind in the database. (1 in DE, only 100 in
> UK)
> >
> > Often the type=route route=road have extra tags like operator, full
> > name, wikipedia/data link, ...
> >
> > The relation builds a single object for a specific road
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20884
> >
> > Personally, for roads with lower importance, like the B3070 I
> wouldn't
> > create extra relations.
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18159
> >
> >
> > In other mails I've seen the ref discussion again. Should it be only
> on
> > the way or on the relation?
> > While it is redundant to place it on both, it helps to do QA tasks
> like
> > missing segments, wrong elements, wrong ref, ...
> >
> > "Relations are not Categories" discussion:
> > Whenever this page is cited I'm wondering how would you identify the
> > specific "category" with a database request?
> >
> > just my 2 cents.
> >
> > This one looks like a bad relation, anyone likes to delete it?
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2621325
> >
> > Regards
> > Werner (werner2101)
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive 
out hate; only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] online survey about the OSM community

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 23/08/2014, john whelan  wrote:
> In an ideal world the way to get a proper random sample would be to select
> OSM mappers randomly then message them.  Hopefully you'd get better than
> 90% response rate to keep it statistically meaningful.
> Reality is you might be lucky to obtain a 2% response.  So the next best
> thing is OSM-talk and hopefully he'll get the 1,000 responses which he
> needs to make it statistically meaningful.

Remember that we're sending emails and that the task can be automated,
so a 2% response rate isn't really an issue. And it's much better to
individually contact a uniformly random sample than to globally
contact a biased sample (only a particular kind of contributor follows
mailing lists). As a added bonus of contacting individually, you
already know the person's mapping profile.

Here are a few proposed guidelines to keep things in check though :
 * treat a survey like an import: it should be community-reviewed and
accepted before going ahead. Be transparent, be usefull, be well
writen, be multilingual, etc.
* set target request and response counts ahead of time, and stop
sending requests whenever one of the counts is reached
* provide a way to opt-out any future survey via you osm account

Any other do's and don't ?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] online survey about the OSM community

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 23 August 2014, john whelan wrote:
> Looking at what they are doing I'd say the information being dug out
> will be of value to the OSM community and help us understand a little
> more about the people who add value to the maps.  It might even help
> us on the retention rate and bring the experience of the average
> mapper up a little. It's also being done fairly professionally and
> running something like this properly costs money, at least its not
> OSM money.

So the aims justify the means?

Sorry - but no, if you cannot do something in a decent manner you can't 
do it at all.  

> How would you suggest he obtained a large enough random sample?

With voluntary participation you can't, no matter what you do.  That's 
why a census generally is not voluntary.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] online survey about the OSM community

[Christian Quest]

Studies and surveys are interesting for a better understanding of our
community, but I'm a bit afraid that the results of this one will be highly
biased by one single thing: language.

OSM is already very english centric and having a survey that is only
available in english won't help understand the OSM community worldwide,
just a part of it.
It would be interesting to have the same survey being done in another
language and compare the results...



2014-08-23 14:48 GMT+02:00 john whelan :

> Looking at what they are doing I'd say the information being dug out will
> be of value to the OSM community and help us understand a little more about
> the people who add value to the maps.  It might even help us on the
> retention rate and bring the experience of the average mapper up a little.
> It's also being done fairly professionally and running something like this
> properly costs money, at least its not OSM money.
>
> In an ideal world the way to get a proper random sample would be to select
> OSM mappers randomly then message them.  Hopefully you'd get better than
> 90% response rate to keep it statistically meaningful.
>
> Reality is you might be lucky to obtain a 2% response.  So the next best
> thing is OSM-talk and hopefully he'll get the 1,000 responses which he
> needs to make it statistically meaningful.  He didn't get that many
> responses from the OSM-talk message.  OSM-talk is bias in that we don't
> have that many average mappers here, the national OSM mailing lists have
> more so it makes sense to make the request to a larger audience.
>
> OSM is difficult in that it crosses so many cultural boundaries but in
> this case I think the cross posting was reasonable to obtain the desired
> number of respondents.
>
> How would you suggest he obtained a large enough random sample?
>
> Thanks
>
> Cheerio John
>
>
> On 23 August 2014 06:05, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > If you are at least 18 years of age and speak English,
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> The same message has meanwhile been posted to a whole lot of national
>> OSM mailing lists, with an additional "** apologies for cross-posting
>> **" at the top.
>>
>> If you know it is something that you shouldn't be doing, then sticking
>> an upfront apology at the top doesn't cut it really. This is impolite,
>> and disrespectful.
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>


