Re: [OSM-talk] New mailing list about machine learning and OSM
On Thursday 27 June 2019, Felix Delattre via talk wrote: > > > > No problem with creating a new thematic mailing list here but the > > above is somewhat insulting to those who have in the past discussed > > bot mapping in OSM on a serious level. > > I don't think that ML = bot mapping. At least this is not what I > would like to use ML techniques for. And I also don't think this is > in any close to the spirit of OSM. But it is likely the most widespread application in OSM so far and also probably the most widely discussed use case. > For me "automated statistics" for most cases seems to be a good way > to refer to what others call nowadays AI. Because it describes closer > to what is happening there. I'm really not a big fan of hyped > buzzwords. An Artificial Intelligence - which deserves the term - in > my opinion has not been achieved at all. All these terms contain a subjective high level characterization via analogy to other techniques or processes. To me the term 'neural network' would seem the most neutral of the frequently used ones. You could take this a step further by speaking of 'self-adjusting general purpose algorithms'. But machine learning for the name of the mailing list is fine. In OSM we know to distinguish between a label (like a tag) and its meaning. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New mailing list about machine learning and OSM
On Thursday 27 June 2019, Felix Delattre via talk wrote: > > Until this moment the conversation has been pretty much polemic from > people either hyping or hating these new techniques of programming > with automated statistics. No problem with creating a new thematic mailing list here but the above is somewhat insulting to those who have in the past discussed bot mapping in OSM on a serious level. The impression i have is that there are a few people discussing the matter on a principal level (usually from a sociological, epistemological, ethical or generally philosophical standpoint) and practical users and developers of such techniques - and almost zero in depth communication between these domains. Could you by the way explain the term "automated statistics" - i had not heard this before and a quick search returns a lot of uses of this term in the context of database systems, which i however have the impression is not what you are talking about. Most terms in this field are politically connotated - "artificial intelligence" implying a similarity to human intelligence, "machine learning" implying a similarity to human learning processes. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Règles d'éditions organisées / Directed editing guidelines
On Tuesday 25 June 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > I would ask everyone who is unhappy to see some players short-cut or > even ignore the rules, to engage with these players, explain to them > that the guidelines exist and that following them is a demonstration > of good intentions vis-a-vis the community. I don't want to discourage anyone from doing that but for me personally there is no 'assume good faith' w.r.t. organizations in contrast to individuals. If an individual human being takes resposibility for organized editing activities i would be perfectly willing to engage with them about their edits and giving them the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes. In cases like the ones Severin pointed to however, in particular if they also ostentatiously reject any personal responsibility and discourage any direct communication attempts i am not. > Things like this take time. [...] The question is of course how much time does OSM have? One important factor that motivated initial discussion on regulating organized editing activities was the time factor and that organized editing activities can dominate the map in an area much faster than individual mappers. > While I won't dispute that local communities can and should have a > lot of influence, I think you're speaking prematurely - perhaps you > are just a bit too eager to see your "predictions" come true ;) Actually i find it much more enjoyable (and also more educating) if negative predictions from me turn out to be wrong. Pointing to my past predictions does not have the purpose to gloat but to explain why i do not revisit this point of discussion in detail again. > Don't just sit there and sigh "it's just how I predicted, the world > is ending and there's nothing I can do". My core message was meant to be that we should focus on enabling and encouraging local communities around the world to take control of the map locally. That is very different from "sitting there and waiting for the world to end". What i do not want to do is sitting there and hoping for corporations to discover morality and realizing that in the long term this is more important than short term profits. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Règles d'éditions organisées / Directed editing guidelines
On Saturday 22 June 2019, severin.menard via talk wrote: > > At present, this policy concerning directed editions is therefore, > paradoxically, not respected or even totally neglected by the main > organizations it targeted. This is something by the way i predicted to be the likely outcome of introducing a vague policy very early in the process leading to these guidelines. Responsible mappers would invest a lot of work into following the policy - mostly unnecessarily because since they are responsible they would do the necessary things even without there being a policy. Irresponible people however only do the absolute minimum of the most lenient interpretation of the rules - often garnished with the usual corporate communication redirection and avoidance strategies. I also predicted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Stereo/diary/45132#comment42989 what we now see with the various pro forma attempts at following the guidelines that many of them respond "in kind" with the with the same non-commital vagueness as the policy. Regarding evaluation of the guidelines - although it would certainly be good if there was a critical evaluation i have very little hope that there will be such in the near future. It is not that during the past half year there have been significant developments as a result of the policy that were not predictable and argued to be the likely outcome with clear reasoning in advance. My own conclusion meanwhile is that if there is to be any meaningful regulation of organized mapping activities it has to come from the local communities. This is particularly important for still small communities just starting off to happen before well organized corporate interests start their coordinated invasion leaving nothing but a data wasteland for locals to deal with after the invadors have left. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL
On Monday 10 June 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > As already said it would be a bad mistake to underestimate the > > influence the OSM community has in principle. It is certainly much > > larger than that of the OSMF. It might be convenient to just say > > "we can't do anything anyway so why bother" and Facebook certainly > > tries to cultivate a nimbus of being all-powerful and untouchable > > but that is definitely not the case. > > Can you propose anything specific that for example I can do,? In general raising public awareness is one of the most efficient measures about this kind of thing. We have for example so far not even a proper documentation of the various situations in which Facebook shows OSM based maps to their users without proper attribution. Once this exists a good next step would be to approach business partners of Facebook, in particular ones who are interested and depend on having a good relationship with OSM and publicly ask them (via Twitter for example) why they are cooperating with a company that systematically violates the OSM license. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL
On Monday 10 June 2019, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > > > > * cease using Facebook [..] > > A drop in the ocean. As already said it would be a bad mistake to underestimate the influence the OSM community has in principle. It is certainly much larger than that of the OSMF. It might be convenient to just say "we can't do anything anyway so why bother" and Facebook certainly tries to cultivate a nimbus of being all-powerful and untouchable but that is definitely not the case. > This negotiation belongs to the OSMF. If there is one thing the OSMF definitely must not do it is to negotiate with corporations like Facebook about to what extent they must follow the license. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL
To be clear: I would very much welcome it if the board states that they welcome activities from the OSM community pushing organizational OSM data users for following the license and supporting people organizing pressure on them to do so. But from past experience with board members articulating themselves on this kind of matter i would not expect much here though (but would be happy to be positively surprised). One particular case i have pointed out on several occasions is the matter of second rate attributions. A clear statement that if anyone is credited in any way for a map using OSM data OSM contributors need to be attributed with at least the same prominence and visibility would be immensely helpful. Clear statements are important because nothing is more annoying than data users attempting to weasel around attribution requirements. In my experience when contacting data users about insufficient attribution at least 2/3 of the communication is dealing with petty attempts at bargaining for less attribution. > I don't know what your position is in these matters; but > actually cataloguing license violations, sending the appropriate > legal nastygrams to the appropriate legal entities in the appropriate > countries and all that, is certainly something that can occupy one > employee full time - an employee where the OSMF would likely depend > on corporate members like Facebook to pay their salary. So we have to > be careful with what we demand from the OSMF. That publishing something on the internet inevitably results in people ripping you off (including in particular big corporations and organizations) and that you can spend more time (and could possibly even make more money) pursuing such than by actually producing things is essentially a fact of life. The situation for OSM is a bit different though since allowing others on a large scale to ignore the ODbL essentially nullifies the social contract of OSM and leads to the project loosing contributors (all those who consider their contributions to be contingent to attribution and share-alike being given back to them by data users). I think making sure that this does not happen should be done through volunteer work but the OSMF could do quite a lot without investing a lot of work to support this simply by making clear that the OSMF stands firmly behind any OSM community members who act on such cases (in a friendly and supportive way to first time offenders but with firm pressure on unregenerate repeat offenders). There are tons of very simple things the OSMF could do to to indicate their support. Removing data users with no proper attribution from https://welcome.openstreetmap.org/about-osm-community/consumers/ for example. No one should underestimage the amount of pressure the OSM community could put on large data users who don't abide by the license. I already indicated this is pure theory but how long do you think it would take Facebook to become a model ODbL data user if all active OSM contributors would * cease using Facebook * stop any cooperation with Facebook within the project * revert any edits made by mappers working for Facebook or for projects being financed by Facebook? IMO ultimately key is that everyone internalizes that being lenient on sustained license violations is not a way to support adoption of OSM as a data source but primarily a way to alienate huge parts of the contributor base. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL
On Sunday 09 June 2019, Nuno Caldeira wrote: > > And with at the moment at least four out of seven OSMF board > > members having ties to big organizational OSM data > > users/contributors ... well, as we say in German: Eine Krähe hackt > > der anderen kein Auge aus. > > Are those ties public? Are they connected to any of the corporate > members of OSMF? To some extent this is documented on https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Member_Bios but this is not always up-to-date and does not necessarily contain all the details. Note corporate OSMF membership does not currently come with any behaviour requirements so it is not really that relevant here. We had some time ago a bit of discussion though on osmf-talk about if there should be rules related to corporate OSMF membership: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2019-January/005862.html but this is more about behavioural rules. The requirement to comply with the license (which is something every OSMF data users has to do) is not something that makes sense to specifically ask from corporate members. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Terminate Facebook rights under ODbL
On Sunday 09 June 2019, Nuno Caldeira wrote: > > I hereby request OSMF board, responsabile for the OSMF, as the > Licensor under ODbL 9.4 c) to notify Facebook and remove their rights > under ODbL, if the violation is not fixed after 30 days of notice. as > written on ODbL. > https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html I applaud you placing the ball in the OSMF board's court on this matter but i would not expect substantial actions from there. Although Facebook is an extreme example it is by far not the only case of big organizational OSM data users and contributors looking down on the OSM community and its values and doing as they please disregarding objections to what they do if they consider them unworthy or insignificant. And with at the moment at least four out of seven OSMF board members having ties to big organizational OSM data users/contributors ... well, as we say in German: Eine Krähe hackt der anderen kein Auge aus. Of course the OSM community does not depend on the OSMF to clearly communicate to Facebook that their insulting behaviour is not acceptable and that it will cost them a lot more economically in the long term to continue acting this way than anything they might hope to gain from it. But the question is of course if the OSM community as a whole is willing to stand up to Facebook and others to defend our values. If you imagine what percentage of OSM community members are Facebook customers you might already have your answer. Or to put it slightly differently: Why should Facebook even assume that OSM community members are in anyway displeased with Facebook if they (to a large part) continue using Facebook? I mean using Facebook as a communication platform for the OSM community is even advertised on osm.org (via iD editor and osm-community-index): https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index/search?q=facebook_q=facebook -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Anyone who likes to organize an ID discussion panel at SotM?