-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] online survey about the OSM community

[john whelan]

Looking at what they are doing I'd say the information being dug out will
be of value to the OSM community and help us understand a little more about
the people who add value to the maps.  It might even help us on the
retention rate and bring the experience of the average mapper up a little.
It's also being done fairly professionally and running something like this
properly costs money, at least its not OSM money.

In an ideal world the way to get a proper random sample would be to select
OSM mappers randomly then message them.  Hopefully you'd get better than
90% response rate to keep it statistically meaningful.

Reality is you might be lucky to obtain a 2% response.  So the next best
thing is OSM-talk and hopefully he'll get the 1,000 responses which he
needs to make it statistically meaningful.  He didn't get that many
responses from the OSM-talk message.  OSM-talk is bias in that we don't
have that many average mappers here, the national OSM mailing lists have
more so it makes sense to make the request to a larger audience.

OSM is difficult in that it crosses so many cultural boundaries but in this
case I think the cross posting was reasonable to obtain the desired number
of respondents.

How would you suggest he obtained a large enough random sample?

Thanks

Cheerio John


On 23 August 2014 06:05, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > If you are at least 18 years of age and speak English,
>
> [...]
>
> The same message has meanwhile been posted to a whole lot of national
> OSM mailing lists, with an additional "** apologies for cross-posting
> **" at the top.
>
> If you know it is something that you shouldn't be doing, then sticking
> an upfront apology at the top doesn't cut it really. This is impolite,
> and disrespectful.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental to the OSM database

[Mike N]

On 8/23/2014 5:20 AM, Lester Caine wrote:

http://openstreetmap.us/iD/release/#background=Bing&map=17.00/-83.15249/36.43657
is the one I'm currently on and leaving as it's impossible to see any
detail in iD ... how do people cope with the dark images?


In iD, select the imagery layer "New & Misaligned TIGER".   The new 
TIGER won't always be better than the original; check it against visible 
road to judge its quality.It is often much improved and I use it to 
map through forested areas.





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

Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?

[SomeoneElse]

On 23/08/2014 10:55, Christian Quest wrote:


For the third one, I don't understand it.
It is a big list (collection if your prefer) of roads, and  I don't 
understand the opening_hours tags.

What is this supposed to describe ?

Does this mean nobody can drive on these roads except during the 
opening_hours ?




The clue's in the name, I think - "Gritting Priority 1 roads" - it's an 
attempt to capture which roads are gritted when it's icy (which in 
northern Scotland is most of the year apart from a couple of weeks in 
July :-) ).  I'm not convinced that it's best represented as a "route" 
relation - in the West Midlands (who have the most extensive OSM 
gritting map in the UK, I think) this sort of information is collected 
as on this way:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108519826

Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [OSM-talk] online survey about the OSM community

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

> If you are at least 18 years of age and speak English, 

[...]

The same message has meanwhile been posted to a whole lot of national
OSM mailing lists, with an additional "** apologies for cross-posting
**" at the top.

If you know it is something that you shouldn't be doing, then sticking
an upfront apology at the top doesn't cut it really. This is impolite,
and disrespectful.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?

[Christian Quest]

Deleting, deleting...

First we should try to understand the meaning, the purpose of any data that
has been contributed by someone else that we don't understand.

I understand the purpose and meaning of the first two relations. Each of
them describe a route, so the type=route / route=road looks ok to me .
The second one does not provide much more info than the members already
provide, but let's consider it will improve in the future with for example
an operator=* tag.

For the third one, I don't understand it.
It is a big list (collection if your prefer) of roads, and  I don't
understand the opening_hours tags.
What is this supposed to describe ?

Does this mean nobody can drive on these roads except during the
opening_hours ?



2014-08-23 11:18 GMT+02:00 Werner Hoch :

> Hi,
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 21.08.2014, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Dave F.:
> > http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159&_noCache=on
> >
> > This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a waste
> > of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways?
> >
> > I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys taken
> > over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete it?
>
> They are used to describe infrastructure, too. Currently there are 85000
> relations of that kind in the database. (1 in DE, only 100 in UK)
>
> Often the type=route route=road have extra tags like operator, full
> name, wikipedia/data link, ...
>
> The relation builds a single object for a specific road
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20884
>
> Personally, for roads with lower importance, like the B3070 I wouldn't
> create extra relations.
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18159
>
>
> In other mails I've seen the ref discussion again. Should it be only on
> the way or on the relation?
> While it is redundant to place it on both, it helps to do QA tasks like
> missing segments, wrong elements, wrong ref, ...
>
> "Relations are not Categories" discussion:
> Whenever this page is cited I'm wondering how would you identify the
> specific "category" with a database request?
>
> just my 2 cents.
>
> This one looks like a bad relation, anyone likes to delete it?
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2621325
>
> Regards
> Werner (werner2101)
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental to the OSM database

[SomeoneElse]

On 23/08/2014 03:49, Andreas Vilén wrote:



I have never edited in Great Britain before so I hope I didn't step on 
any toes, but I have edited in southern Sweden since 2008 and before I 
started there was barely anything there...




Looking at ITO's OSM Mapper, that village hasn't had a local mapper 
since 2011.  There are a few active local mappers in Lincoln, and a 
couple further west, but most of the edits locally have been made people 
people adding street names remotely, or correcting geometry errors 
remotely, so I don't think that anyone locally will object.


Cheers,

Andy




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

Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?

[Werner Hoch]

Hi,

Am Donnerstag, den 21.08.2014, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Dave F.:
> http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159&_noCache=on
> 
> This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a waste 
> of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways?
> 
> I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys taken 
> over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete it?

They are used to describe infrastructure, too. Currently there are 85000
relations of that kind in the database. (1 in DE, only 100 in UK)

Often the type=route route=road have extra tags like operator, full
name, wikipedia/data link, ...

The relation builds a single object for a specific road
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20884

Personally, for roads with lower importance, like the B3070 I wouldn't
create extra relations.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18159


In other mails I've seen the ref discussion again. Should it be only on
the way or on the relation?
While it is redundant to place it on both, it helps to do QA tasks like
missing segments, wrong elements, wrong ref, ...

"Relations are not Categories" discussion:
Whenever this page is cited I'm wondering how would you identify the
specific "category" with a database request?

just my 2 cents.

This one looks like a bad relation, anyone likes to delete it?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2621325

Regards
Werner (werner2101)



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental to the OSM database

[Lester Caine]

On 23/08/14 09:47, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 23/08/14 09:16, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> I object to someone telling me that a road needs 'smoothing' ... it may
>> well have very well mapped source data, and someone who does not know
>> that will be stripping data simply because it does not follow the
>> programmers arbitrarily defined rules.
>>
>> And that is why it is checked by humans, using aerial imagery and not
>> changed by unsupervised software.
>>
>> Armchair tracing roads from aerial images is really helpful, with rare
>> exception of well mapped areas with active community.
> 
> In some areas we are beyond the aerial imagery so as long as people KNOW
> that the fine detail they are being shown is wrong then OK, but this may
> well be well mapped detail not something that actually NEEDS 'smoothing'
> ... especially when the selection of imagery available does not always
> line up exactly with one another. I'd rather not see some of the list on
> maproulette applied to the UK and I'm sure other European countries
> would feel the same? We have some very fine detail now being mapped and
> any smoothing algorithm wuold have to be very cleaver not to affect that.