On Wednesday 29 May 2019, Christine Karch wrote: > > reading the discussions about the direction of ID development and how > the community wants the ID at the OSM website I had the idea that > there could perhaps be a panel at SotM. Does anyone want to organize > an ID discussion panel at SotM? Please tell me or us (program > committee in CC) and we can consider it. At the moment it would be > sufficient to have someone (or more) who wants to organize it. All > details could be defined later. I think this is a good idea but it should be done based on the realization that however such panel is composed and no matter what specific questions it covers it will not be representative for the OSM community as a whole - if for no other reason than because it is being held in English language at a conference with a significant economic barrier of entry. Underneath the specific issues with iD development that are being discussed right now lies a broader problem of ideas of cultural exceptionalism (that is the opinion that certain cultural values and preferences are inherently more significant than others and don't have to defend themselves in an open discourse) are increasingly pursued and advocated in and around the OSM community. You can find this for example in Bryan Housels statements here and on the iD issue tracker engrossing a huge number of people here as "mailing list haters" - an attitude that is mirrored by quite a few other people including OSMF board members who have also made demeaning statements about using maining lists as communication channels. This is to some extent understandable when people are overwhelmed with the diversity in views and positions as well as communication styles of a cross cultural international community like OSM and the difficulties of gauging opinions and developing consensus in such an environment. This is even harder if you are professionally involved in the field and you get pressure from employers or business partners of course. To retreat into a smaller and culturally more homogeneous community where it is much easier to find a consensus and possibly even developing a binary friend/ally vs. enemies image of the OSM community is to some extent a natural reaction. Because these reactions will as explained inevitably happen when people are overwhelmed by the cultural diversity of OSM and the difficulties this creates in practical work what we really need to discuss is how we can cultivate and communicate the specific core ideas and values of the OpenStreetMap project (the idea that people from all over the world freely and without being steered by a central authority collect their local geographic knowledge into a database for the benefit of each other) and help people realize the immense value of this to help bridge the gaps between these cultural bubbles created by people in reaction to the challenges of the project. I think most individuals active in the OSM community as a hobby are aware of the immense value of the cultural diversity of OSM or at least are able to understand it and openly embrance the challenges this comes with. The bigger challenge seems to be the organizational cultures of corporations and organizations around OSM which are often much more centralized and based on an exceptionalist principle. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform
On Monday 27 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I admit I am not convinced that it addresses the problem. > > I think that problem in in specific validator rule that is clearly > unwanted by general community* and it does not matter when and how it > appears. Yes, i agree for this particular situation. The idea was more as an example that it is not necessary to deploy iD in exactly the configuration it is released with on osm.org. I also think the label "upgrade the tags" is highly misleading for this kind of function and the idea of having a button to manually trigger this feature but not being transparent about what this actually does is not a very good one. But indeed this is somwhat sidestepping the core issue here. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform
On Monday 27 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > By default iD actively suggests to > - change objects modified by user (like JOSM) > - objects selected by user during editing Wouldn't it be relatively simple to change the default to only touch features modified by the user in the version deployed on osm.org? -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform
On Monday 27 May 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > > it seems clear to me that any tool that leads mappers to > > unconsciously perform automated edits could and should be blocked > > from write access to the API and accordingly should not be > > available on osm.org. > > I guess that in cases where it's a widely accepted community decision > instead of "fuck you stinking mailing list pseudo community, I'll do > what I please and anyway my friends all like it", it can be > acceptable. AFAIK many editors for example silently drop "created-by" > and didn't hear anyone complain about that. There is of course a difference between silently dropping obsolete tags evidently containing no geographic information when editing a feature anyway and actively modifying features the mapper has not touched in their fundamental semantics. As already hinted i know too little about how iD works to specifically say something about how it fits in here. I don't think a mechanical edit should be considered acceptable without discussion because it is obviously beneficial. If that is the case the discussion can be short but it still should happen - if for no other reason than as a safety check to avoid errors. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform
On Monday 27 May 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has > had exactly 0 effect. > > As I see it we can choose between > > [...] I think this is a too limited view of the options the OSM community has. I in particular see: * a wide range of possibilities to offer iD on osm.org but not exactly what is being released without creating and maintaining a complete fork. * a wide range of options for regulatory measures, not only on the 'developer behaviour regulation' front (which i have serious trouble with) but also on the technical level by requiring certain modularization so things like presets or validation rules can be easily replaced or disabled by deployments. On a general note and w.r.t. what Markus wrote: > * Automated Edits code of conduct > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct) >: You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway > to platforms. This is an automated edit. it seems clear to me that any tool that leads mappers to unconsciously perform automated edits could and should be blocked from write access to the API and accordingly should not be available on osm.org. I don't know if iD in its current configuation does this but this seems so obvious and self evident as a principle that it is not even necessary to codify this into written policy IMO. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] boundarys / river als boundary / admin_level?
On Thursday 16 May 2019, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > - Sollen alle ways die eine boundary darstellen ein > admin_level/boundary=administrative unabhängig von ihrer relation > tragen? Die Frage nach dem 'sollen' ist objektiv nicht zu beantworten. Was man sagen kann ist: * dass Grenzen durchgehend nur auf den Relationen getaggt sind und dass die Ways nicht durchgehend boundary-Tags tragen. * dass dies schon recht lange so ist. OSM-Carto stellt seit 2015 keine ways auf Basis ihrer boundary-tags mehr dar. * dass viele Mapper entsprechende Tags für redundant und für überflüssige Arbeit halten. * dass jedoch auch eine ganze Menge Datennutzer es gerne hätten, wenn die ways entsprechendes Tagging hätten, damit sie nicht die Relationen auswerten müssen. Es gab dazu Anfang 2018 eine recht umfangreiche Diskussion: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-March/thread.html#35347 -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared
On Thursday 09 May 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > > The question was not about validating square or not square buildings, > it is about storing a hint for iDs validation mechanism permanently > in OSMs data. There is some precedent for doing so, as was mentioned > in the github issue, still it is a bit controversial and discussion > when adding such a feature should be expected. Note the nosquare=yes concept is fundamentally different from things like noexit=yes because it classifies and aggregates multiple continuous values (the angles of all the corners of a building) into one binary yes/no value. For the definition of nosquare=yes i will ultimately have to look into the iD validator source code to find out how exactly it checks if a building is square or not. Strictly speaking it is not even a verifiable tag (which noexit=yes is). > I believe the issue is more about the unwillingness to take community > feedback seriously at all when it doesn't coincide with the opinions > already held by the developers. Which brings us back full circle to > the discussion of the privileged position of the default editor on > openstreetmap.org and the related transparency (aka who is holding > the purse strings) and the non-existent community control or even > just control by the OSMF. Indeed. I had a bit of hope that the golf=cartpath debacle would be a bit of an eye opener and would lead to some increased awareness for the need of consultation with the broader community when making tagging related decisions. But it does not look like it now. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM for training ML machines
On Wednesday 10 April 2019, althio wrote: > > You may have skipped parts of my message, so excuse me if I repeat a > few lines. You quoted only two sentences and I slightly wonder if you > genuinely read the whole. I am sorry if i left the impression that i was specifically criticizing your ideas - i was more referring to the general course of the discussion towards a rather mechanical exegesis of the ODbL based on a simplistic view of how algorithms work as a mechanical process converting well defined input data into well defined output data. > [...] > I don't think my original message can be read as "sweepingly declare > any output of algorithms as having no copyright connection". I did not mean to imply that - but since your line of reasoning only covers this case it is to be expected that people assume this is the only relevant case. > [...] > > My final two cents: > Take the Geocoding guideline, replace "Geocoding" by "Machine > Learning" and this is, in my humble opinion, an acceptable first > draft for discussion. But as far as i understand you, you up-front want to declare the "database" behind the Machine Learning, i.e. the adaptive part of the algorithms that gets modified through training, to be a produced work and therefore not subject to share-alike. If not i don't see the practical usefulness in applying the geocoding guideline to this in analogy because while for geocoding the individual result is a frequent practical use case Machine Learning and similar algorithms are mostly used to produce bulk results which are usually substantial in terms of database law. As far as the Horizontal Layers guideline and the concept of produced works in general is concerned - the only consistent view of these concepts is IMO to consider them to be limited exclusively to cases when you are talking about things produced for and used only for direct human consumption. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM for training ML machines
On Wednesday 10 April 2019, althio wrote: > > A typical "learned" model, based on a ML algorithm and a substantial > extract of OSM data: > That seems like a Produced Work to me. > > Hence... > [...] Maybe i have not been clear enough with my comment - approaching this matter based on gut feeling and wishful thinking (seems like...) without considering the practical effects is a very bad idea. You can design 'learning' algorithms to essentially replicate the training data so to just sweepingly declare any output of algorithms as having no copyright connection to training data is a recipe for desaster (if you subscribe to the spirit of the OdbL) or a recipe for success (if your goal is to abolish share-alike and attribution through the back door - which of course many corporate OSM data users would find highly desirable). And as also said concentrating exclusively on the produced work vs. derivative database is not really helpful, in particular since we have established a long time ago that using a produced work to reconstruct semantic information of substantial volume will not set you free of the requirements of the ODbL regarding derivative databases. So even if you have a basis for considering the algorithm trained with OSM data a produced work, that does not mean that the output of this algorithm, which might be data of exactly the same type as in the OSM database, is not a derivative database. If you need an example: Take a translator for geographic names trained using OSM data. This translator in practical use will spit out names or name components identical to those from the OSM database (if it does not it'd be pretty useless). These names - in sufficient volume - evidently form a derivative database IMO - even if they are not the result of a literal copy but result from 'knowledge' encoded in a neural network. When considering this subject, maybe think of it less as a question of copying data, think of it more as a process of mimicry. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM for training ML machines
On Tuesday 09 April 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > is it a community consensus that, when someone uses OSM to train > their machine learning "black box", the internal data structures > built during learning constitute a derivative database? Or are there > people who argue that somehow the "black box" can ingest OSM data at > will and still remain 100% intellectual property of its operator? > > Further, assuming that we have a system that has ingested OSM by deep > learning and we say that this means its internal database is ODbL, > what would this mean for the output later produced by the same > machine? I see two underlying questions in this that are both not really specific to OSM and the ODbL: * does training a neural network or some other kind of self learning/self adjusting algorithm create a derivative work of the training data. * under what circumstances does running/applying an algorithm (which is not commonly understood to produce a derivative work of the algorithm itself) disseminate so much of itself in its output (the extreme case of this being a self replicating program) that its output needs to be considered a derivative work of the algorithm itself. I find both of these to be fascinating and significant questions but as said before i suppose there is already significant literature on this so it might not make that much sense to contemplate how the OSM community would like the anwsers to these questions to be in isolation without looking how this is seen elsewhere. What makes things more complicated in the OSM case is the distinction between produced work and derivative database. That is indeed a question we need to discuss in the OSM community specifically. But it does not really make sense to start this discussion before having some kind of consensus on the more fundamental questions mentioned before. And i'd like to in that context quote myself with something i said here last June: > And yes, we probably need a broader discussion on the topic of > analytic use of OSM data, in particular in the context of 'big data', > and how this relates to the ODbL. It seems to me opinions on this > are too much based on wishful thinking and too little aim to form a > consistent framework that supports desirable and harmless use cases > but does not create loopholes against the spirit of the license. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-de] Besorgt über den iD-Editor
On Friday 29 March 2019, mmd wrote: > > Frederik hatte das ohne weitere Belege in den Raum geworfen, > allerdings hat Quincy das sehr wohl in seinem LinkedIn-Profil > aufgeführt. Umgekehrt gilt das auch: https://twitter.com/osmquality Ich nehme jetzt mal an, dass das bedeuten soll, dass Quincy für Critigen arbeitet. Das scheint ein IT-Consulting-Unternehmen zu sein (https://www.critigen.com/) welches Quincy sicher nicht Vollzeit an iD arbeiten lässt, weil OSM für sie Unternehmens-intern oder ihre umfangreichen OSM-basierten Dienstleistungen, die sie auf ihrer Webseite anbieten, so wichtig ist. ;-) Nein, es sollte für Jeden offensichtlich sein, dass Quincy das im Rahmen eines Projektes für einen externen Geldgeber macht, der anonym bleiben soll. > > Schon rein aus Sicherheits- und Haftungs-Überlegungen würde ich > > vorschlagen, die iD-Instanz auf osm.org umgehend auf die letzte > > Version zurückzusetzen, bevor diese Person commit-Rechte im > > iD-Repository erhalten hat. > > Ich wüsste nicht warum. Weder Quincy noch Bryan können den Code > direkt auf osm.org deployen. Jeder einzelne Pull Request hat eine > umfangreiche Dokumentation aller Änderungen, die sich jeder anschauen > und im Zweifelsfall entsprechend intervenieren kann. Das kann jeder sehen, wie er möchte. Wenn ich da in einer Entscheidungs-Position in der OSMF wäre, wäre meine Frage: Wer hat die Verantwortung. Die Sysadmins würden sich sicher sehr freuen, wenn sie erfahren, dass sie das sind. Nein, die machen das im Vertrauen darauf, dass die Leiter des Projektes hier verantwortungsbewusst entscheiden. Dieses Vertrauen braucht jedoch eine Grundlage und die erfordert es, dass klar ist, für wessen Interessen diese Leute denn eigentlich arbeiten. Was glaubst Du wie groß das Geschrei wäre, wenn - rein theoretisch - irgendwann herauskäme, dass das ein von der russischen/chinesischen Regierung finanziertes Projekt bei Critigen ist... -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Besorgt über den iD-Editor
Zunächst mal denke ich nicht, dass hier aktuell eine Gefahr einer Kontrolle von Teilen von OSM durch Unternehmen besteht in dem Sinne, dass über diesen Weg das Management von Mapbox konkret versuchen könnte, das Mapping in OSM in eine bestimmte Richtung zu steuern. Ich denke der Einfluss von Mapbox äußert sich vor allem darin, dass sie Bryan mit seinen Vorstellungen und Präferenzen - die vermutlich gut zu den Zielen von Mapbox passen - für diese Aufgabe ausgewählt haben und vermutlich weniger dadurch, dass da konkrete Anweisungen zu Einzelentscheidungen erteilt werden. Was ich allerdings durchaus auch sehe ist ein zunehmender Trend, dass wesentlich Projekte in OSM zunehmend von einer "selbstgekrönten" technokratischen Elite dominiert werden, für die die Arbeit daran nicht mehr Mittel zum Zweck ist, eine bestimmte Funktion für OSM zu erfüllen, sondern für die diese Arbeit zunehmend von OSM selbst abgekapselt ist und deren Hauptziel garnicht mehr ist, einen Dienst oder eine Infrastruktur für die OSM-Community zu offerieren, sondern für die der Erhalt der eigenen Position als technokratische Elite (und oft halt dann auch mit dem entsprechenden Gehaltsscheck) zum Selbstzweck wird. Wie ich ja neulich auf der englischen mailing-Liste angedeutet hatte, sehe ich eine ähnliche Entwicklung aktuell beim Wiki wo ebenfalls eine kleine Gruppe von Leuten versucht, durch die Einführung zunehmend technisch komplexer Verfahren in der eigentlich ja völlig egalitären Struktur des Wiki eine Herrscherklasse einzurichten, welche das Ganze mit technischer Unterstützung durch Algorithmen verwaltet und sich durch die speziellen hierfür notwendigen Kenntnisse unersetzlich macht. Dahinter steht jetzt vermutlich nicht ein bösartiger langfristiger Plan zur Weltherrschaft, sondern das ist schlicht aus dem Eigeninteresse der Leute heraus die logische Herangehensweise. Dies ist denke ich eine Entwicklung, die in OSM aufgrund der wachsenden Größe und Bedeutung des Projektes schon fast zwangsläufig war. Es ist ja noch gar nicht so lange so, dass Leute auf Grundlage ihrer Arbeit in einem Projekt nur für OSM ihren Lebensunterhalt bestreiten können. Ich sehe da zwei wesentliche Ansätze, dem entgegen zu wirken: 1) Die bestehenden Strukturen zur Kontrolle und Regulierung nutzen. Fast alle Nutzer von iD nutzen diesen über osm.org. Aber während wir eine recht klare Policy dafür haben, was für Karten-Layer auf osm.org eingebunden sein können (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tile_layers/Guidelines_for_new_tile_layers) gibt es für Editoren nichts analoges. Das könnte man ändern und so relativ klare Rahmenbedingungen setzen. Insbesondere die Tatsache, dass da jemand das Projekt mit leitet, der für diese Arbeit von jemandem anonym bezahlt wird, geht meiner Meinung nach überhaupt nicht. Schon rein aus Sicherheits- und Haftungs-Überlegungen würde ich vorschlagen, die iD-Instanz auf osm.org umgehend auf die letzte Version zurückzusetzen, bevor diese Person commit-Rechte im iD-Repository erhalten hat. 2) Die Mapper in OSM müssen sich mehr außerhalb des Mappings selbst sozial und politisch im Projekt engagieren. Ohne ein solches Engagement kann das Projekt langfristig nicht funktionieren und was ich auf der politischen Ebene (OSMF und FOSSGIS) derzeit sehe ist da ziemlich dünne. Und auf der sozialen Ebene sind Programmierer da oft deutlich engagierter dabei, mitzugestalten und dabei natürlich auch ihre Interessen zu artikulieren - und zwar nicht nur solche, die für ihre OSM-Arbeit bezahlt werden. Mapper haben da erheblichen Nachholbedarf. Ich habe manchmal den Eindruck, dass ein nicht unerheblicher Teil der Mapper mit der bei OSM traditionell was Tagging und Anderes angeht ja existierenden Anarchie und Entscheidungsfreiheit eher unzufrieden sind und sich im Grunde irgendwie eine autoritäre Herrscher-Elite wünschen würden, die mal aufräumt und klare Strukturen schafft. Anders ausgedrückt: Ich denke, dass mit den diskutierten Entwicklungen durchaus auch Interessen innerhalb der Hobby-Mapper-Community bedient werden, dass dies also nicht nur als ein externer Einfluss in eine Richtung gegen die Interessen der Mapper gesehen werden sollte. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Your thoughts on osm.org
On Tuesday 12 March 2019, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > Imagine the openstreetmap.org home page, but without the map. > What would the home page be about instead? You have to ask? Cat content obviously: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lolcat.png Seriously though, OpenStreetMap without map might not be the best idea. I would like to see more different maps on osm.org and to make the standard style look better in the starting configuration when newcomers visit the site. Better here means better cartography and better representation of what OSM is about. This is challenging though which deters many people from engaging in serious work in that field. Creating a starting page that well represents the OSM community in its diversity would be very hard to do with a non map/maps based design. The likeliness that ultimately such a design caters primarily certain special interests - if for no other reason then because it would likely be designed in English and then translated and thereby transport a British/American cultural preference - is very high and very difficult to avoid. Note a map based starting page does not mean other content is not offered on it. Rethinking what further content and functions are directly accessible from the starting page makes a lot of sense. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-de] Bericht aus dem OSMF-Advisory-Board
Hallo zusammen, ich hab im Vorlauf auf die FOSSGIS-Jahres-Hauptversammlung nächste Woche mal eine Art Tätigkeitsbericht zu meiner Arbeit im letzten Jahr als Vertreter des FOSSGIS im Advisory Board der OSMF geschrieben. Findet Ihr hier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/imagico/diary/47917 -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
On Friday 01 March 2019, Tomas Straupis wrote: > I, being a mapper in the first place, do not put OSM contribution > visible by default on webmaps I create (only after pressing data > source link), because when you have more than one data source, it is > not practical to show that much info. This discussion has been done plenty of times in the past. Short version: Once you have a map that makes use of several different data sources with similar intensity which are all created by open volunteer communities like OSM from scratch we could talk about appropriate ways of attribution - but only for specific real world situations, not as an abstract "what if" scenario. As long as data sources you use have been produced by people who got paid for their work (through either taxpayer money or private investments) the discussion is moot - that is not the same league, that isn't even the same sport. You give first rate attribution to OSM and second rate attribution to everything else. Been there, done that, not a problem: http://maps.imagico.de/#map=3/82.576/19.421=en=topo=arctic=0 -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
On Friday 01 March 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > > What OSMF activity since the license change on this front, in > > particular with the community guidelines, has tried to do is to > > pave over this conflict by interpreting the ODbL as leniently as > > possible without this resulting in gross inconsistencies. And in a > > way it is understandable if coporate data users use this as a basis > > to try to take this a step further. > > ... > > I would actually dispute the characterisation, there are two key > motivations behind the guidance we've given: I should probably not have suggested that everyone involved was consciously aware of the context i described. None the less - i talked to many people over the years involved in the OSMF on these matters (board and working groups) and one thing that was communicated consistently is that satisfying different, also contradicting, political and economic interests and the political viability of certain interpretations of the license within the power structure in the OSMF at the moment (where throughout this time corporate interests always had a significant voice) was a significant point of consideration in many cases. As said my problem with that is not that this happened, it is that this was a superficial measure and it did not bring us towards an agreement in the community if hard attribution and share-alike requirements should be a fundamental part of the social contract that shapes and defines the OSM community. > There are no guidelines that impact or weaken the application of the > ODbL wrt attribution of OSM, nor are is there any weakening of how > the ODbL applies to actual OSM data or derivatives. As you are aware what the community guidelines so far say about attribution is not that much, most of them is about share-alike. The most relevant document for attribution so far is the license and legal FAQ which IIRC predates the community guidelines. For share-alike and the community guidelines my characterization as "interpreting the ODbL as leniently as possible without this resulting in gross inconsistencies" does seem a correct characterization. And i do not necessarily disagree with that, my problem is more the inconsistencies i see in some of the interpretations which i have pointed out in discussion on several occasions - like https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2018-January/thread.html#8648 My hope is that future new guidelines as well as refinements of existing ones take such lessons learned into account and put the viability of what i called "the social contract among mappers and between mappers and data users" above other goals. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
On Friday 01 March 2019, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > But the attribution font is so tiny that is is barely noticeable. > There is attribution, but it is debatable whether using a tiny font > size makes the attribution improper or ridiculous. No, that is not debatable and neither is the second rate attribution Richard mentioned that many corporate data users use. If we collectively as a community want to be taken seriously by data users we have to stop negotiating with them about our license. We have to communicate clearly what we require data users to do. If there is a majority in the community who think that the ODbL is just a pro forma thing and that we are so happy about anyone using the data that we don't dare voicing any requirements beyond the level of a "pretty please" that is fine. I don't have the impression though that is actually the case and if it was that would be more or less "suicide out of fear of death". This is what can and should be debated - not what level of weaseling around the ODbL is still acceptable. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
On Friday 01 March 2019, Nuno Caldeira wrote: > [...] > > Good examples of attribution[...] Note the ODbL requires attribution of the database creator (OpenStreetMap contributors) and explaining that the data is available under the ODbL. The Copyright page says this can be done by linking to it - but in return this also means if you don't link you have to mention the license as well - just like you'd need to do in a print application. Not all of your 'good' examples do this. > [...] > > European Commission - credits OSM and other sources Since you mention the EU commission i cannot help pointing out that the EU commission is also responsible for one of the most ridiculous cases of inproper attribution i have seen so far: https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/ -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
I very much agree. In particular i have been pointing out the insulting and disrespectful nature of second rate attributions - that is people producing other attributions (most frequently for themselves) significantly more prominently or accessible than for OSM. There are of course corporate interests who try to milk OSM for all it's worth while maximizing their short term ROI and not giving back any more than they absolutely have to. That is natural and expected but it is up to us to define what "they absolutely have to". If we have and express a clear view on what we require in terms of attribution and we are willing to actually demand this from data users this would not be an issue. This ultimately is an economic problem and not a legal problem. This however leads me to what i perceive to be the real problem here. The OSM community does not really speak with one voice on this matter even if you exclude the corporate interests in your analysis. During the license change discussion it became clear that there is a significant fraction of the OSM community who would have preferred it if OSM had adopted a CC0 or similar license without either share-alike or a hard attribution requirement. It has been argued many times that this would not have been a wise decision and that OSM would not be anywhere near where it is today without a license requiring share-alike and attribution. The fraction of the OSM community who dislike the share-alike and attribution requirements is much smaller today than it was right after the license change probably. There are quite a few prominent community members who have expressed they changed their opinion on this for example. But we also have quite a few people who are still convinced that OSM would be better off with a more liberal license and who would gladly change it if there was a majority for it and who in the meantime would be in favour of interpreting the attribution and share-alike requirements as weakly as possible. This sub-surface schism in the OSM community, which is of course further nutured by corporate interests, is IMO the real problem and you could see the inproper attribution from data users as merely a symptom of this. What OSMF activity since the license change on this front, in particular with the community guidelines, has tried to do is to pave over this conflict by interpreting the ODbL as leniently as possible without this resulting in gross inconsistencies. And in a way it is understandable if coporate data users use this as a basis to try to take this a step further. The way to solve this would IMO be for the OSM community to actually in substance accept the idea of the ODbL and the social contract among mappers and between mappers and data users it imples as a core component of the constitution of the project. So far i think this can only be said for the fundamental idea of open data in general but not for the idea of hard attribution and share-alike requirements. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot edits on the OSM wiki
On Monday 25 February 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > But: If you engage in the collaborative writing of a document with > others, and one of them decides to replace all occurrences of "Open > Source Software" with "Free and Open Source Software" (for example), > by using a search-and-replace mechanism in the chosen editing > platform, would you also object to that? I would not think very highly of someone who makes such a change on the OSM wiki (in a "don't you have anything better to do" kind of way) and if someone does this sequentially on a large number of pages i would probably ask them to stop. > And then further, assuming your answer is "well that's ok if the edit > makes sense", what if Mediawiki had a global search-and-replace > function, where you click on a button, and fill in a form. Would this > also make you disengage from the platform altogehter? For the purpose of collaborative documentation and communication in OSM and without any possibility to opt out of the global search-and-replace for contributors: Yes. > From there, it's only a small step to "bot edits", they're basically > nothing else than a global search-and-replace, it's just the way the > Mediawiki software is built that people use the "bot API" for things > like this. I know. Mediawiki is not primarily written for use as the basis of the OSM wiki so obviously not every function it offers makes sense in that context. > You mention a potential "two class system" but frankly, does this not > already exist, with one class being those who understand and use > templates to the full extent of their capabilities, and the other > class not daring to touch them? [...] I see templates rather critically because they can - as you said - be used for very similar things as bot, by editing a template you can mechanically modify all the pages that make use of the template. And widely used templates (in particular for example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:ValueDescription) have been used in this fashion in the past. Where templates have a useful purpose on the OSM wiki are IMO three things * providing some standardized formatting for things (like tag and key templates) * providing a mechanism and some verification to record structured data on the wiki which is otherwise without a firm structure. * integrating external sources of information in the wiki (like taginfo stuff). The important thing is to keep these clearly separated, limit use of templates to these things and not allow sneaking in of mechanisms of algorithmic control of human contributions into it. But the fundamental difference is that templates can only be used to manipulate content within a template. So i can when contributing to the wiki opt out of templates by deliberately contributing outside of templates only. > I think it would benefit the wiki if we stopped allowing everyone to > pursue their personal hobby horses - wit recent motorcycle stuff, or > wikidata features added, or a lot of verdy_p's work - and request > that more discussion happens before edits are made. Yes, in a lot of ways the wiki is currently not serving its purpose very well because it is often used to pursue personal interests on their own and not for what it is primarily meant for, namely for documenting and communicating about mapping in OSM. But i don't think that bots could in any way help with this problem, on the contrary, they create additional means with extended power for people to pursue their personal interests and would likely aggrevate the problem rather than solving it. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot edits on the OSM wiki
On Monday 25 February 2019, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > > If that is an essential concern for you, I have bad news about the > Openstreetmap database... > > Robots are not sovereign entities: they are puppets to humans and > therefore bound to human rules, to which supplementary restrictions > are added to compensate for their large-scale effect. Therefore, the > authors of automation have greater power to realize their vision - > but they remain under political control... Works pretty fine for our > map, doesn't it ? Sigh. I suppose that it was inevitable that someone would equate the OSM database with the OSM wiki in this discussion. A lot could be said about the differences here but i hope we can simplify this to 'apples and peaches' and therefore not a meaningful comparison. Needless to say that a bot edit on the OSM database comparable to the one on the wiki that motivated me to start this thread would very likely never have found approval from the community. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bot edits on the OSM wiki
On Monday 25 February 2019, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > For the benefit of people who don't know the background, it's worth > mentioning that these bot edits did not distort the actual meaning of > the wiki pages, but were purely performing a trivial technical > maintenance task. Yes, the defense of these edits based on their merit was expected. I am completely fine with you or others approving bot edits based on this argument. But i also pointed out already that for me this is not a significant argument in this case. I will simply not engage in cooperative writing of documentation and communication if i have to accept that bots are free to edit what i wrote - even if that is just fixing obvious typos or similar things. If there is need for a platform for bot curated content in OSM that should be separated from where humans engage in cooperative writing and communication. I am also completely at ease if the majority of the OSM community wants to embrace bots on the OSM wiki. It would just not be a platform for me any more then. There are several ethical concerns that motivate me here - the one that is easiest to understand is probably that allowing bots would create a two class system within the OSM community on the wiki - those who are able to develop and run bots would form a ruling class while the rest would be subject to this rule whether they agree with it or not. And for this to happen bots would not need to be used on a regular basis, the mere possibility of this creates the hierarchy between those who can and those who cannot. Now the question if aristocratic governance would be beneficial for the OSM wiki compared to the anarchy we currently have more or less is something i would be open to discuss. But basing membership in the aristocratic class on the technical ability to develop and run bots is quite obviously a bad idea. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Bot edits on the OSM wiki
Yesterday was the first time (that i am ware of at least) a bot has edited an OSM wiki page on my watchlist - with today and yesterday combined 17 edits of tag and key pages spamming my watchlist feed. I mainly wanted to make everyone who is not active on the wiki aware of this. Should bots continue to make edits on the OSM wiki that would for me mean the end of it as a platform of cooperation and communication. To me bots messing with the content of communication on a platform like this makes it fundamentally unsuitable as a means for communication between human beings in a community project like OSM. Note this has nothing to do with the merits of the edits themselves. It is a fundamental ethical question for me. Even for a bot that passes a Turing test with flying colors my position would remain the same. I know that to some this likely seems a fairly radical attitude - the popularity of platforms like facebook and twitter where algorithms interfere with human communication extensively is testimony to the fact that a lot of people don't have the same concern. I am aware of this but my position none the less remains as described. Possible solutions to the problem would IMO be: * banning bots from the OSM wiki. That would be the cleanest and most sensible solution IMO. * allowing human wiki users to opt out of interacting with bots (meaning that bots would be disallowed from editing pages that have been previously edited by users that have opted out). * create a bot free fork of the OSM wiki and maintain the original OSM wiki as a zone where bots are allowed. * create some other new platform of communication and cooperative documentation writing as alternative to the wiki where bots are banned. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] How are you dealing with projects not following Organized Editing Guidelines?
On Saturday 09 February 2019, Erwin Olario wrote: > [...] > > In our community in the Philippines, we've always encouraged these > project organizers (especially if we know people involve in them) to > document their efforts on the Wiki in the past, and the OEG > definitely expanded what we should expect from them. Compliance, > however, is another matter. If you want to use the OEG as a basis of interaction with organized actors - and i want to emphasize you don't have to, the OEG are binding for organized actors but not for local communities - the suggested approach would probably be: * attempt contacting those making the edits (easiest via changeset comment) telling them that you as the local community insist they conform with the OEG. * if they don't react or don't react in substance, for example by adding some pro-forma bullshit documentation and essentially sabotaging the community (those who i have in mind with that will know i am talking about them) you escalate the matter to the DWG. If what you want them to do is not specifically required in the OEG, you could also take a more direct approach independent of the OEG by telling them directly what you require them to do (use locally established tagging, meet your local quality standards, not use outdated data sources, coordinate with local activities or similar things) - either individually for their case or in the form of a local set of rules for organized activities. And if they don't comply you enforce those requirements by reverting the edits made in violation of it. The important thing about this approach is to have agreement on it in the local community. You should not do this as an individual mapper but as a collective. And in either case keep in mind you are the guardians of your local map, it is both your right and your duty to safeguard the quality and integrity of the map in your area. The key here is to be friendly but resolute - making clear that this is not a formality but that they have to abide by the standards of the local community. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendered boundary not present in data
You could try touching (i.e. creating a new version of) both of the boundary relations involved - in this case: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/189416 -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Looking for phot of mapping mappers
On Tuesday 22 January 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I am looking for a good photo of mappers mapping during survey. It > turns to be surprisingly hard. Some time ago I collected a few links in: https://github.com/osmfoundation/welcome-mat/issues/16#issuecomment-406852802 I like in particular https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Guagua_ESSC-OSMPH_Training_field_survey.jpg -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
On Thursday 17 January 2019, Guillaume Rischard wrote: > > What we mean is that we’ll intervene for edits the community has > issues with, and that we will not intervene for merely not following > the guidelines. Note the guidelines themselves claim that they represent "consensus". Without opening the discussion on whether this is actually the case or not i would like to point out that you can't have it both ways. You cannot at the same time say: "These are standards of work on which there is broad agreement they should be followed" and also say they only need to be followed if there is someone positively insisting on them being followed. Now i know this is not what you said, you were only speaking of enforcement by the DWG. But you will see that organized actors will equate "not enforced" with "not binding" and a set of rules those for whom the rules are made for do not feel bound by cannot make a plausible claim to represent consensus. You can also look at it from a different perspective: Quite a lot of people have expressed the need to in the future evaluate if the Organised Editing Guidelines are working. And the only basis for such evaluation could be to measure if they are being followed. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
Just saw Dorothea has now created a page for the Guidelines instead of a PDF: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines That is much better. Thanks. Further suggestion: Add a small note there that unofficial translations are available on the OSM wiki (Spanish and French so far). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
On Monday 14 January 2019, Martijn van Exel wrote: > I am happy to see that the official version has now been published on > the OSMF web site. I changed > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines > accordingly. Seriously? This is the worst variant possible - link to a PDF stored somewhere on the OSMF wiki. So if i look for the guidelines i find this page, need to download and open a PDF where i find a link back to the OSM wiki for the organized editing activities documentation. And you can't link to individual sections of the document and without background knowledge about the wiki you don't have an edit history of the document where you can look how it changed over time. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
On Thursday 10 January 2019, Paul Norman wrote: > > We just discussed this internally, the reason we've got them on the > publicly editable wiki even though it's a policy is the number of > links to/from the page make it more useful on the this wiki instead > of the OSMF one. I have no objections to that but i think you should either indicate that the page with the guideline should not be edited by anyone except OSMF board or DWG or mention that this version is being worked on continuously by the community and the authoritive version is to be found elsewhere. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
On Thursday 10 January 2019, Guillaume Rischard wrote: > The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised > Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines Since it is on the OSM wiki and there is no statement indicating otherwise does this mean we can start improving the guidelines now? ;-) By the way the examples are good work, i like them much better than the guidelines themselves. > Internally, we looked back at past problematic edits. We carefully > wrote the guidelines and defined the scope to prevent those problems > without creating loopholes or negative incentives like encouraging > salami tactics. We will see - you know i have doubts about this and i am particularly on the lookout for the first case of "let me through, it's an emergency". -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Help with way forward with Grab
On Monday 07 January 2019, Mishari Muqbil wrote: > > 1. What's a fair expectation from such a mapping team? You can and should expect at least the same level of diligence and cooperation as you can expect from an individual hobby mapper. If an individual mapper maps things incorrectly in a systematic way and does not change this even after being urged to do so by fellow mappers they will get blocked and their edits reverted. Same should apply for organizations. What you can expect from an organization doing routine organized mapping in addition is in particular that (a) there are no beginners without training involved making beginners' mistakes but that they make sure all mappers involved have the qualification to perform the mapping tasks in good quality and (b) that the results of communication with the community propagate within the organization so you don't have to deal with every mapper involved separately when it comes to overall problems. > 2. Thailand's mapping community is small and it would be impossible > for us to go through all 7,000 edits made and set it right. I've > identified at least one of the issues (1-3) in roughly 1 out of 4 > changesets made by Grab/Global Logic in my neighborhood in Central > Bangkok and I would be unable to give feedback on any issues outside > of this zone, likely the same with other mappers. I think when you deal with large volume organized activities it is fair if mappers use sample tests to assess the quality of mapping and extrapolate to the whole. The burden of proof that other parts of the mapping are better quality than the samples evaluated lies with the organization. > 2.2 What would even constitute as a fix by Grab? Should we ask them > to do something like fixme=verify_on_ground on the new entries so > that it can be ignored by the routing until verified? No - if you see a significant fraction of what they map is verifiably incorrect they need to change their approach - either fixing the errors, if necessary by going out there and checking things locally or by removing the data that is faulty. > 3. It's been difficult to agree with the mapping team on a standard. It is important for you to keep in mind that you as the local hobby mappers are the guardians of the data quality in your area. Ultimately the only real pressure you can put on organizations to ensure that is of course reverting their edits. So if you find they are not able or willing to make sure what they map satisfies the standards of quality of the local community you only have two options: Make clear that their edits will be reverted in bulk if they don't meet your quality standards (and if necessary revert them) or adjust your quality standards to theirs. I know this might be a difficult choice if they also make a lot of useful edits. You need to decide if that is worth more than the damage from the mapping errors. But if you make clear the local community will revert their edits if they don't substantially improve their quality that will likely at least bring some movement into things. Apart from that what i in general like to suggest to local communities dealing with organized remote activities is to put pressure on them to hire locals instead of people in some distant country to perform mapping tasks. First this is good for your local economy and second people mapping their local environment have a higher inherent incentive and ability to map in good quality than remote mappers mapping in a country they don't know first hand. What i also would suggest is asking your forum moderator to block collective accounts from organizations. The OSM communication channels are for individual humans to communicate. They may use pseudonyms but i would not accept communication with a collective entity behind which an arbitrary number of people might hide. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Hat der Renderer Probleme?
On Friday 04 January 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Ich hatte bei der Weihnachts-Druck-Aktion neulich ein bisschen das > Problem, dass der Carto-Stil nicht richtig mit dem Scale-Faktor > zusammen arbeitet. Die Entscheidung, ab wann Fontgrößen für Flächen > erhöht werden sollen, scheint unabhängig vom Scalefaktor getroffen zu > werden. Diese Entscheidungen werden auf Grundlage von way_area/NULLIF(!pixel_width!::real*!pixel_height!::real,0) gefällt. Es wäre eigentlich sinnvoll, statt der Normalisierung mittels !pixel_width!/!pixel_height! mit !scale_denominator! zu arbeiten. Müsste nur mal jemand umrechnen. Siehe auch: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2524 -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Grab using OSM Data for route preview
On Saturday 22 December 2018, Simon Poole wrote: > > But even with new material it needs to be clear that the purpose of > the guidelines is to outline "safe" ways to provide appropriate > attribution and not to be an exhaustive list of all ways to so so. Yes, but second rate attribution is such a clear cut case that it could and should be covered. In particular since the wording of the OdbL is quite clear in attribution being not a technical formality but a matter of actual de facto user experience. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Feature Proposal - Abstimmung von "Empfehlung zur Verwendung von Multipolygonen"
On Wednesday 19 December 2018, Falk Zscheile wrote: > > Es wird immer so sein, dass es Punkte gibt, die einem persönlich > nicht gefallen oder die man gern anders hätte. Ein Abstimmungsprozess > ist durch das Gesamtpaket, das zur Abstimmung steht, auch immer eine > Abstraktion von der eigenen Auffassung. Genau aus diesem Grund ist es > auch immer einfach, über Politik zu schimpfen. Hier erleben wir am > eigenen Leib, wie schwierig es ist, Kompromisse zu finden, die eine > möglichst breite Zustimmung erfahren. Ich kann hier nur für mich selbst sprechen, ich hab aber klar gesagt, dass es mir hier nicht um irgendwelche inhaltlichen Änderungswünsche geht, sondern um eine klare und für jeden verständliche Formulierung, was da eigentlich konkret inhaltlich empfohlen wird. Und das Argument, dass man keine Perfektion fordern sollte, lasse ich nicht gelten. Um eine allgemeinverständliche und eindeutige Formulierung ohne inhaltsleere Floskeln zu bitten ist alles andere als Perfektionsstreben. Was das Abstimmungsverfahren angeht - der eigentliche Sinn der Abstimmung bei Proposals ist, die Entstehung eines Konsenses formal zu bestätigen. Wenn man das Ganze als Mehrheitsentscheidung (mit 74% statt 50% Mehrheit) auffasst, dann ist das halt kein Konsens. Das kann man gut oder schlecht finden, das ändert aber nichts an den Tatsachen. Wenn jetzt die Entwickler des Proposals auf meine Hinweise hin gesagt hätten: Wir haben uns das angeschaut und aus diesem und jenem Grund lässt sich das unserer Ansicht nach nicht gut klarer und besser nachvollziehbar formulieren - oder: Wir kriegen das nicht wirklich klarer hin, kann uns da jemand bei der Ausformulierung ein bisschen helfen. Dann wär das alles aus meiner Sicht kein großes Problem. Ob die Abstimmung jetzt zu Ende geführt wird oder nicht, formal erfolgreich ist oder nicht - das halte ich nicht für wichtig. Wichtig wäre für mich, dass die ganze Sache damit nicht beendet ist, sondern die Beteiligten aus der Erfahrung lernen und wir am Ende auf irgendeinem Weg zu einer soliden, für jedermann verständlichen Handreichung zum Mappen von Flächen/zur Verwendung von Multipolygonen kommen, die dem Konsens der lokalen Community in Deutschland entspricht. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Feature Proposal - Abstimmung von "Empfehlung zur Verwendung von Multipolygonen"
Ich muss sagen, dass ich ziemlich enttäuscht davon bin, dass mein zweimaliger Hinweis hier (in Antwort auf Nakaner vom 23.11. und in Antwort auf Tigerfell vom 27.11.) hinsichtlich der Nachvollziehbarkeit und Klarheit der Regeln insbesondere für neue Mapper kein Gehör fand. Unabhängig vom Abstimmungs-Ergebnis wird da so kein Community-Konsens draus, wenn selbst so offensichtliche und begründete Vorschläge mit keinerlei Potential für inhaltliche Konflikte keine Berücksichtigung finden. Und wenn dann Frederiks Einwände in der Abstimmung, die zum Teil in eine ganz ähnliche Richtung gehen, damit entgegnet werden, dass man sie doch früher hätte einbringen sollen (Duh! Siehe oben) dann deutet das für mich ein bisschen darauf hin, dass hier manche mehr die homogenen Ansichten einer kleinen Gruppe in die Welt exportieren wollen, als zu einem breiten Konsens zu kommen, den alle verstehen und den die allermeisten unterstützen können. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Grab using OSM Data for route preview
On Wednesday 19 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > bist Du nicht im advisory board? Hast Du mind 1 Eur bezahlt? > Kommt mir unwahrscheinlich vor ;-) Oder bringe ich da was > durcheinander? I am on the AB because the FOSSGIS sent me there (and neither i not the FOSSGIS paid anything for that). If i wanted to be there on my own accord i would have to pay EUR 10k as well. And to my knowledge no one ever accused the FOSSGIS or any other OSMF local chapter for insufficient attribution. :-) Glad to hear the LWG is working on clearer attribution guidelines - please make sure to clearly condemn second rate attribution like on: https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2016-07/china-hat-keinen-gebietsanspruch-auf-inseln-im-suedchinesischen-meer -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence for Sentinel Satellite images
On Monday 17 December 2018, Sérgio V. wrote: > So I should understand this as Copernicus Sentinel Data confirmed for > use in OSM, since it is officially in the list of data contributors. > (BTW, sorry for typo in title, "License") There is no such thing as official approval or confirmation in OSM but there is no reason to assume there to be any legal issues. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence for Sentinel Satellite images
On Monday 17 December 2018, Sérgio V. wrote: > Hi, > please, could the OSM Data or License Working Group confirm if: This has been discussed before, see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#EU_Copernicus_.28GMES.29_data https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2016-January/thread.html#8353 Sentinel-2 data is being widely used by mappers meanwhile - in particular the Russian community is mapping a lot based on this. Essentially for almost any armchair mapping activities recent optical open data imagery - either Sentinel-2 or Landsat - will provide you with additional information that is useful for improving the accuracy and reliability of mapping. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects
On Saturday 15 December 2018, Colin Smale wrote: > "without access to the same sources" ... what if there is only one > source of truth? With these non-observable items like admin > boundaries that is often the case. Does "independent verifiability" > now mean that there must be at least two sources that agree before > this criterion is fulfilled? What qualifies as a source, anyway? If > two people look at the same tree, is that one source or two? Such > observations are always ephemeral anyway. Independent verifiability means exactly what it says - that anyone needs to be able to independently verify if a statement is true or false based on observations of the geographic reality. If you think about it in terms of sources you are either on a completely wrong track in terms of understanding the fundamental concept of verifiability or you are specifically thinking about things outside the domain of verifiable statements. Verifiability of administrative boundaries varies but most national (admin_level=2) land boundaries are verifiable. > The link to your blog was useful, thanks. I will read through it all > later, but my immediate reaction was that it is not a good idea to > have parallel fora, especially when discussing something as > fundamental as this. Either we do it here on the ML, or on your blog > post, or on the OSM wiki; but please, not in three places at once. The blog post was written before this discussion started here. I included the link to not unecessarily have to repeat myself in the discussion. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects
On Saturday 15 December 2018, Colin Smale wrote: > Please choose your words more carefully. Sounds like [...] I meant exactly what i wrote here. For more details: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/ -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects
On Saturday 15 December 2018, Colin Smale wrote: > > The whole point of the "verifiability" and "ground truth" > > principles is so as _not_ to have to rely on documents. > > First time I have heard that as a (documented) rationale behind > "ground truth". Independent verifiability, i.e. that you can verify statements through independent observation without access to the same sources is and has always been the core of verifiability in OSM. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Which would mean the end of OSM verifiability as intersubjective > > verifiability based on observations in the real world in favor of > > Wikipedia verifiability based on 'reliable sources'. > > no, you could ask a diplomat of a country (or other parts of their > government) whom they recognize, or look up their public statements, > these are not secondary sources like wikipedia seems to prefer (I > think), but it would be verifiable (repeatable) in the real world. No, OSM verifiability means *independent* verifiability. If verifying a statement depends on a singular authority that is not compatible with the concept of OpenStreetMap's independent, intersubjective verifiability. Same as restaurant star ratings etc. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a > country/border, as it seems the most objective representation. Which would mean the end of OSM verifiability as intersubjective verifiability based on observations in the real world in favor of Wikipedia verifiability based on 'reliable sources'. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects
On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Also, I think you are too fast in discounting the verifiability of > boundaries. Even in the absence of actual marked lines, fences, or > walls, you will often find the "reflections" that you speak of if you > look a bit closer: Which government do I pay my taxes to? Which > police department is responsible for my area? Which local authority > do I get my food stamps from, whatever. Indeed. Note i have explained to Tomas in length the meaning of the concept of verifiability for not directly physically manifested statements in http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/#comments Using the example of a bus stop without signs or shelter i wrote: > A bus stop, even one without a sign or shelter, can be verified by > observing that a bus regularly stops at the location. There is > nothing in the concept of independent verifiability that limits its > application to physical objects. > > Ultimately most verifiable cultural geography features are related to > human activities and can be verified by either observing these human > activities themselves or physical effects of these activities. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
On Monday 10 December 2018, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks. Transparency at work... Like Tom i read this such as that you have decided on a desired result but were not yet able to engineer a consistent reality around it. Oh, the irony of this is just priceless. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Feature Proposal - RFC - Empfehlung zur Verwendung von Multipolygonen
On Tuesday 27 November 2018, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > Ich denke insbesondere, dass das Konzept von Punkt 2 und 3 (Regel > > und Ausnahme) sehr verwirrend sein kann, denn es gibt in OSM > > relativ klare Konventionen, was für Arten von Geometrien geteilt > > werden dürfen und welche nicht. Diese Konventionen haben nur sehr > > begrenzt etwas mit "One feature, one OSM element" zu tun. Konkret > > hilft dem Mapper hier nur die Kenntnis der praktischen Konventionen > > weiter (zum Beipiel: Fließgewässer teilbar, Stehgewässer nicht > > teilbar). > > Aeh ja? Da gibt es Konventionen? Hat die jemand mal > runtergeschrieben? Zum Teil ja aber das verteilt sich auf viele verschiedene Wiki-Seiten. Im Wesentlichen sind das aber nicht festgeschriebene Konventionen. Wer jetzt denkt: Das ist aber blöd so unverbindlich und nicht schwarz auf weiß belegbar bitte immer bedenken: In OpenStreetMap mappen Leute aus allen Teilen der Welt, die nur sehr begrenzt verbal miteinander kommunizieren können. Da geht es also im Grunde nicht um mündlich oder schriftlich, sondern um Arbeitsweisen, die durch Beobachtung und Nachahmung tradiert werden. Also vom rituellen Tanz wirklich nicht so weit entfernt. Und im Grunde egalitärer als wenn wir jetzt auf Englisch oder Deutsch irgendeine Regel formulieren und dann erwarten, dass diese befolgt wird egal ob Leute sie lesen können oder nicht. Aber wie schon gesagt ist es sehr nützlich, solche tradierten Konventionen auch mal aufzuschreiben - selbst wenn so eine Ausformulierung natürlich zwangsläufig eine subjektive Wahrnehmung wiederspiegelt. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Feature Proposal - RFC - Empfehlung zur Verwendung von Multipolygonen
On Monday 26 November 2018, Tigerfell wrote: > > ich würde gern auf ein Proposal aufmerksam machen, welches sich mit > der Verwendung von Multipolygonen beschäftigt. Dieses folgt im > Wesentlichen der Diskussion im Forum > (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64439 > <https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64439>). Das > Proposal: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/Empfehlung_z >ur_Verwendung_von_Multipolygonen > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Proposed_features/Empfehlung_ >zur_Verwendung_von_Multipolygonen> Ich möchte hier noch mal auf die Empfehlungen in meiner Antwort auf Nakaner hinweisen hinsichtlich der Nachvollziehbarkeit und Klarheit der Regeln insbesondere für neue Mapper. Ich denke insbesondere, dass das Konzept von Punkt 2 und 3 (Regel und Ausnahme) sehr verwirrend sein kann, denn es gibt in OSM relativ klare Konventionen, was für Arten von Geometrien geteilt werden dürfen und welche nicht. Diese Konventionen haben nur sehr begrenzt etwas mit "One feature, one OSM element" zu tun. Konkret hilft dem Mapper hier nur die Kenntnis der praktischen Konventionen weiter (zum Beipiel: Fließgewässer teilbar, Stehgewässer nicht teilbar). Persönlich hielte ich eine Dokumentation dieser Konventionen mit den dabei vorhandenen Nuancen und unterschiedlichen lokalen Praktiken für einen Punkt, der vor dem Punkt kommen sollte zu empfehlen, wie denn diese beiden Fälle dann idealerweise praktisch gemappt werden sollten. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Einführung von Regeln für die Verwendung von Relationen mit type=multipolygon
Erstmal ohne die Sache inhaltlich zu betrachten - welcher Art sollen denn diese Regeln sein? Vorschläge, wie man bestimmte Dinge am besten mappt kann ja im Grunde jeder verfassen (und das sollte eigentlich viel öfter gemacht werden als es de facto der Fall ist). Aber ich habe den Eindruck, dass Du hier eine darüber hinaus gehende Wirkung beabsichtigst. Wäre gut, das klar zu stellen. Du deutest die Idee eines Abstimmungs-Vorganges an - sowas wäre auch international bis jetzt ohne Vorbild so dass völlig unklar ist wie Du dir das vorstellst. Inhaltlich muss ich nach kurzem Überfliegen sagen, dass ich ziemliche Schwierigkeiten habe, die Bedeutung der Regeln nachzuvollziehen - sowohl durch die sehr häufige Verwendung von vagen, undefinierten Begriffen als auch durch die fehlende innere Logik. Das sieht mehr nach einer Sammlung von Ideen aus als nach einem zusammenhängendem Konzept. Vielleicht als Ratschlag für die Verfasser dieser Vorschläge: Versucht das einfach so zu formulieren, dass für Norbert Neumapper klar ist, was ihr von ihm möchtet - ohne sich Gedanken über die genaue Bedeutung von Wörtern wie 'nötig' und 'überschaubar', Wortneuschöpfungen wie 'MP-Teppiche' oder pseudo-englische Begriffe wie 'Outer-Way' oder 'Inner-Ringe' zu machen. Frederiks Empfehlungen zur Flächenverklebung sind da ein gutes Lehrbeispiel, wie man sowas kurz, präzise und logisch stringent formuliert. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?
On Wednesday 21 November 2018, Ilya Zverev wrote: > [...] > > To conclude, if we remove Kafia Kingi from the South Sudan relation, > there will be no notable violations to the 2013 agreement on our map > — though only by means of having one country overlap another. I am inclined to concur. For completeness: There are also cases where this kind of situation is solved with a gap instead of an overlap - like Hans Island: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2617574 (although an overlap might be a more accurate representation of the de facto control in this specific case) And there are of course also cases where the overlap represents an undisputed situation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3659532 -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?
On Tuesday 20 November 2018, Andy Townsend wrote: > >Do you know a country which has a fluctuating representation of > > its borders say in schoolbooks? > > In my lifetime, lots - [...] Back in the days when i was at school typical German school maps knew at least four different types of national boundaries. You can find the map key for them from the most common West German school atlas here: http://www.imagico.de/files/diercke_cold_war_boundaries.jpg Needless to say this mess had luckily vanished by the time i graduated. And no - it would not make sense to represent this in OSM if that was still the situation today. OpenStreetMap is not Wikipedia. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?
On Tuesday 20 November 2018, Tomas Straupis wrote: > > But it would eliminate all border DISPUTES and ELIMINATE all this > political crap out of OSM discussions. Yes, sure, by allowing every mapper to map his or her specific subjective desire how the reality should look like we could eliminate all disputes. We would also eliminate any meaning of OSM data as a representation of a verifiably observable geographic reality. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?
On Tuesday 20 November 2018, Tomas Straupis wrote: > > How should we decide which way to map disputed borders?! > > As it was mapped a week ago: BOTH ways (included in BOTH country > polygons). This is not a workable approach as an universal rule. The volume of boundary relation overlap world wide would be enormeous. You would have a significant number of boundaries that have no practical meaning today. Some countries have pretty excessive claims. Formally Taiwan (the ROC) claims all of the PRC for example. It is also completely non-verifiable (anyone can claim something is theirs). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Erinnerung an den fristgerechten OSMF-Beitritt für die OSMF-Vorstandswahl
On Tuesday 13 November 2018, Michael Reichert wrote: > [...] > > Falls jemand gute Kenntnisse in einer anderen europäischen Sprache > als Deutsch, Englisch oder Französisch hat, ist er gerne eingeladen, > deren Community an die Wahl zu erinnern und für eine angemessene > Präsenz der Europäer in der OSMF zu sorgen. Konkret wären hier insbesondere Russisch, Spanisch und Polnisch zu nennen - alles Länder die gemessen an der Größe der lokalen Mapper-Community in der OSMF massiv unterrepräsentiert sind. Selbst wenn Ihr nur rudimentär die jeweilige Sprache beherrscht einfach mal einen kurzen Hinweis auf den entsprechenden Kanälen posten ist schon eine Menge Wert. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[Talk-de] Fragen an OSMF-Vorstands-Kandidaten
Hallo zusammen, wie ja die meisten schon mitbekommen haben dürften sind demnächst OSMF-Vorstands-Wahlen und dieses Jahr wird die Befragung der Kandidaten für den Vorstand etwas anders gehandhabt als die letzten Jahre. Die Fragen werden unter https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/AGM18/Election_to_Board gesammelt und dann von Michael Collinson, der als 'facilitator' agiert, zusammengefasst und den Kandidaten geschickt, die diese dann parallel und unabhängig voneinander beantworten und ihre Antworten werden dann gesammelt und gemeinsam veröffentlicht. Da die Fragen traditionell alle auf Englisch sind wollte ich hier anbieten, dass wer Fragen auf Deutsch an die Kandidaten hat sie hier stellen kann - ich würde dann versuchen diese sinngemäß zu übersetzen und dort zu stellen. Durch das indirekte Format der Befragung ist dies diesmal etwas einfacher da man sich nicht so Sorgen um Redundanz in den Fragen machen muss, da diese sowieso noch mal durchgeschaut und ggf. zusammengefasst werden. Trotzdem macht es natürlich Sinn zu schauen, ob die Frage für die man sich interessiert sinngemäß schon jemand gestellt hat. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Nicht alle CoC sind schlect! Re: Werdet Mitglied in der OSM Foundation!
On Saturday 03 November 2018, Richard wrote: > > > > Die Arbeitshypothese ist, dass innerhalb von Gemeinschaften > > vielleicht einige (in der Regel diejenigen, die nicht negativ von > > Machtungleichgewichten betroffen sind) der Ansicht sind, dass alle > > Beteiligten die gleichen Rechte haben – sich de facto aber nur > > bestimmte Gruppen auch die Durchsetzung dieser Rechte sichern. > > Reichlich kompliziert - glaubst Du im Ernst, daß das jemand lesen > will? Am allerwenigsten irgendwelche unbelehrbaren Trolle und > ideologischen Streithänsel. Na-na-na, Stefan darf hier gerne seine Sichtweise auf das Thema darlegen - egal wie kompliziert oder weit hergeholt diese ist und auch wenn da vielleicht die Sachargumente gegenüber Vorwürfen und Frustration ein bisschen kurz kommen. Eine große Bandbreite von Sichtweisen ist - auch wenn manchmal anstrengend - grundsätzlich erst einmal eine Bereicherung. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Werdet Mitglied in der OSM Foundation!
On Friday 02 November 2018, Mark Obrembalski wrote: > > So wie ich das neueste Vorstandsprotokoll verstehe, findet die DWG, > dass es besser ist, Sanktionen nur nach tatsächlich problematischen > Bearbeitungen zu verhängen und die Einhaltung der Richtlinien halt > nur bei der Entscheidung zu berücksichtigen, ob man nun > revertiert/sperrt oder lieber noch mit dem Mapper zu reden. Wenn das > die richtige Interpretation ist, finde ich das auch angemessen - wir > wollen ja wohl kaum jemanden nur wegen Formfehlern rauswerfen oder > revertieren, solange inhaltlich alles in Ordnung ist. Das Hauptproblem mit den neueren, 'weicheren' Entwürfen ist, dass vage, völlig von der Interpretation abhängige Regelungen ganz grundsätzlich völlig falsche Anreize schaffen, denn freundliche Leute, die bemüht sind im Interesse von OpenStreetMap zu handeln und den Wünschen der Mapper zu entsprechen werden benachteiligt, indem sie sich an eine strikte Interpretation der Regeln halten und die eher rücksichtslosen erhalten einen Wettbewerbsvorteil, wenn sie ihren Spielraum bis an die Grenzen der möglichen Interpretation ausdehnen. Die Sanktionsmöglichkeiten in allen Policy-Entwürfen beziehen sich nur auf Sanktionen gegen Organisationen als Ganzes - einzelne Mapper aus Organisationen unterliegen sowieso den ganz normalen Regeln für Benutzer-Sperren. Die ursprüngliche Idee hinter diesen zusätzlichen Sanktionsmöglichkeiten war, den Organisationen klar die Möglichkeit eines Totalschadens für sie vor Augen zu führen (eine Verbannung der gesamten Organisation vom Mappen in OSM) und so zu vermeiden, dass diese permanent ihre Grenzen austesten (was ziemlich nervig wäre). Eine solche Verbannung rein aufgrund von Verstößen gegen eine subjektive Interpretation der Regeln ist jedoch nicht realistisch und bei dem neuen weichen Entwurf objektiv gegen die Regeln zu verstoßen ist praktisch ohne größere Einschränkungen für ein Unternehmen vermeidbar. Mehr Kommentare und Diskussion (auf Englisch) zu dem zweiten DWG-Entwurf findet ihr unter: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-September/005299.html https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Stereo/diary/45132 -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Nicht alle CoC sind schlect! Re: Werdet Mitglied in der OSM Foundation!
On Thursday 01 November 2018, Stefan Kaufmann wrote: > > Das Problem mit vielen CoC-Fanatikern ist, dass sie sich jeglicher > > grundsätzlichen sachlichen Diskussion um das Thema verschließen und > > einfach das Dogma "es muss einen universellen CoC geben, dem sich > > alle im OSM-Projekt überall unterwerfen müssen" vor sich hertragen. > > Das kann man in vielen Diskussionen auf osmf-talk und anderswo > > demonstriert finden. Das ist im Grunde nicht nur kulturell > > imperialistisch, sondern hat auch klar Züge von religiösem > > Fanatismus und Faschismus. > > Also dieser Interpretation moechte mich angesichts real existierendem > Faschismus und seinen real existierenden Auswirkungen dann doch sehr > entschieden entgegenstellen. [...] Jeder kann das natürlich sehen wie er möchte - mich überzeugen würde jedoch nur ein inhaltiches Argument, welches die Existenz gemeinsamer Züge widerlegt. Die faschistischen Züge, die ich hier sehe, sind vor allem der totalitäre Anspruch und das dichotome Menschenbild - meist in Form einer Klassifikation von Menschen entweder als privilegiert oder marginalisiert, als Täter oder als Opfer mit unterschiedlichen grundsätzlichen Rechten. Es geht mir hier nicht um den Begriff, sondern um die Merkmale, die dahinter stehen. Vergleichen ist nicht das selbe wie gleich setzen. Und um das nochmal zu betonen - diese Beobachtung trifft nicht generell auf alle Ideen von Verhaltensregulierung zu. Eine offene Diskussion zur Frage von Verhaltens-Regeln und ihrer praktischen Ausgestaltung, die sich den praktischen und moralischen Herausforderungen in einem globalen und kulturell vielfältigen Projekt wie OpenStreetMap stellt, finde ich generell sehr interessant. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Nicht alle CoC sind schlect! Re: Werdet Mitglied in der OSM Foundation!
On Thursday 01 November 2018, Rory McCann wrote: > [...] > > Nicht alle CoC sind schlect, oder wie die Ubuntu/HOT-CoC. Das ist auch nicht das was Michael gesagt hat, insbesondere wenn er schreibt "Ich denke, dass Verhaltensregeln im Grunde kein Teufelszeug sind". Das Problem mit vielen CoC-Fanatikern ist, dass sie sich jeglicher grundsätzlichen sachlichen Diskussion um das Thema verschließen und einfach das Dogma "es muss einen universellen CoC geben, dem sich alle im OSM-Projekt überall unterwerfen müssen" vor sich hertragen. Das kann man in vielen Diskussionen auf osmf-talk und anderswo demonstriert finden. Das ist im Grunde nicht nur kulturell imperialistisch, sondern hat auch klar Züge von religiösem Fanatismus und Faschismus. Und das Ganze ist natürlich besonders bedenklich, wenn es einfach ganz opportunistisch als Mittel zum Zweck dient, gewisse wirtschaftliche Interessen durchzusetzen. Verschiedene Kommunikationskanäle in verschiedenen Sprachen mit verschiedenen expliziten oder impliziten Verhaltensregeln zu haben ist denke ich etwas, das zu einem vielfältigen und offenen globalen Projekt wie OSM dazugehört. Und da ist für mich diversity-talk mit den von Dir gewählten Regeln ausdrücklich eingeschlossen. Wie auch immer - werdet Mitglied in der OSM Foundation ungeachtet der Frage, wie Ihr zu den einzelnen Punkten steht, die Michael in seinem Text anführt. Das Ziel ist nicht, eine Mitglieder-Struktur herbeizuführen, die am Ende homogen eine bestimmte Meinung zu den Themen der OSMF vertritt, sondern Leute als Mitglieder zu haben, die halbwegs repräsentativ die Interessen der aktiven lokalen Mapper und die Werte des Projektes vertreten. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea
On Tuesday 23 October 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Agreed. I would be tempted to say, however, that if a country > requires a certain boundary depiction by law, like e.g. India and > China do, then that's the same level of verifiability like that > country's internal boundaries for which we also rely on what the > "official" take is. At least the current laws regarding the Indian > border are much more than "an opinion of a political faction". A territorial claim that does not represent de facto administration is usually inherently non-verifiable because the claiming authority is by definition the only source of the information (this is why it is called a claim). Unless a territorial claim coicides with a de facto administrative division its geometry is usually not independently verifiable. India would certainly remove any boundary markers indicating the limits of a Chinese claim on territory they control. Boundaries of de facto administration OTOH can normally be independently verified even at the higher admin levels if they are demarcated or if they coicide with physically observable features. The fact that much of the administrative boundary data in OSM is imported and never has actually been verified on the ground is a different matter. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea
On Tuesday 23 October 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > It would however be interesting to develop a tagging scheme that lets > us not only record "this border is disputed" but also "this is the > extent of country X according to country Y", which we currently don't > have. I think that would not be verifiable. Different political fractions often even have different opinions on the extent of their country. OSM is not a place to record a spectrum of opinions on political goals and human beliefs, it is meant to record a single consistent model of the verifiably observable nature of reality. If data users need additional data for their purposes they need to obtain it from other sources. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Androhung von Benutzersperren für Verklebe-Ideologie
On Monday 22 October 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Man könnte das ja auch als oneway-Regel ähnlich wie das mit der > groben Ersterfassung formulieren: > > 1. Du kannst eine Straße quer durch einen Wald malen. > > 2. Du kannst den Wald auch entlang der Straße - mit Verkleben - in > zwei Teile teilen. > > 3. Wenn dann jemand kommt und das schön entklebt, ist das ok. > > 4. Du kannst niemals einen entklebten Wald entlang einer Straße > wieder verkleben. Klingt gut - und das ist denke ich auch weit verbreitet die gelebte Praxis. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Androhung von Benutzersperren für Verklebe-Ideologie
On Monday 22 October 2018, sepp1...@posteo.de wrote: > Wäre es das? Das Aufteilen der Flächen in handhabbare Größen sind > doch rein administrative und willkürliche Maßnahmen die so in der > Realität nicht vorhanden sind, dito Grenzen (egal welcher Art), auch > wenn es in den meisten Fällen eine Art Grenzbebauung oder > -bepflanzung gibt. Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob Du meine Annahme in Frage stellst, dass die Aufteilung von Flächen anerkannte Mapping-Praxis ist oder ob Du denkst, dass die Regel "Aufteilung ja, aber niemals entlang einer Straße" unproblematisch wäre. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Androhung von Benutzersperren für Verklebe-Ideologie
On Sunday 21 October 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Ich hab mal ins Blaue geschossen mit einem Entwurf: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/Fl%C3%A4chenve >rklebung > > sowas in der Art könnte man ja mal fertigschreiben und dann abstimmen > und dann hat die leidige Diskussion vielleicht ein Ende... Ich sehe ein gewisses Problem bei der Regel 2 in dem Fall, dass es grundsätzlich als korrekt angesehen wird, wenn die Linie über die Fläche gezeichnet wird - was zumindest bei kleineren Straßen und Tracks im Wald allgemein anerkannt ist. Da wir gleichzeitig die etablierte Regel haben, dass Waldflächen und ähnliches in kleine, handhabbare und ggf. ohne Multipolygone mapbare Stücke aufgeteilt werden können und sollten, würde diese Regel im Grunde bedeuten: Man darf aufteilen, aber niemals entlang einer Straße. Das wäre dann ein bisschen schräg. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] [HOT] [OSM-dev] Tool update from HOT: MapCampaigner
On Monday 08 October 2018, Harry Wood wrote: > [...] > > These tools have been known in OSM as "Quality Assurance" tools. To > Frederik's point, personally I actually think *this* naming, which we > settled on a long time ago, is weirdly over-broad. We should have > called them "data checks" or "data bugs" or something, because surely > "quality" of a map is much more than counting up how many data > glitches there are, and surely it *does* include how complete the map > is (e.g. complete with more rich POI coverage) Actually what we name quality assurance tools (i.e. Osmose, OSMI and similar) is fairly similar to techniques used in industrial production processes as part of quality assurance and quality management endeavours - with the same advantages and limitations. Like in those cases the term quality assurance is somewhat misleading since watching over process parameters and performing automated checks on its own does not in any way assure a certain level of quality. But detecting and quantifying quality problems is of course the first step towards assuring a certain quality level. And measuring production quantity is usually not part of a quality assurance process - unless it is part of a yield or efficiency measurement, i.e. relative quantity. Of course most of the quality assurance tools we have at the moment only measure plausibility and internal consistency of the data. We have only very few automated QA tools that use any kind of outside reference to gauge accuracy of the data. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Tool update from HOT: MapCampaigner
On Monday 01 October 2018, Nate Smith wrote: > Thanks for the comment and questions Frederik. Agreed that quality > and quantity isn’t exactly the same. And I hope that the UI in the > tool hasn’t communicated that this is just about statistics and > quantity - it is more than just a feature counter. > > We certainly could say it is a richness monitor, but the goal and > purpose is more than that. [...] Well - we can only evaluate the actual tool and its features, we cannot evaluate intentions behind it. As it is the tool only measures numbers of features and numbers of tags (in the form of features missing the tag in question, which is the same). It communicates to the user that these are only things that matters: Adding features and adding tags to those features. So as Frederik says as it is this is not a quality monitoring tool, this is a quantity monitoring tool. Apart from that you are probably not aware what the term campaign communicates in this context. A campaign in the sense of a political or military campaign is an initiative to impose one's views or interests on others, swaying people's opinions and influencing their behaviour in contrast to engaging in an open argument about the best approach and trying to convince people this way. You should probably think carefully if this is what you want to communicate here. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Wikibase is now live
On Sunday 23 September 2018, Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 23.09.2018 17:07, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > If you'd now impose > > technical constraints preventing mappers from documenting things > > that do not match a certain ideal of structure would you would > > effectively make the wiki unsuitable for its primary application > > and mappers would need to set up a new place to document their > > tags. > > The content stored in Wikibase is editable by wiki users using a > regular wiki account, same as with other wiki pages. This i have no doubts about - but this is not the question. The question is who is de facto in control of the information and in particular who defines what information is considered valid and what not. And by designing the interfaces through which information and rules are entered you can pretty well control who will actually control the information. I am fine with editing the wiki to document tags, i am also fine with the various templates in there even if they are sometimes cumbersome to understand. And i acknowledge that technologically the way templates are used in the OSM wiki is a dead end. But this whole wikibase thing is repulsive to me in the way it communicates the human editor is supposed to serve the computer system and not the other way round. The very idea of making up numerical identifiers for keys and tags which by definition already are unique identifiers is ridiculous. Long story short: You will never get me to enter or edit tag documentation in such an interface which makes me think i have time traveled to the last century. You will also not get me to write documentation in a place where non-human editors (a.k.a. bots) are allowed to modify what i wrote. Apart from that if you find a way to improve they way in which tag documentation is stored and processed without sacrificing ergonomics and intuitive adaptability of the way it is entered for typical mappers i will be all for it. The OSM wiki has a lot of problems and deficits but the vast majority of them are social in nature and will not be solved by means of technology - even if said technology is not on the level of the last century. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Wikibase is now live
On Sunday 23 September 2018, Andrew Hain wrote: > Could you give some examples so that the wider OSM community can do > something about it? I am somewhat reluctant to point to specific people here but there are in particular a few fans of key systematics who eagerly defend their view on how tags are supposed to be used and who are quick to revert any edits that document tags being used differently or that might suggest to readers the use of tags other than the 'correct' ones. You can find examples for that in the edit histories of various landcover and landuse tag and key pages. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Does this Antarctic airfield exist?
On Sunday 23 September 2018, Dave F wrote: > > Ever heard of this: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62799981 No, that's fake. Even without up-to-date or higher resolution images you can rule this out because you can't build structures like this on a crevassed glacier: https://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=-63.786106=-64.787188=13=2=bing-satellite=mapnik But it is one of the more realistic fakes in polar regions i have seen - most are more obvious to spot, this one in relatively well thought through (including the name - after Carl Anton Larsen, who is the source of quite a few featutes in the Antarctic). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Wikibase is now live
On Sunday 23 September 2018, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > > I suspect that the attempts for more structured metadata won't be > > really accepted by the community (the editors of the wiki). > > As one of the more active editors of the wiki, I'm very hopeful for > this project. The current "solution" for this kind of data is to > manually copy templates across several pages. This is a massive pain > point and leads to pages unintentionally getting out of sync all the > time. For clarification: The main purpose of the OSM wiki is to allow mappers to document tags they use and allow them to coordinate and communicate about this use of tags with other mappers. If you have some data collecting application related to OSM tags it would be advisable to maintain this outside the OSM wiki - like for example taginfo and taghistory do. Mixing systematic data collection into the OSM wiki is just asking for trouble. The OSM wiki is not Wikipedia. It is also not a playground for wiki curators who want to manage it as a standalone project describing their ideas on how OSM should look like, it is meant to be used by mappers to describe what OSM actually looks like (which often happens to be unstructured and non-systematic). We already have quite a few people on the wiki who try to forbid mappers accurately documenting widely used tags because these tags are bad in terms of certain systematics and should not exist. If you'd now impose technical constraints preventing mappers from documenting things that do not match a certain ideal of structure would you would effectively make the wiki unsuitable for its primary application and mappers would need to set up a new place to document their tags. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Update from HOT on machine learning in the Tasking Manager
On Monday 17 September 2018, Nate Smith wrote: > > Read the full post here: > https://www.hotosm.org/updates/integrating-machine-learning-into-the- >tasking-manager/ That looks refreshingly different in focus looking more at data quality assurance and validation and less at automated data production. I look forward to seeing more practical results in that direction. One specific hint about this: For validation and QA purposes AI techniques are often inefficient and noisy/error-prone and traditional image analysis can sometimes be at least as valuable and reliable with less ressource requirements. Because in validation you have a priori facts/claims you want to validate, you need to answer questions like "is this building geometry accurate" and not the tasks AI techniques are typically advertised for like "find and trace all buildings in this area". There are of course also QA tasks where AI can be more useful for like the typical needle-in-a-haystack problems. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Saturday 01 September 2018, Johnparis wrote: > I would disagree with Christoph's assumption that addresses must be > unique. The purpose of an address is to help someone locate > something. Well - then everything in the OSM database is an address and noaddress=yes is universally a nonsense tag. Taking refuge in arbitrariness is a natural reaction to the complexity of the world but it ultimately does not solve any problems. If you don't agree that an address needs to be unique that is fine but so far i have not seen any other consistent concept of an address being presented that makes sense, somethings that helps someone to locate something does not cut it. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Extend natural=shingle tag also for city stone areas.
(Note: since this is a tagging question this is in a way the wrong group). On Friday 31 August 2018, Tomasz Wc3b3jcik wrote: > As we map different physical landcovers by eg. landuse=grass, > landuse=forest, natural=sand, natural=water etc. There is > theoretically no tag for urban areas covered by little stones like on > this photo: > > ]...] Urban area mapping in OSM is primarily functional - in case of your example: If this is a walkable area (likely since it is easily accessible and there are no signs forbidding it apparently) it would probably be highway=pedestrian + surface=gravel/pebbles. If it is not walkable it would be more like a japanese rock garden so you could use leisure=garden + garden:style=rock_garden. What you are suggesting here is essentially like the old mapping for the renderer habit of tagging sand bunkers on golf courses natural=beach. It would degrade the quality of the data of what is tagged natural=shingle which fortunately at the moment is pretty good (since it is a relatively young tag documented precisely from the beginning and rendered in a way that supports correct use). So no, i would be strongly against extending natural=shingle to urban areas artificially covered with loose stones based on a physical similarity. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Neues Förderangebot von WMDE für Projekte um OSM
On Friday 31 August 2018, Stefan Kaufmann wrote: > > Wikimedia mit der Kritik umgeht ist deren Sache, für mich wäre > > jetzt garnicht so entscheidend, da die Ausschreibung zu > > modifizieren (obwohl das sicher nicht verkehrt wäre), sondern dass > > das in die Diskussion eingeht und man sich der Problematik bewusst > > wird. > > Faendet ihr nicht spannender, konkrete Themenfelder zu > identifizieren, die von WMDE dann auch durch Foerderung unterstuetzt > werden koennen? Da ich mit den Wikimedia-Vereinszielen, möglichen Zweckbindungen der verwendeten Spenden und den Zielen des Förderprogramms nicht vertraut bin, kann ich dazu nicht wirklich viel sagen. Ein 'ich wünsch mir einfach mal was' ist da kaum zielführend. Wenn Wikimedia konkrete Beratung braucht, wie man im OSM-Bereich bestimmte Dinge am Besten unterstützt (z.B. wir würden gerne Mapping von X oder Karten, die Y darstellen, fördern) wäre das sicher gut machbar, da könnte wie Frederik schon angedeutet hat auch der FOSSGIS kompetente Hilfe bieten. Ein Bereich, wo sich der FOSSGIS traditionell mit Förderung recht schwer tut ist, wenn es darum geht, Arbeitszeit von Leuten zu bezahlen. Das kollidiert bei uns recht stark mit der Kultur der freiwilligen ehrenamtlichen Arbeit im Verein. Wenn Wikimedia hier Möglichkeiten hat wäre das möglicherweise eine gute Ergänzung. Aber das hier verlinkte Förder-Angebot klammert diesen Bereich ja auch erkennbar aus. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neues Förderangebot von WMDE für Projekte um OSM
On Thursday 30 August 2018, Peter Barth wrote: > > > Der Kritikpunkt von Frederik bezieht sich auf die Unterstützung > > solcher Firmen, in diesem Fall die Unterstützung dafür, Bilder für > > Mapillary aufzunehmen. Das ist etwas qualitativ deutlich anderes. > > ich sehe das zwar auch so, aber Wikimedia handhabt das glaube ich ja > schon immer etwas anders. Die vor Jahren mal freigekauften Aerowest- > Bilder sind ja vergleichbar und das wurde meines Wissens nach auch > von Wikimedia bezahlt. > > Vielleicht sollte man das aber sprachlich zumindest so abändern, dass > man zu Mapillary auch noch OSC nennt und beides eher beispielhaft als > Mappinghilfen erwähnt?! Naja - ich kann jetzt nicht für Frederik sprechen aber von mir war das jetzt garnicht als Aufforderung gedacht: Das müsst Ihr ändern, sondern schlicht und einfach als Anmerkung, dass ich das kritisch sehe. Wie Wikimedia mit der Kritik umgeht ist deren Sache, für mich wäre jetzt garnicht so entscheidend, da die Ausschreibung zu modifizieren (obwohl das sicher nicht verkehrt wäre), sondern dass das in die Diskussion eingeht und man sich der Problematik bewusst wird. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neues Förderangebot von WMDE für Projekte um OSM
On Thursday 30 August 2018, Thomas Barris wrote: > > Der Kritikpunkt von Frederik bezieht sich auf die Unterstützung > > solcher Firmen, in diesem Fall die Unterstützung dafür, Bilder für > > Mapillary aufzunehmen. Das ist etwas qualitativ deutlich anderes. > > Wir nehmen die Bilder nicht für Mapillary sondern für uns > praktizierende Mapper auf. Die Kritik daran, dass man die Bilder > leider nur bei zwei kommerziellen Anbietern speichert, ist mangels > Alternative etwas akademisch. Noch mal: Der Kritikpunkt ist, dass WMDE die Anschaffung von "Kameras für Mapillary-Aufnahmen" unterstützen möchte. Das zu kritisieren ist in keinster Weise akademisch. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Neues Förderangebot von WMDE für Projekte um OSM
On Thursday 30 August 2018, Nicolas Rück wrote: > > Dein Kritikpunkt an Mapillary war mir bisher nicht bekannt, aber ich > kann ihn gut nachvollziehen. Danke für die Information. Wir möchten > uns bei solchen Angeboten natürlich an den Bedarfen der Community > orientieren. Wenn ich es richtig überblicke, scheint es dort aber > keinen Konsens gegen eine Nutzung von Mapillary zu geben. Das ist aber nicht der Punkt, wir nutzen auch zum Beipiel Bilder kommerzieller Satellitenbild-Anbieter, die diese ohne freie Lizenz mit eng gefassten Nutzungsbedingungen für OSM freigeben. Der Kritikpunkt von Frederik bezieht sich auf die Unterstützung solcher Firmen, in diesem Fall die Unterstützung dafür, Bilder für Mapillary aufzunehmen. Das ist etwas qualitativ deutlich anderes. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Wege des WSV an den Kanälen / tagging
On Monday 27 August 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > praktisch identifizierbar sind sie durch die Lage (begleiten eine > Bundeswasserstraße) und ggf. durch die Beschilderung. Wie erläutert in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2018-August/115202.html ist das oft nicht so einfach. > Die Fragestellung "wie > dokumentiere ich am besten systematisch die beobachtbare Realität" > steht grundsätzlich für alles, was wir mappen, im Raum, liefert aber > ohne Festlegung der relevanten Kriterien keine weiteren > Anhaltspunkte, da zu generisch. Eben - und Sprachsemantik-Diskussion was genau das Wort Wirtschaftsweg bedeutet führt auch zu nichts. Am Ende braucht es praktisch überprüfbare Kriterien. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Wege des WSV an den Kanälen / tagging
On Monday 27 August 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > um die Eigentumsfrage geht es nicht bzw. nur am Rande. > M.E. ist die Frage, ob solche Wege Wirtschaftswege im Sinne des OSM > Taggingsystems sind oder nicht. Nein, das ist wieder der Versuch, aus einer Tagging-Diskussion (wie dokumentiere ich am besten systematisch die beobachtbare Realität) eine Sprachsemantik-Diskussion zu machen. Für mich ist die Diskussion an der Frage hängen geblieben, ob der Vorschlag von Florian ausschließlich für Begleitwege von Bundeswasserstraßen gilt und wenn ja wie der Mapper diese praktisch identifizieren kann. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Friday 24 August 2018, Rory McCann wrote:
> >>
> >> 35% of addresses in Ireland aren't unique.
> >
> > I strongly suspect we have a different understanding of either
> > 'address' or 'uniqueness' here.
>
> Possibly. The Irish definition is "a property has the same address
> with a least one other property". I'm not talking about 2 postboxes
> that are beside each other in an apartment block, but 2 houses which
> could be a distance apart. Post/Packages is delivered partially based
> on surname, or "local knowledge" . It is/was a pain. The new
> postcode ("eircode") will help. Now, you may say the surname is part
> of the address, but what happens when someone moves house? And we
> shouldn't put surnames into OSM. So the "address" isn't unique. I
> don't bring it up to disprove you or argue, just to point out that
> the world is weird.
Obviously there are large parts of the world without addresses and also
large parts with what you might call 'partial addresses'. But i would
see it from a practical point of view: If something you call an
address does not fulfill the main function of an address (to address a
specific place) it is something fundamentally different from what is
widely understood and tagged as an address. Therefore i think (but it
is obviously not up to me to decide that) that it would be better if in
OSM we'd distinguish between unique addresses and partial/non-unique
addresses. Therefore i still think in these cases tagging
noaddress=yes and documenting the associated street of a property or
any other partial address information in a different way might be a
better approach.
And i fully agree that this is weird because for a country like Ireland
it is obviously not a matter of the Irish society not having been able
to create a system of unique addresses. Still you have not done so for
a long time. This is quite remarkable. And it probably will get
weirder in the future - not so much because of this fashion of encoded
coordinate systems but because of digital technology increasingly
allowing dynamically connecting people with locations (and Amazon will
just send you your order to whereever you are - or where you are likely
to be when the order is shipped).
--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Thursday 23 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > Ok, if the address is essentially "The airport on X-street" or "The > > government office on Y-street" then i think the type of feature is > > part of the address and this needs to be indicated in tagging > > somehow. And And I don't think the fact that there is no house > > number needs to be specifically indicated then. > > Take a look at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/BiJ please > (probably there are much more variants that people use than the ones > from this query) > > All these objects have some kind of "no housenumber" abbreviation at > addr:housenumber (which is exactly the same problem of using name="No > name"). Ok, these look primarily like the opposite of Roland's example in that: * it seems to be common practice to explicitly mention the lack of the house number when specifying the address. * the address is not unique without the name of the object in question, there are often multiple independent and unrelated features (like different shops in different buildings) with the same address. I would say that if you want to specify per object address tags here (which as indicated is somewhat questionable because the lack of uniqueness and in substance the only meaningful information you specify is the associated street) it is at least as important to indicate in tagging that the address to be unique needs to include the name - kind of like name_is_a_necessary_part_of_address=yes (not a serious suggestion in this form but you probably get the idea) as to explicitly indicate the lack of a house number. Also i kind of doubt if this form of specifying the lack of a house number is that common mappers would be inclined to give it up in favour of a different tagging scheme. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Thursday 23 August 2018, Roland Olbricht wrote: > > An example from Germany: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/526129541 > https://www.izb.fraunhofer.de/de/impressum.html > > The whole campus just fills up the complete street. Hence, the street > alone makes it already unique. I can confirm from having worked there > that it has indeed no housenumber. Yes, that looks like a good example for the first case. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Thursday 23 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > Usually the places without a housenumber here have some kind of > intrinsic distinctiveness/uniqueness. > For example, an airport located in a road (there won't be 2 airports > at the same road), some big industries/factories, an university > campus, parks, places related to the government, etc. Ok, if the address is essentially "The airport on X-street" or "The government office on Y-street" then i think the type of feature is part of the address and this needs to be indicated in tagging somehow. And And I don't think the fact that there is no house number needs to be specifically indicated then. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > You know that we live in a heterogeneous world with many oddities and > peculiarities, that what makes sense in one country or region may not > make sense in another, that these definitions are beyond our control > and that we are only trying to represent what exists in the real > world, right? Well - tags are generally invented for a specific part of our heterogeneous world and you need to be careful when using the same tags in a very different geographic setting based on some superficial similarity. If in your area there are addresses that are very different from elsewhere it might not be a good idea to use the same tags for those. > But for example, multiple government offices are listed in this page > https://www.ma.gov.br/contatos/ and some, despite having a proper > address, don't have a housenumber (where "S/N" is the abbreviation > for "sem número" = "no number") I still don't know if the addresses listed there are unique (in the sense that only those government offices have this address) or if there are maybe a dozen other unrelated buildings which happen to have the same address (which clashes with my understanding of the concept of an address). Note to document a building/place belongs to a certain street we also have the concept of the associatedStreet relation. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Rory McCann wrote: > > The single most important property of an address is that it is > > unique > > 35% of addresses in Ireland aren't unique. I strongly suspect we have a different understanding of either 'address' or 'uniqueness' here. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > Specifying addr:street on a building that does not have an address > > is either pointless or non-verifiable. > > But this happens here :-) > Sometimes they are big buildings/areas (which occupies a whole city > block, for example), with addr:street, addr:postcode but no > addr:housenumber You probably have to give a real world example since i have no idea if you want to say you have a building with a unique address consisting of addr:street and addr:postcode (could be if there is only one building at this street or with this postcode) or if you want to defend pointless or non-verifiable tagging of addr:street for buildings without a unique address. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > What's wrong with noaddress=yes? > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noaddress > > the wiki says noaddress is for places without an address, but the > places I have in mind do have an address, they have a street, > postcode, city, just no housenumber. The single most important property of an address is that it is unique so a building or other place than does not have a housenumber, housename or another component that makes the address unique does not have an address at all even if you can specify a street, city etc. at/in which it is located. Specifying addr:street on a building that does not have an address is either pointless or non-verifiable. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Representing places with no housenumber
On Wednesday 22 August 2018, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > What is the best way to represent places which have no housenumber? > > [...] I assume you mean no addr:housenumber and no addr:housename. What's wrong with noaddress=yes? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:noaddress -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] Wege des WSV an den Kanälen / tagging
On Wednesday 22 August 2018, chris66 wrote: > > Habe im Forum eine (inoffizielle) Abstimmung eingestellt: > > https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=63454 > > Ihr könnt mir Euer Voting per email schicken. Es ist Dir natürlich unbenommen ein subjektives Meinungsbild zu dem Thema einzuholen aber mir scheint, dass die vorgeschlagene Tagging-Idee noch nicht klar genug ist, dass man sich eine fundierte Meinung dazu bilden kann. Wenn mein zuletzt kommuniziertes Verständnis zutrifft, dass sich der Vorschlag ausschließlich auf Bundeswasserstraßen bezieht, dann stellt sich in vielen Fällen die Frage, wie man denn als Mapper Begleitwege von Bundeswasserstraßen zuverlässig als solche identifizieren kann. Bei so 'nem einfachen Kanal ist das wohl nicht so schwierig, aber hier am Rhein ist das teils ziemlich kompliziert. Da gibt es oft sowohl auf dem Deich als auch am Deichfuß einen Weg und daneben gibt es noch verschiedene Deichlinien und nicht immer gibt es Schilder, aus denen die behördliche Zuständigkeit hervorgeht. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/48.2427/7.6791 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34305360 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32900245 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/226693121 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/491176756 Grüße, -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [OSM-talk] AI detecting of buildings Idle thoughts
> And we took the decision to use this info > to spot rapidly the populated areas. «Take time» to look at these > polygons one by one (we did) and you will see that they reflect > adequately the density of housing in these areas. No, they don't (at least not for any meaningful definition of "density of housing"). In any case even if they did - iso-lines of some model of a building density field are quite fundamentally not something that is mappable in OSM, especially not with landuse=residential. It seems i need to clarify one thing: My harsh criticizm of the data imported (which i stand by firmly) is about the data. I - just like probably everyone else here - am aware that clairedelune did not generate this data. The kind of problem we see here is exactly the reason why we have import guidelines and why we need a directed editing policy so mappers do not get into a situation where they add bad data in larger volume because they follow - usually with good intentions - the unqualified instructions of others or wrongly believe the quality claims of data providers. If the import plans had been properly discussed we could have had this discussion in advance and could have considered useful options - like for example the idea of impoting the buildings as Rory suggested. I also want to make sure this example is not blown out of proportion. There are plenty of bad quality imports and bad mapping in OSM. If you look at landuse=residential mapping in Eastern Africa this is not the worst data in the database, not by a large margin. I just pointed it out here as an example because it was a perfect fit for the idea John brought up. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] AI detecting of buildings Idle thoughts
On Thursday 16 August 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > In a way, it's what we did in Western Europe when we only had Landsat > imagery: "Uh, this looks like a settlement, let's draw a grey blob" Absolutely not. The settlement structure of Western Europe can be pretty accurately mapped from Landsat images. What the data import linked to contains has no similarity to this. And even if it did superficially this would be a pretend similarity because the settlement structure in this part of the world looks nothing like that of Western Europe. This is just taking some auto-detected buildings, throwing some random algorithms at it and labeling the resulting abstract geometries landuse=residential. Ironically if you did do a halfway reasonable classification of settlement areas in Landsat data for this area the result would probably be much more like a verifiable mapping of settlements in the area than what we can see now in the database. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