I've had a look at a few of the 'tasks' flagged by maproulette. The
first few were quite normal bends in roads and nothing worth doing, but
the next couple were substantially more work, and smoothing was not the
problem. The whole area was very poorly mapped, with straight lines for
roads and tracks that were substantially more complex. iD was even
offering to 'straighten them'. So OK it's flagging up areas that need
work, but only by default. Around here finding a straight road is the
challenge :)

http://openstreetmap.us/iD/release/#background=Bing&map=17.00/-83.15249/36.43657
is the one I'm currently on and leaving as it's impossible to see any
detail in iD ... how do people cope with the dark images?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental to the OSM database

[Lester Caine]

On 23/08/14 09:16, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> I object to someone telling me that a road needs 'smoothing' ... it may
> well have very well mapped source data, and someone who does not know
> that will be stripping data simply because it does not follow the
> programmers arbitrarily defined rules.
> 
> And that is why it is checked by humans, using aerial imagery and not
> changed by unsupervised software.
> 
> Armchair tracing roads from aerial images is really helpful, with rare
> exception of well mapped areas with active community.

In some areas we are beyond the aerial imagery so as long as people KNOW
that the fine detail they are being shown is wrong then OK, but this may
well be well mapped detail not something that actually NEEDS 'smoothing'
... especially when the selection of imagery available does not always
line up exactly with one another. I'd rather not see some of the list on
maproulette applied to the UK and I'm sure other European countries
would feel the same? We have some very fine detail now being mapped and
any smoothing algorithm wuold have to be very cleaver not to affect that.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental to the OSM database

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2014-08-23 9:56 GMT+02:00 Lester Caine :

> On 23/08/14 04:43, Russ Nelson wrote:
> > I've checked these using surveys, and the
> > aerial photos are right, and the OSM (actually TIGER) data is
> > bad. Once you've edited a few hundred of these ways, you learn to
> > recognize one of these mis-digitized ways.
>
> The key perhaps here is that the source data is what was wrong. Had the
> material been 'armchair mapped' from the first, then many of these
> problems would not exist?
>
> I object to someone telling me that a road needs 'smoothing' ... it may
> well have very well mapped source data, and someone who does not know
> that will be stripping data simply because it does not follow the
> programmers arbitrarily defined rules.
>


And that is why it is checked by humans, using aerial imagery and not
changed by unsupervised software.

Armchair tracing roads from aerial images is really helpful, with rare
exception of well mapped areas with active community.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental to the OSM database

[Lester Caine]

On 23/08/14 04:43, Russ Nelson wrote:
> I've checked these using surveys, and the
> aerial photos are right, and the OSM (actually TIGER) data is
> bad. Once you've edited a few hundred of these ways, you learn to
> recognize one of these mis-digitized ways.

The key perhaps here is that the source data is what was wrong. Had the
material been 'armchair mapped' from the first, then many of these
problems would not exist?

I object to someone telling me that a road needs 'smoothing' ... it may
well have very well mapped source data, and someone who does not know
that will be stripping data simply because it does not follow the
programmers arbitrarily defined rules. This is DEFINITELY not something
that should be rolled out blindly across all countries as certainly ome
ARE now adding very fine detail over the top of the originally crude
tracing!

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Detrimental to the OSM database

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 23/ago/2014, alle ore 04:34, Andreas Vilén 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Of course people need to actually check the data they add, but as long as 
> there is aerial imagery and there's no reason to doubt it,


There is always reason to doubt it, because it will always be depicting the 
past and never the present - inherently. This said I agree that some potential 
problems can be solved with high probability using reasonably recent aerial 
imagery ;-)
I believe map roulette is a overall improvement

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk