Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
Courtney wrote: > Or is it going to keep doing the same old flame wars? To be honest, the mailing lists have been on the way out for a long time now, and talk@ is no exception. Some once busy lists are now basically dead (dev@, legal-talk@, talk-de@). Others are noticeably quieter (talk@, talk-fr@, osmf-talk@). A few local communities still prefer mailing lists but they're fewer in number every year. Generally, the vital new stuff in OSM doesn't happen on mailing lists. So I wouldn't suggest worrying too much about the lists. Theory and practice of community interaction elsewhere in OSM is absolutely a valid and interesting topic, but the lists belong to pretty much the same period in OSM history as IRC and Potlatch, and I say that as someone who still uses both. :) Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Public Rights of Way overlay missing
Jas Ranasinghe wrote: > Is anyone able to provide any information about the missing Public > Rights of Way overlay? It is still currently in the overlay list, but the > Rights of Way do not show up on the map. I'm guessing this refers to one of the tile layers I host at osm.cycle.travel. Unfortunately one of the hosts I use let me down (repeated outages and very little support), so I had to move a bunch of stuff at short notice on New Year's Eve. I haven't had chance to move a few of the tile layers yet but should be able to in the next few days. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
Blake Girardot wrote: > I will just point out a common pattern: Céline posted an eloquent opening statement that talks about "this dominant profile" and the thread has, true to form, largely descended into the same dominant profile arguing and "just pointing out" things. It might therefore be incumbent on us all to shut up and let women be heard. Their experiences do not need to be mediated through our mansplaining. In that spirit I'll post no more on this. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions
Michal Migurski wrote: > FB’s attribution approach in keeping with best practices > seen from other commercial users of display maps. In the spirit of Twitter footnoting one of Donald Trump's "I won the election" tweets, this is your respectful reminder that Google, Bing, Here, Tencent, ViaMichelin, TomTom, Mapquest, Esri, and Qwant all have on-map attribution. http://www.systemed.net/osm/attribution.png Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch
mmd wrote: > I'm wondering if some of the changes that are now needed for AIR > would make it more difficult to switch to Ruffle later on. The short answer is (based on the POC work I've done so far) no. :) The slightly longer answer is that I hope, as part of this project, to make a number of changes that are not directly AIR-related but will make P2 maintenance more sustainable into the future. > I'm a bit worried about AIR being (too) difficult to install > and run for an average Potlatch user, but that's just a gut feeling. Couple of things here. One is that AIR isn't any more difficult to install than Flash Player, but with the difference that it doesn't break every time there's a browser upgrade and the browser manufacturer tries to get you to switch it off. The other is that 2020's P2 users, contrary to the cliche of 2010, are actually pretty skilled and experienced (by definition the beginner users use iD these days) - many of them have a four-figure number of changesets - so installing AIR shouldn't be beyond them. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch 2
Skyler Hawthorne wrote: > Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think using any funds at all to > continue support for a tool that 1% of editors use would be wasteful. > Flash is, for all intents and purposes, a dead technology. This > money is better spent on other uses. The entire point is to move away from a dead technology (Flash Player) to a supported one (AIR). On the percentage stat, it's worth bearing in mind that the P2 project is by a long chalk the smallest sum (€2500) of the three that OSMF is proposing here. As a point of comparison, iD was initially developed with a $575,000 grant from the Knight Foundation in 2012, so roughly $646,000 now. Very conservatively estimating the cost of employing 1-2 developers to code on iD since then, you get a development cost of roughly €0.004 per (2020) changeset for iD vs $0.0002 for P2, which is kind of fun. (I'm actually pleasantly surprised that P2 still has so many changesets - 20 million last year, and I'm guessing high teens this year - given how difficult it is to get Flash Player running in most browsers these days. That suggests that P2's users are using it because they want to do so, not because they are magically unaware of the existence of other editors. I suspect if you could find another way of getting 20 million edits for €2500 then we would snap your hand off.) Looking forward, and continuing the theme of ROI, the other benefit of the project is that it enables development work to continue on P2. The reason I have bid for funding for this, for the first time in 14 years of developing editors for OpenStreetMap, is that it will take a solid chunk of sustained work to do the AIR conversion and a bunch of other stuff I believe will make P2 more sustainable into the future, and there is a hard deadline for that sustained work (i.e. Flash Player switch-off at the end of the year). It's not a project that can just be done in evenings here and there. That enables further, unfunded developments in the future, and in turn I hope the tradition of other editors taking inspiration from P2 can continue - it's not for nothing that JOSM has a Potlatch 2 style and a "Potlatch mode" for editing. But you are, of course, welcome to develop and put forward a project to OSMF which you believe will have more bang for the buck. "Other uses" is easy to type but doesn't actually mean anything until you identify what those uses are, and crucially, find someone who is prepared to do them. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch 2
Sören Reinecke wrote: > So far as I understood Adobe dropped Linux support for its > AIR plattform. If that is right, then I am in doubt that > supporting the development of Potlatch 2 is not that in > a sustainable manner. AIR is not maintained by Adobe, but by Harman, a Samsung subsidiary. AIR for Linux is still supported at version 2.6 but not updated (https://airsdk.harman.com/faq): Harman is considering future updates. P2 will still run on 2.6 - there are explicit workarounds in the code (e.g. in net/systemeD/potlatch2/collections/Imagery.as) to ensure backward compatibility. Nonetheless, even if P2 didn't run on Linux, I'm not sure why this should be an issue for other users. No-one says Vespucci isn't sustainable because it doesn't run on iOS. mmd wrote: > Why aren't we porting Potlatch2 to WebAssembly, then? I'm not sure who the "we" is in this question, but assuming you're not volunteering yourself :), the difficult dependency with P2 is not ActionScript 3 but the Flash runtime, i.e. the Flash and Flex APIs. There are currently only two runtimes capable of running P2: Flash Player and AIR. Ruffle is showing promise (https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle) and is under very active development, but does not yet support AS3 or the Flash Player features that P2 needs. I would anticipate that P2 will be able to run as WebAssembly when Ruffle reaches feature parity with AIR 2.6. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution
Kathleen Lu wrote:
> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources
> does not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first
> to the copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not
> acceptable under ODbL for a map that has multiple data sources, then
> OSM would be violating others' ODbL licenses.
When data is imported from an attribution-required dataset, OSM takes the
view that a waiver from that requirement should be obtained. For example,
for CC-BY licences:
"...attribution to all such sources on an OpenStreetMap-based map or similar
visual display is impossible. Instead, we provide attribution (including
original license information) to major sources like [entity] on our
Contributors page. OpenStreetMap users are then required to attribute
'OpenStreetMap Contributors' in a collective fashion when using any
OpenStreetMap data... we just need you to confirm that you would consider
OpenStreetMap's attribution method to attribute [entity] in a 'reasonable
manner' in accordance with Section 3(a)(1) of the CC BY 4.0 license."
[linked from https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ ]
ODbL's core attribution requirement ("a notice associated with the Produced
Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses,
interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work") is not
materially different from CC-BY's ("any reasonable manner based on the
medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material"). In
other words, given that OSM believes CC-BY implies on-map attribution unless
a waiver is received, it also believes that for ODbL. OSMF has not issued
any such waivers.
> The key difference is between using a service (such as tiles hosted by
> a company, such as Mapbox), and using open data that originated with
> but *is not hosted* by an entity.
It really isn't. This has been introduced to the discourse in the last
(AFAICT) three months by Silicon Valley folks. I had never seen it suggested
before then. It certainly wasn't part of the discourse on attribution when
OSM adopted the ODbL and set out its current attribution requirements; you
can go back and ask the major SaaS map providers of the time if you like.
Every single major current webmap, with one exception[1], credits principal
non-OSM _data providers_ on-map on desktop. Google Maps has on-screen
attribution to their principal data providers. Bing does. HERE does (it's
themselves). ViaMichelin does. TomTom (MyDrive) does. Mapquest does. Tencent
does. Qwant does. The USGS National Map does. Esri's ArcGIS "My Map" does.
You can go and check these. I did.
The key word here is "principal". From your previous message:
> Check out HERE's webmap: https://mobile.here.com/?x=ep. It takes
> 3 clicks to get to this page: https://mobile.here.com/about/notices.
> And another 4 clicks to get to this page:
> https://legal.here.com/en-gb/terms/general-content-supplier-terms-and-notices
The three clicks take you to a page crediting the public transport authority
for Baden-Wurttemberg for contributing public transport info. Fine. It takes
two clicks on osm.org (Copyright -> Contributors) to get to the equivalent.
That's proportionate. It's not what we are talking about here. We are
talking about maps where 90%+ of the data comes from OSM, yet a credit to
OSM is either missing entirely or deliberately obscured. Please let's not
try to derail the issue of OSM-based maps missing all credit to OSM by
talking about bus timetables in Heidelberg.
Richard
[1] The one exception is Apple Maps, presumably because if you're Apple and
your market cap is $1.2trn you can do what you like. Even then, it's one
click away on mobile, and you could take the view that one click is larger
and more prominent than several other cases under discussion.
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Since cc-by-sa 2.0 times, the suggestion to credit OSM was "© > OpenStreetMap contributors", but from the current legal situation > (all necessary rights granted to the OSMF) it wouldn't be > necessary to credit the contributors. When I wrote the /copyright page all those years ago, the reasons it required that particular attribution were: "©" because that's what copyright statements traditionally begin with. I take Kathleen's point (obviously I do, she's a lawyer and I'm not :) ) that the ODbL, of course, is not a simple licensing of copyright. But the "©" serves to say "hey look, here's the required credit, just like the credits that are required by other maps". "OpenStreetMap" because... yeah obviously. "contributors" because I wanted to communicate the nature of the project: this is an open map with (plural) contributors. Contrast with the attribution for other map data suppliers which just have a corporate brand: "TomTom", "Navteq" (as it was), "Ordnance Survey". By saying "OpenStreetMap contributors", we communicate that the map has many contributors - and, implicitly, you could be one too. So it serves as a recruiting sergeant for OSM, while conveying the democratic, grassroots nature of the project. To my mind the main driver for attribution has always been to get more contributors and make the map better. I'm past caring what it says now, but thought the original rationale might be helpful. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Digital environmentalism
Kathleen Lu wrote: > I would not say this is true. Google maps has routing for walking, > cycling, and public transit, and their public transit information is > probably more complete than OSM's. It is, but on the other hand Google's walking and cycling routing is _much_ worse. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Web editors and lane rendering
Paul Johnson wrote: > Could we get some lane editing/rendering in these editors > to cut down on this kind of unintentionally erratic mapping? Sure, you're welcome to open a friendly issue at https://github.com/systemed/potlatch2/issues listing the base case for what you think is required. > > Not sure whatever Potlatch is still developed, > I would hope it is if it's still considered an available selection > on the website; if not, maybe it's time to retire that option. It's developed as and when it needs to be. I think it's likely that it will come off the Edit menu after December this year when Flash Player support is no longer available in browsers, although it will probably continue to be available as an executable app via Adobe/Harman AIR. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] For the sake of peace | Re: Cease use of OpenStreetMap/Antifa logo
Rory McCann wrote: > The existence of an OSM cycling logo doesn't mean all > OSMers have to be cycling activists! Wait, what? cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] EuroVelo routes are out of date
Maarten Deen wrote: > Is it an idea to create some kind of ticketing system for this? I think we already have this: - create notes on osm.org, including the word "eurovelo" - search for "eurovelo" on https://ent8r.github.io/NotesReview/ Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] EuroVelo routes are out of date
EuroVelo routes are not in a great state in OSM. Many of them appear to have been armchaired years ago when routes were "in development", and not updated since to reflect the correct route. A handful of examples: [France] https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=12!49.2876!2.655 EV3 should follow the new cycleway along the Oise, not the busy D932a [Czech Republic] https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=11!49.9195!14.4621 EV7 is completely wrong in OSM from the south of Prague to Nahoruby, including unrideable tracks and a suggestion that cyclists use a “ferry” that in reality is a tourist boat that only operates at weekends [Spain] https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=13!41.9486!3.1467 EV8 now follows the Pirinexus alignment …and there are lots more. I realise people are preoccupied with tagwanking over relation tagging [1] and sorting [2] and editor snobbery [3], but there’s not a lot of point fretting over how pretty the tagging is on the route relation if the route is actually wrong in the first place. Could I encourage people to check the EuroVelo routes in their home countries and update them where necessary? Richard [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047790.html [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047258.html [3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042154.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance
Roland Olbricht wrote: > > Changing to a github-like system of version management > I thought of Git, not Github. Again, there's no suggestion of "changing to"; it would be additional. As Christoph says, the challenge would be "finding, motivating, selecting and retaining qualified people to work on this". The choice of technology/platform for such a project would be down to those people and what they find comfortable. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance
Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Changing to a github-like system of version management would > require some people to serve as "maintainers" or "moderators" > of the new, curated list of Map Features / Tags, wouldn't it? While > this could be an improvement in the quality and consistency of > how decisions are made, it would also limit participation and > centralize decision-making. You misunderstand. I'm not proposing "changing to" anything, but rather, providing an _additional_ source of edited/curated documentation. The wiki would continue doing what the wiki does. Same principle as switch2osm. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance
Roland Olbricht wrote: > Imperfect Flow of Information > > Although many parts of the OpenStreetMap project are well > translated, the tagging documentation has substantial deficiencies. Yep. Documentation is the biggest problem with tagging. I don't actually think it's the wiki per se that's the issue. The wiki is... wiki-like. It's an untidy encyclopaedia of people's preoccupations at the time they were moved to edit it. Yes, it does have problems: as you say, "tag definitions being changed after the tag is in widespread use" (remember the infamous edit that added access=no as a default for all barrier= values?). But the challenge is bigger than that. The main thing we're missing is curated, simple information on the main tags that are _used_. Just as switch2osm took the infinite pages of install docs on the wiki and boiled them down to one how-to, we need a simple guide to the common tags in OSM: if you are a data consumer, these are the tags you need to understand. Wikis don't work for this. It needs an editor/curator/whatever, to have clear editorial guidelines, and probably to run on the pull request model rather than open editing. We're also missing a single-page explanation of OSM tagging principles. One of the frustrations of watching this list is that there are quite a lot of plain bad proposals that betray a misunderstanding of basic principles (verifiability, rich meaningful tags, optimise for the mapper, no-one is obliged to parse your new tag, etc. etc.). Life is too short to explain this to everyone and, to be honest, the uber-keen tag proposer doesn't want to hear their proposal rubbished in the first five minutes so won't listen anyway. Writing down "this is how OSM tags work" would solve a lot of this heartache. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
Kathleen Lu wrote: > "reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean? > Well a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do others > in the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data sources, > after > a click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the time. It would be interesting to get some data behind this. OSM's position when the current attribution text was drawn up in 2012 has been exactly that: "reasonably calculated" means "what people would expect for other data providers". There are only three other geodata providers with a similar product to OSM, i.e. a worldwide street-level database used for display maps: Google, TomTom, and Here. In 2012 all three generally required direct on-map attribution and my impression is that this is still the case, but real data about current usage and practices would be great. > A court would also look at what OSM does. Does OSM list its data sources > after a link? Yes, sometimes two links (first to > https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, then to > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). Some of this data is > also under ODbL! Why is this not reasonable? OSM expressly states that our "after a link" behaviour is not compliant with licences such as ODbL and the CC-BY family. Instead, we need to get an attribution waiver before using any data licensed under such terms. As per https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility : "Many sources simply require attribution of the source as a condition of use, however as we cannot provide attribution on works created or derived from OpenStreetMap data and our licence only requires attribution of the overall data source, permission for attribution via our central 'Contributors' pages needs to be obtained and documented." cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Just for understanding what second rate attribution is: For example
> the map on the bottom right of:
> https://www.zeit.de/politik/2019-07/strasse-von-hormus-bundesregierung-marinemission-usa-iran
> printing a prominent "Zeit Online" below the map (self attribution) but
> showing OSM attribution only on user activity.
Right. The problem there is not that the "Zeit Online" attribution is too
big. The problem is that the OSM attribution is not compliant. Don't make
the issue more complex than it needs to be.
> The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how
> to comply with the license.
And if the guidance suggests something that is not in the licence, it will
be - rightly - ignored, and we will have made no progress.
Community Guidelines explain how to apply the ODbL to real-world situations
("ambiguity or grey area in the specific and practical context of the Open
Database License"). You say "it can of course suggest things that are not
strictly required by the license", and sure, it could. It could also tell me
what the weather will be like tomorrow and the relevance of Martin Luther to
21st century religious thought. But that's not what Community Guidelines are
there for. They are here to explain how to apply the ODbL. If you want
somewhere to post good advice that isn't in the ODbL, I believe you have a
blog.
> > Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I
> > was editing a magazine about inland waterways and has been on
> > osm.org/copyright ever since, so nope. :)
>
> You are free to disagree with me but i hope you do not consider
> this statement to be an argument on the matter.
>
> For better understanding: Point 2 refers to a certain pattern in
> the design of the document and lists a number of example to
> demonstrate that. You could argue the observation of there being
> such a pattern or you could argue the individual examples. You
> however did neither of these in your statement.
For better understanding, you claimed "this looks pretty much like
being written by corporate representatives", and I pointed out that one
of the items in point 2 that you object to was written by me in 2012,
so not a corporate representative, and has been at osm.org/copyright
ever since.
Richard
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: If you look at Apple Maps, and for example zoomed into some place in Denmark, there is an i-button which brings you to an overlay which has a TomTom logo and a link „and others“ while in Denmark the data is from OpenStreetMap. IMHO this second rate attribution clearly goes against „reasonably calculated“ because it’s misleading. I know this, but let's not confuse the matter by calling this "second rate attribution". It isn't. It's no attribution. These new guidelines say that, for 480px+ screens, hiding OSM attribution behind a click is not acceptable. That's unambiguous all we need. Fussing about what other logos might be on the map is a diversion and is not supported by the ODbL. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
Christoph Hormann wrote: > It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution > (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service > or the media outlet publishing the map) is being attributed more > prominently than OSM. That is not something that the ODbL requires. There are licences with an obnoxious advertising clause but ODbL isn't one. "Second rate attribution" is not a problem. If Mapco[1] want to put a big Mapco logo on their maps, that is absolutely fine and dandy according to the ODbL. The problem is when there is a big Mapco logo on the map; no OSM attribution other than the infamous "(i)"; and the latter is justified by saying "there's no room" when the former clearly disproves that. This is an infringement of ODbL 4.3 and our favourite "reasonably calculated" clause. But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution needs to be at least on the same level of prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers, service providers or publicists", because that's not in the ODbL. > Overall i think this is totally unacceptable and looks pretty much > like being written by corporate representatives Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I was editing a magazine about inland waterways and has been on osm.org/copyright ever since, so nope. :) Richard [1] let's be honest, we're mostly talking about Mapbox and Carto here -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
SimonPoole wrote: > the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we > would appreciate feedback on. This is really good, and very much in accordance with both the text of the ODbL and the long-standing precedents set by the osm.org/copyright page. Thank you. Two small wording clarifications: "If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part of the visible map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate page that is visible after user interaction is acceptable." This probably needs to be qualified to the "currently visible map rendering", and "50%" phrased as "50% of objects" or similar - just to clarify the (quite likely) scenario where a map uses OSM data in (say) Turkey, TomTom everywhere else, and Natural Earth for coastlines/land. "It is permissible to use a mechanism to collapse the attribution as long as it is initially fully visible" This would be better as "It is permissible to provide a user-activated mechanism to...". There are apps which flash up an OSM credit for under a second, after which it disappears (including one terrific iOS mapping app which I would otherwise recommend). cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ 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
Andrew Hain wrote: > Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD. > Write a new online editor from scratch. > Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor. Please stop trolling. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ 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
Wiklund Johan wrote: > Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly > built > routing engines. Are there actually any such engines, or is this a post-facto justification? OSRM has routed over platforms since 8 September 2013. Valhalla does - it's multimodal and you can't do multimodal routing if you can't navigate the platforms. Graphhopper does. I could list about 20 editor tagging improvements that would make foot and bike routing better, and this isn't one of them. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] iD influencing tagging
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Now while everybody is free to use any tag she likes, I would not > expect the OpenStreetMap-Foundation standard editor to > introduce new tags through presets. It's been happening since Potlatch 1 came online in 2007, so you should have had a few years to get used to it by now... Writing software is an art, not a mechanical Turk where results of endless consultations are fed robotically into a Javascript editor. The iD developers are remarkably responsive to concerns raised about mapping standards, much more than I ever was as P1/P2 maintainer and, dare I say it, more than JOSM's maintainers have historically been. That they don't mindlessly follow bad tagging practices, but think about the impact and consistency of tagging, is all to their credit. I don't follow that iD has any particular status because of its default location on the edit tab: JOSM arguably has more "heft" because its bulk editing abilities allow people to impose new tags by force of number, not to mention you 'orrible lot forever bombarding the poor newbie to use JOSM or else. ;) cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #450 2019-02-26-2019-03-04
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > How did you come to this conclusion? I counted 3 people not so > interested in attribution or OK with current state of things and > 16 agreeing either explicitly or implicitly with Richard's assessment > that there is a problem. I think WeeklyOSM were being very fair-minded and, mindful of Mikel's previous comments about them editorialising the news, decided to editorialise this one in his favour for once. ;) cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
Mikel Maron wrote: > We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation. > We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation > can only be formulated through the OSMF; a mailing list discussion > will not lead to a legal decision, though it's an interesting pulse on > the topic. afaik the LWG is actually thinking about updating the > guidance to modern day usage, and welcome that effort. How this works in practice (and I realise you know this, Mikel, I'm just writing this out for the wider audience) is that the Licensing Working Group puts together Community Guidelines: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines These, as the name implies, represent the settled will of the community through practical, example-rich guidelines, explaining how the Open Database Licence applies to the data that the community has created and owns the rights in. As the Community Guidelines page on the OSMF website says, "OSMF's role as Licensor and publisher of the database should not involve dictating policy." The existing (seven) guidelines focus on the applications of the sharealike half of the licence. There is clearly some ambiguity about how attribution is applied in practice, particularly in massive collective databases and in smaller-screen situations, and such ambiguities is exactly what the guidelines are intended for - "helping folks use OpenStreetMap data when there is a concern about ambiguity or grey area in the specific and practical context of the Open Database License, ODbL" to quote the LWG. Representing the "settled will of the community" through a guidelines requires determining the settled will. As the page on the Community Guidelines process explains (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/How_We_Create_Community_Guidelines), such guidelines can be proposed by the community (no kidding, Sherlock). By starting the discussion here, we can begin to ascertain what the community would want to see in a Community Guideline. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
Hi all, In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples: https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG (This should be obvious but I am in no means meaning to pick on Mapbox or Apple here - as anyone who knows me will testify, I have the utmost respect both for Mapbox's technical chops, their ability to iterate on a compelling product and their success in building the biggest mapping platform using OSM data; and I've been an Apple fanboy since my first Mac IIsi back in, erk, 1992. They're just the two that sprang to mind, bearing in mind that as someone that old, these social networks about photos and stuff are way too modern for me.) It should also be said that many providers - the majority - provide attribution in compliance with our policy at osm.org/copyright, i.e. showing attribution in the corner of the map, and in many cases generously going beyond with "Improve this map" pages; and that some providers will do great things like this much of the time and resort to "(i)" or "About" only part of the time. The policy, introduced with the changeover to the ODbL, says: "We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”... For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner of the map." There then follows an example screenshot of a map of Charlbury (woo) with a credit in the corner. The OSM Foundation Legal FAQ is pretty much the same (https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Where_to_put_it.3F). Historically the aim of requiring attribution has been partly to thank contributors, and partly because it's a virtuous feedback loop. If you see a map and it's wrong or incomplete, seeing "(c) OpenStreetMap" in the corner shows you where the data comes from, so you can go and improve it. That way we get more contributors, the map gets better, it's more valuable to its consumers, so more people use it, so more people improve it... and so on. The legal rationale is 4.3 in the Open Database Licence (https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html), and in particular "if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database". The key phrase is "reasonably calculated" and our view in 2012 was that, since the major mapping providers (Google, Navteq/Nokia/HERE, TomTom etc.) required and implemented on-screen attribution, "reasonably" meant that users would expect a credit to be provided in that way. The OSMF FAQ makes this explicit: "you should expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the same way and with the same prominence as would be expected by any other map supplier". Full mea culpa: the /copyright page says "should" rather than "must" purely because I wrote the page, I'm British and I, we, talk like that (http://termcoord.eu/2016/08/the-truth-behind-british-impoliteness/ , especially the "I would suggest" line). It used to say "request" rather than "require" for the same reason. In retrospect I should have realised not everyone is British and we should really have hired a lawyer to review the page. I think that months in the trenches of the licence change had probably given us trench fever for things like that. Entirely my fault and I take full responsibility for it (but you know, it's so great not to have to write 500 monthly mails to legal-talk@ any more). So we need to decide what our response is to web/in-app maps that do not provide attribution in the manner requested by osm.org/copyright. This response might be: a) we are happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so b) we will informally tolerate attribution being behind a credits screen but we do not intend to update our requirements c) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so d) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so, and we will proactively seek out data consumers that contravene these requirements e) or many other options... fill in your suggestion here :) Ultimately this decision has to come from the community. The rights in OSM data, as the Contributor Terms makes clear, are held by the contributors. OSMF is "using and sublicensing" it, under the terms that you grant to OSMF, but you own the rights. OSMF is not able to license away the rights of mappers. There has been a lot of chatter over recent years about this issue but the issue has never really broken through. Let's talk about it openly,
Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects
Tomas Straupis wrote: > Ad absurdum argument: can you invent your own street name or even > placename and expect post, police, ambulance, firefighters, taxi to > arrive (on time or at all)? Sure, in the UK, you could do that and I know people who have done so. If you invent a street name here in Charlbury and then post a letter to it, Carla the post-lady will ask around until she finds out where the street is (or until she sees the sign you've erected), and then she'll deliver you the letter. A working postcode will speed the process up but isn't absolutely necessary. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] cycle.travel's OSM bike routing now covers Scandinavia and Eastern Europe
Hi all, I've just added coverage of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe to the OSM-powered bike routing at https://cycle.travel/map . New countries are Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, (North) Macedonia, Albania, Greece. Added to the existing countries, that makes full coverage of Europe and North America. cycle.travel's route-planning loves quiet roads and cycleways; takes account of elevation, signposted cycle routes, and surfaces; and parses lots of OSM tags in order to get good results. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?
Blake Girardot wrote: > Also: No one is getting paid for anything related to this at this > point. I personally would like to see Google donate to the OSMF > and let the OSMF grant it out to help OSM core and eco system > tools implement OLC native in code as it should be. That's done. Tom has coded it. Months ago. It's 20 lines of code (plus tests), which is a fraction of the bandwidth spent on this thread. https://github.com/tomhughes/openstreetmap-website/commit/2e0a2c67caf64df732f1e14160d5ead96c73a656 Everyone in this thread appears to think that what Tom has done - i.e. implementing it in the osm.org client rather than in tags - is a good idea, apart from Simon, and even Homer nods sometimes. Tom, understandably, doesn't want to push it live without consensus that it's a good thing (https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/1818#issuecomment-380695939). I reckon this thread is consensus enough and I'm sure Simon can indulge us on this one little thing if we promise to uncockup some editor presets in return. :) Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"
Greg Morgan wrote: > Let's compare Germany[8], the state of Montana[9] and the > United States[10]. We see that the size of Montana matches the > size of Germany. Yet, we see the population density is roughly > 82 million people in Germany to 1 million people in Montana. I see a lot of varied mapping practice in the US while engaged on TIGER fixup (trying to make it routable for bikes), much of it very good, which is leading me to the conclusion that the density argument is mostly a red herring. Anywhere with a population of 3k+ should be able to support an OSM volunteer or two[1]. Most people in the US, and most people in Europe, live in such places. Indeed, the US has hundreds, thousands of such local mappers: there are great examples of small-town mapping all over the US and it always cheers me up to stumble across them. 55% of Montana's population lives in urban areas, compared to, say, 67% in Wales. It's less (and there are differences in methodology) but it's not _that_ much less. There is no density reason why Billings need be less well mapped than Bangor, Kalispell than Carmarthen, or Missoula than Machynlleth. That leaves the rural areas, which are big and empty. But, and you'll excuse me stating the blindingly obvious, the thing about empty areas is that there's not much there to map. The TIGER A41 issue continues to be a running sore but, by and large, this can be (and is being) armchaired. Richard [1] other than issues with socio-economic and educational characteristics, which is a whole different story -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*
Florian Lohoff wrote: > Have you ever dealt with OSM data from a software development > standpoint? > > There is no such thing as "database quality". Its a big spaghetti > mess and data consumers take whats documented and ignore > misspellings. Users have to fix it with discipline noticing the errors > in data consumers products. Thats been OSM for more than a > decade. This is absolutely spot on and perhaps the best summary I've read of how real-world products deal with OSM data. Thank you, Florian. I'd add one postscript: for cycle.travel I take what's used, not "what's documented", and I believe many other consumers do the same. The surface values I parse are those which show up most highly at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surface#values , not whatever might be listed at the wiki. The same goes for numerous other cases where wiki documentation differs wildly from real-world mapping practice (there are a couple of notorious examples around access which I won't bore you with here). Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)
Carlos Cámara wrote: > Willing to read your points of view on that matter. There is a whole lot I could say on this (writing "Eurocentric" in a discussion about casinos seems really weird, and I'm not sure Native Americans would thank you for it) but ultimately it's a little academic at the moment. At present we are prisoners of the technology we use. That is raster tiles and they simply don't scale to offering multiple views of the world. So unless you believe there is one true map (there isn't) then this issue is always going to come up. Moving to vector tiles will bring OSM's true potential front and centre: a million different views of the one dataset.[1] The barrier for creating your own map view of the world moves from a seriously difficult toolchain and an arcane styling language, to a simple "bring your own style" with a friendly WYSIWYG editor[2]. It's not even infeasible that, one day, individual OSM users could save their own stylesheets somewhere on osm.org, fork and share them with others. The possibilities are endless, and endlessly delightful. That is where to focus our energies - not on mithering around the dying technology of raster tiles. Richard [1] assuming a comprehensive selection of tags is encoded into the tiles at large scale, but that's entirely plausible [2] https://github.com/maputnik/editor -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Name:* tags in the local language
Paul Norman wrote: > If there's agreement that there is a problem here, I could look > at preparing a mechanical edit or MapRoulette challenge to add > name:* tags, e.g. adding name:en to objects in the US with > other name:* tags, and adding name:zh in China. As an > estimate, this would be 115k changes in China, touching 28% > of roads there. This is pretty fragile too, though. Two minutes after the mechanical edit, a newbie will come along and change the name= tag on a random American road from MLK Boulevard to Martin Luther King Boulevard, without knowing they now have to change the name:en= tag as well. Bang, inconsistent data. Fast forward two years and a bunch of history-losing way splits, and it's no longer clear which is the accurate street name and which is the original, mistaken TIGER-imported one. In theory you could bake support for this into editing software (at the expense of complicating the interface), but even if JOSM, iD, Vespucci and P2 all add support, the name= tag is probably the most likely to be changed by minority editors (e.g. mobile or 'quick fix' apps) and it's unlikely they'll all add the same logic. Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > This language=en tag would be placed on a administrative > relation, right? If I read Frederik's proposal right, the language=en tag would be placed on the object with the name tag, though putting it on admin relations is an interesting idea. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13
joost schooupe wrote: > It doesn't help that it was worded as "people are > saying", but then the last part of the sentence seems more > like their own opinion. Worth noting that WeeklyOSM is produced alongside and seeded by the German Wochennotiz. I don't sprechen sufficient Deutsch to be certain, but it looks like the German original[1] is more carefully worded and less presumptuous. So the controversial second half is very possibly just a clumsy translation. Reading back through this whole discussion, those of us fortunate enough to be born with the world's international language as our mother tongue could, perhaps, be more forgiving of those who weren't. Richard [1] http://blog.openstreetmap.de/blog/2017/11/wochennotiz-nr-382/ -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13
Sheesh, you lot are hilarious sometimes. Publications have an inviolable duty to be impartial? That’s great. Very interesting attitude in 2017. Tell me when you’ve found one such. WeeklyOSM writes what WeeklyOSM wants. If you don’t like it, contribute or start your own. It saddens me that the spirit of do-ocracy in OSM has been diluted so much that people now prefer to criticise others on the mailing lists rather than doing anything better. I’m a former newsstand magazine editor, lay out a tidy flatplan, write a mean standfirst; and still, as a freelance, write features regularly. But don’t let that stop you with your ever entertaining amateur hour. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service
Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > Look at Wikipedia, or any large social organization for that matter. At > the village/startup level, you have very few codified rules, but as the > group grows to a city/corporation size, it becomes more and more > bureaucratic. We may not like it, but clear rules help community > maintain cohesion, and prevents many conflicts. Please, please, please stop this. OSM is not Wikipedia. The OSM community has evolved a set of norms over the last 13 years. There are problems and challenges but by and large they work well. OSM believes that by minimising rules, you encourage new contributors and more creative and diverse mapping. Wikipedia believes differently. That's fine. But there is no single objective truth that Wikipedia is right on this and OSM is wrong. They're just different. Please trust the community to follow its own path, rather than trying to impose behaviours from elsewhere. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #379 2017-10-17-2017-10-23
I agree absolutely. Time to ban verdy_p for continually disruptive behaviour and an unwillingness to work with the community. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service
Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > For example, RU community wants to convert amenity=sanatorium > -> leisure=resort + resort=sanatorium. Clicking on a dot shows a > popup with the suggested edit. If you think the edit is correct, simply > click Save. I've been a bit loth to get involved with this one but I do share the general worry. Editor authors have a general responsibility to encourage good editing behaviour in their UI design. It isn't quite as simple as "every tool can be used for good and bad things": the developer should design the tool to encourage the good and discourage (or prevent) the bad. The developers of JOSM and, particularly, iD have long been exemplary in this regard. This new tool can certainly be used for good, and there are use cases for which it is ideal, but it's also very easy to misuse. My biggest concern is that since it's decoupled from an editing environment, the natural tendency is just to click 'Change', 'Change', 'Change' rather than reviewing and manually making the changes. (We've seen this behaviour in several "challenges" in the past, such as the dupe nodes drive.) OSM is a collection of human knowledge; this workflow goes too far in removing the human from the equation. As an alternative, could I encourage you to look at something tentative I did the other year for that relic of an editor, Potlatch 2? https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/28267 This allows a user to navigate instantly between instances of a "challenge" within the editor, while benefiting from an external data source to define that challenge. The P2 implementation is fairly simple (there's no "Resolved" button to feed back to that external source, for example) but demonstrates the concept. If you were to build something along these lines into JOSM or iD, following the traditional MapRoulette-like approach of asking users to make the change rather than automating it, I think you'd get the benefits you're seeking to achieve without the potential damage. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Cycle network nodes and mountain passes
Hi all, I've just added support for a couple more tags to cycle.travel's directions and thought it worth mentioning here - everyone likes seeing their mapping being used. :) First up, cycle.travel now includes 'knooppunten' (cycle node networks) in turn-by-turn directions. These are found in the Netherlands, Belgium and parts of Germany, and help you navigate dense cycle route networks. Here's an example: https://cycle.travel/map/journey/51597 This picks up rcn_ref= or lcn_ref= tags on nodes. It also includes mountain passes in the turn-by-turn directions, for people who like riding somewhere hillier: https://cycle.travel/map/journey/51600 These are nodes (on highways) tagged natural=saddle or mountain_pass=yes with a name tag. If there's an ele tag, this will be output too. Live in Western Europe now; will be in North America in the next update in a week or so's time. cycle.travel mapping and routing is updated from OSM roughly once a month. And thanks to everyone who has added knooppunten and mountain pass info to OSM! cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence compatibility (was Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag)
Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > Also, what about the location where data is combined? E.g. if wikidata > is in public domain, and US courts agree with that statement, anyone > in the US can combine it with OSM data? What about UK? In any > case, i suspect nothing we decide has any merit until the actual court > case in any of the locations. OpenStreetMap takes and has always taken a whiter-than-white view of copyright. We aim to provide a dataset that anyone can use without fear of legal repercussions. It is not OSM's role to explore interesting grey areas in copyright, nor to push things to the extent that a court case is necessary. It has been settled for many years that we do not take co-ordinates from Wikipedia. They are mostly encumbered with Google copyright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Google_tools This is not a new issue and has been mentioned before in connection with Wikidata referencing. Our data is principally hosted in the UK and the OSM Foundation is a company registered in England & Wales, so as a broad assumption UK law applies (which is fairly maximalist on copyright and follows the sweat-of-the-brow doctrine) as well as the EU database right, at least until this benighted country takes leave of its senses forever and leaves the EU. :( Follow-ups probably best to legal-talk@. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*
Andy Mabbett wrote: > in different parts of the world IIRC OSM stores spatial information. I might be wrong. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Label language on the Default stylesheet
Frederik Ramm wrote: > I'd invest the available brainpower in steps needed to achieve > this goal, even if it's a year or two in the future. Which means vector tiles... which we should be looking at anyway. But that needs to be a separate project really, rather than a facet of openstreetmap-carto. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Draft Trademark Policy
Roland Olbricht wrote: > This makes clear that neither the file name extension "osm" is > jeoparday. Or you do not want to discourage people from using > "osmium", "osmosis" or a range of other software. I see your point there, but conversely I am really uncomfortable with the OsmAnd situation. It's evident (from IRC, help.osm.org, other non-OSM forums etc.) that a lot of people assume OsmAnd is the official OpenStreetMap Android app. This is already a problem in terms of support burden. It could potentially become a problem for others building apps on OSM data (if users say "oh, no, I'd rather use the official app") or by effectively encouraging mapping for this official-sounding renderer. In brief, I don't believe we should have permitted OsmAnd to use that name, though by now the ship has almost certainly sailed. How you formulate a policy that permits osmosis and osmium but not OsmAnd, though, I have no idea. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Draft-Trademark-Policy-tp5900227p5900330.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Deprication of Potlatch
No, it will be a desktop app for Mac/Windows running with Adobe AIR. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Deprication-of-Potlatch-tp5899779p5899781.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Street Complete
Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > The data shows something else. From todays old-style.osm.pbf, at least > these relations were created yesterday with Potlatch 2: Hey wait, aren't you meant to be posting this on an issue tracker? ;) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Street-Complete-tp5897501p5897581.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Street Complete
Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > Ah yes, your lovely deprecated editor which still lets users > create old-style multipolygons on a daily basis. How I love your work. > > See the irony in the above? That's about as ironic as ray-ay-ayn on your wedding day... But you've just supplied a very good illustration. When developers choose to engage with the community using the channels that the community favours, the result is better for everyone. P2 actually _doesn't_ let users create old-style multipolygons on a daily basis, and hasn't done for some months now: https://github.com/systemed/potlatch2/commit/d53e6c544596fc89da387adec7bdf41ef589383c I implemented this as a result of being aware of Jochen's fixup programme through OSM diaries, IRC, the lists and elsewhere. I didn't insist on a P2 issue being filed as a requirement to do something (IIRC, Jochen did file a generalised "this fixup is taking place" issue but not a specific one about P2's default tagging). Your assertion was that requiring an issue to be filed on a tracker was universally "how software development works". It isn't how OSM works, and OSM is better for it. I have always watched the lists and elsewhere. I know Bryan, for iD, similarly keeps a good-natured eye on various channels (and is more patient than I've ever been). The JOSM developers have always been very responsive too. It would perhaps be kinder if you were to let OSM developers speak for themselves (and I'm very pleased to see Tobias has in this thread) rather than second-guessing them. > Ranting on the Internet does not make software better, providing > constructive feedback via the appropriate channel (i.e. project > issue tracker) does. I am not defending and do not defend abuse of developers. I have posted repeatedly on this list and elsewhere to that effect. Who would've thought? It figures. :) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Street-Complete-tp5897501p5897578.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Street Complete
Bas Couwenberg wrote: > On 06/02/2017 03:43 PM, Chris Hill wrote: > > I also object to people who provide software for OSM, used by OSM > > community members but who must use Github to raise a problem. Let > > the authors add the issue to github it it suits them. > > You apparently have no clue how software development works. I > suggest you stick to paper and pen based systems, if you object to using > issue trackers for software projects. No. OSM is not a software project, it's a community project. If you promote an editor that affects OSM data, you need to be responsive to the OSM community. That means monitoring the communication channels favoured by the OSM community and being prepared to respond to them. You cannot just decide upon your preferred tracker and refuse to listen to concerns elsewhere. Chris has a better idea of how OSM editing works than you appear to, and I can say that with some certainty having maintained the default osm.org editor from 2007 to 2013. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Street-Complete-tp5897501p5897529.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] HDYC, login requirement and "privacy"
Frederik Ramm wrote: > saying "your privacy goes down the drain if you do anything > online anyway, so why should we at OSM take steps to protect > it more". > > Perhaps: because we can, and because it's a good thing? ...or perhaps it isn't quite that black and white. OSM, at its best, is a community of real people, mapping their neighbourhoods, and taking responsibility for their edits. I stand by my edits in Charlbury and nearby because it's verifiable that I live here. If anonguy1 comes along and repeatedly edit-wars "Market Street" into "High Street", OSM defers, correctly, to me as the accountable local who feels a sense of ownership for my part of the map. If I wrongly armchair some TIGER and Todd from North Carolina says "hey, actually that should be a tertiary road", I defer to him - it's his map, I'm just visiting. As Mikel says upthread, "[OSM] depends so much on user reputation to retain quality". Breaking the connection between real people and "their map" fundamentally alters the OSM community, and, I think, makes it closer to the toxic, identity-free, virtual-personality environment that Wikipedia can so often be. You know and I know that several of OSM's most challenging edit wars in recent years have involved people who have not admitted, or have heavily obfuscated, their real names - sometimes generating a succession of disguised identities. I do not think this is coincidence. With identity comes accountability. There is nothing wrong with us saying "100% privacy is valuable, but it's not compatible with the way OSM works, and if you can't cope with your edits being trackable then OSM is perhaps not the project for you". Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/HDYC-login-requirement-and-privacy-tp5896250p5896429.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Disputed border between Greece and Turkey near Imia/Kardak in the Aegean Sea (was: Re: [Geocoding] Boundries of Kardak Islands)
Florian Schäfer wrote: > I'm not an expert on borders and how disputed borders are handled > in OSM, so I forward this to the talk-list, because this probably > needs more discussion. https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Disputed-border-between-Greece-and-Turkey-near-Imia-Kardak-in-the-Aegean-Sea-was-Re-Geocoding-Boundr-tp5894464p5894483.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Spam reporting
Joost Schouppe wrote: > Well the annoyance with spam does pop up often enough. The usual > answer to things like this in the OSM ecosystem is "why don't you > do it yourself". I've not seen this answer for spam. Is there no easy > way for people to become spam-police if they like to do so? The "do it yourself" in this case is "finish the work on a reporting queue" which Ruben alluded to upthread: https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/841 https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/1268 It really is a case of "finishing" - plenty of work has already been done but it hasn't got to a state yet where it can be integrated into the site. For someone with Rails-fu it shouldn't be too hard. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Spam-reporting-tp5880292p5891924.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] SOTM EU
Martijn van Exel wrote: > Here I thought I was asking a simple question. On an OSM mailing list? You must be new round here. (More seriously, there were rumours of an event in Italy, but I've not heard anything concrete.) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/SOTM-EU-tp5889608p5890295.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup
Mikel Maron wrote: > Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports (outside > of obviously urgent problems). Where a revert of an import (or other automated edit) is done by DWG because an import did not follow the rules, reverting that import just goes back to the status quo ante. That allows damage to be cancelled out and the import to be retried, later, when the problems have been addressed. Nothing is lost to OSM or the importer, and a lot is gained. I would gently submit that requiring DWG volunteers to undergo through a laborious consultation regime for every revert, simply to be able to apply the long-standing (and well-founded) rules, would achieve nothing apart from driving away a bunch of selfless, hard-working volunteers. (There are no other large-scale reverts that take place in OSM to my knowledge.) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Wikipedia-Wikidata-admins-cleanup-tp5888517p5888705.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Lot's of locality names in an otherwise empty area
Sebastian Arcus wrote: > Well, looking at the map, it looks like each and every parcel of > land and section of field has a locality tag associated with it. It's very common in the UK, too, for uninhabited sections of woodland and hillside to have placenames. > it still seems a bit odd - and begs the question if those tags > really need to be there. Why not? Be conservative in what you change/delete in OSM, be liberal in what you add. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Lot-s-of-locality-names-in-an-otherwise-empty-area-tp5886253p5886295.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetView name change
Andy Mabbett wrote: > This is hardly surprising, and not unreasonable (there's no > "Ford Beetle" or "Volkswagen Mini", nor a "BurgerKing > Happy Meal". for example). Though there is Ordnance Survey Street View, which pre-dates Google Street View by several years. (It's soon to be replaced by OS Open Map Local.) FWIW, I like the "-scape" suffix, e.g. OpenStreetscape: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/streetscape Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/OpenStreetView-name-change-tp5885558p5885580.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Which type of highways are used by routing software?
Michał Brzozowski wrote: > The rules for routing appear to be mostly global for popular > routers. There is very little magical sauce, if any. I wouldn't say that. Obviously the demo instances for OSRM and GraphHopper use their own vanilla profiles, but other routers very often have customised profiles/rules. My own http://cycle.travel/map has a completely different, much more complex profile than the standard OSRM bicycle profile, for example. John Whelan wrote: > Obviously if I select bicycle it won't use motorway or > footway but in general which highway types are used? cycle.travel _does_ actually route over motorways and footways if bicycle=yes tags are set. Many motorways in the US permit bikes (on the hard shoulder); it's not uncommon to see a shared-use path in the UK tagged as highway=footway, bicycle=yes; and a short distance pushing on a highway=footway can often provide a good route. For highway=track, I treat it differently for different countries: for example, in the UK I don't route over highway=track unless access tags suggest it's permitted. cycle.travel doesn't currently cover Africa and I have no plans to do so, but if it did I would probably route over highway=track there. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Which-type-of-highways-are-used-by-routing-software-tp5885190p5885210.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct
Victor Grousset wrote: > On 14/07/2016 17:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > The person proposing the automated edit isn't the best placed > > person to weigh that up: they're already convinced of the desirability > > of the edit (which is why they're proposing it). > > The person already weighed that up to decide that the benefit were > worth many hours in preparation, discussion, execution that will > possibly end up reverted. Which doesn't mean they're automatically right. I'm sure the person who did this automated dupe node merge spent many hours preparing it, but they still fucked it up, and the damage is still there 6 years later. http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/357366507 Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Automated-edits-code-of-conduct-tp5877825p5878798.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct
Éric Gillet wrote: > However I'd believe that there is (in Europe for the example's sake) a > very low number of restaurant really named McDonalds and not part > of the franchise. So if the changeset correct 300 restaurants but 2 > are "damaged" by the automated edit, would the edit be bad enough > to be reverted or not be done in the first place ? The answer to which is, of course, it depends. For some automated edits the collateral damage will be too great, for others it may sometimes be acceptable. The person proposing the automated edit isn't the best placed person to weigh that up: they're already convinced of the desirability of the edit (which is why they're proposing it). So we need a second opinion - people to review the edit to see whether the collateral damage will be too great. Since OSM is a classic example of "with many eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus%27s_Law), the challenge is to make sure enough eyeballs look at the proposed automated edit to see if there are any bugs in it. To ensure this, those proposing an automated edit need to put it in front of people's eyeballs. There are good ways to do that - particularly these mailing lists. Fortunately, this is _exactly_ what http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct suggests. :) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Automated-edits-code-of-conduct-tp5877825p5878347.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct
Éric Gillet wrote: > That would be slightly faster to execute than the first approach I was > suggesting, but then how would you prove that you checked every > and all features ? Well, the best way to prove that you checked everything is not to fuck things up, which of course you won't, because you've checked everything. If you fuck things up (for example, by changing name=McDonalds to name=McDonald's on an independent restaurant that is actually called McDonalds), then by definition you haven't checked sufficiently, have you? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Automated-edits-code-of-conduct-tp5877825p5878305.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct
Éric Gillet wrote: > In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules : > - Doesn't seem to have been voted on before their "establishment" The Code of Conduct is a document enforced and revised by DWG, with the intention of codifying long-standing principles in OSM (principally, "respect the work of others"). DWG is a committee of the elected OSMF. If you don't like it, you can vote for directors on OSMF who share your viewpoint, who can then vote to instruct DWG accordingly. This is called representative democracy. The alternative is direct democracy, where fundamental policies are put to a vote (or "referendum") among an ill-informed, over-emotive, easily stirred-up population. This is a really, really bad idea. Trust me on that one. :( Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Automated-edits-code-of-conduct-tp5877825p5877864.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] MAPS.ME edits - partly sub-standard
Andreas Vilén wrote: > Post codes are also a little dubious, since those aren't open > data in Sweden and can normally only be figured out through > local knowledge Perish the thought that people might add their local knowledge to OSM. I thought it was all imports, armchairing and tagwanking these days. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/MAPS-ME-edits-partly-sub-standard-tp5875743p5876046.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcement: Direct Access to MapQuest map tiles without a key will end on 11 July 2016. Details on getting keys and SDKs
Jeff Medaugh wrote: > MapQuest is moving to a 100% cloud solution - the new > infrastructure dictates that all tile access will require a key. > Details on how to get keys, SDKs and general migration > information is below: Thanks for posting this. Will there still be specific 'MapQuest Open' products (i.e. 100% OSM data), or will everything be a hybrid of TomTom in key markets, OSM elsewhere? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Announcement-Direct-Access-to-MapQuest-map-tiles-without-a-key-will-end-on-11-July-2016-Details-on-gs-tp5875610p5875617.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] osm maps on wikipedia - discussion
Frederik Ramm wrote: > We'd have to explain to Wikipedia users that what they see on our > maps might not be what they expect, and that we do *not* want > them to fix it... I've just created a quick, friendly wiki page to explain that and other differences: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Wikipedia_users Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/osm-maps-on-wikipedia-discussion-tp5872649p5872717.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Applicability of wiki tagging and votes: may, should or must
Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I am not claiming that there are quick & easy ways to reduce > complexity - but complexity has some real negative consequences. The cycleway tagging mess has come about because a bunch of wikifiddlers keep inventing ever more spurious and unnecessary tags - highway=path, bicycle=designated, bicycle=official, and so on. That's an argument to distrust the wiki, not to give it more authority. If we were to elevate the wiki to 'MUST' status, you'd have to support a new set of tags every time ten people voted on one obscure wiki page. At least, with the current situation, any tag needs to get some sort of critical mass before clients need to worry about supporting it. FWIW, I process cycleways extensively for cycle.travel's map and routing, covering Western Europe and North America. The variant tags aren't great but they're not that much of a problem - nothing that a few ifs and tables can't solve (Lua ftw). The three serious problems I do encounter are: 1. Granular tags (notoriously highway=path) with missing information. highway=path without both access= and surface= tags is pretty much useless. 2. Differing densities of data, such as Germany with its countless highway=tracks - makes effective cartography from a single stylesheet very difficult. 3. Bad imported data, principally but not exclusively TIGER. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Applicability-of-wiki-tagging-and-votes-may-should-or-must-tp5866166p5866307.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Applicability of wiki tagging and votes: may, should or must
David Marchal wrote: > What is the applicability of the Wiki content? Three long-standing principles of OSM: 1. consensus is important 2. precedent is important 3. patches beat "should" The first means that you can't order the community to do things based on ten people voting on the wiki. taginfo, major clients, and agreement on these lists are also valid indicators of consensus, often more so. The second means that you can't order the community to do things which break long-established OSM good practice, even if you've voted it through on the wiki. The third means that you can't simply get ten votes on the wiki and require editor or stylesheet authors to change their code or maps. A vote on the wiki does not mean that these people have to spend hours coding something for your new relation scheme, nor does it even mean they are obliged to accept a patch from you if they disagree with it. So the applicability of the wiki content is to the wiki. But it is one of several indicators of consensus in the wider project, and it's consensus that drives the project and tagging in particular. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Applicability-of-wiki-tagging-and-votes-may-should-or-must-tp5866166p5866182.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Proposal to close newbies@ list
Hi all, Usage of the newb...@openstreetmap.org mailing list, set up in 2007 to provide help to new users, has dwindled to almost nothing. There were no posts in September, October, November, or December. Generally we now have better places to provide help to new users - principally http://help.openstreetmap.org/ , but also national forums and mailing lists. There is also more OSM documentation than was once the case. So that new users don't seek help in a little-used backwater, but instead go to a place where help is more likely to be found, I'm proposing (as list admin) to close the list to subscriptions and to posting. The list archives would be retained. If you have a compelling reason why the list should not be closed, please speak up now. You'll need to volunteer to be the admin though. ;) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] switch2osm documentation upgrade
Daniel Koć wrote: > Oh, "Find Out More" page has some contact informations, but I > guess "Contact" or "About us" would be easier to find. The page recommends that you use IRC in the first instance, and also suggests help.osm.org for asking questions. I really do not want to get into providing unpaid tileserver support by email, which providing an contact address would lead to. > So my second question is: what do you think about upgrading part of > the site (with installation instructions) the way I just proposed - or > maybe some other way? If you'd like to provide a regularly-maintained Docker image and some installation instructions, I'd be very happy to include that on the site. I wouldn't want to replace the main content with auto-generated instructions, however. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Tile-Server-manual-build-15-10-troubleshooting-tp5863850p5863968.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] switch2osm documentation upgrade (was: Re: Tile Server manual build 15.10 troubleshooting)
Daniel Koć wrote: > BTW: who is the maintainer of switch2osm site? I was not able to > find any contact informations there. I am, though a few other people also have admin/editing rights. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Tile-Server-manual-build-15-10-troubleshooting-tp5863850p5863962.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Best way to amalgamate two relations?
Dave F. wrote: > Is there an easy way to transfer the newer data into the > original relation? In P2: - Select a way belonging to both relations, adding them if needs be - In the \/ menu next to the new relation (Advanced panel), choose 'Select all members' - In the \/ menu next to the original relation, choose 'Add selection to this relation' - In the \/ menu next to the new relation, choose 'Delete relation' cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Best-way-to-amalgamate-two-relations-tp5863106p5863117.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Project OSM2VectorTiles.org launched
Stefan Keller wrote: > OSM2VectorTiles is a project simplifying installation of free > world maps maintained by OpenStreetMap community. Looks interesting - nice work! If I may just pick you up on one statement in the thesis: "There also exists a method[17] that circumvents using a database and directly transform OSM data into vector tiles but this does not scale for global vector tile coverage and does not support mixing additional data into the vector tiles. "[17] GitHub. Tilemaker, 2015. URL https://github.com/systemed/tilemaker. Visited on 2015-12-14." Whether tilemaker scales to the globe has not yet been attested. My hunch is that it probably doesn't impose more demanding requirements than, say, OSRM, which would mean it should be possible to create vector tiles from planet.osm.pbf with a large memory machine or EC2 instance. I would be interested to hear from anyone who tries it. It does, however, very definitely support including additional data (in shapefile form), and even allows you to perform some spatial queries using this data. See https://github.com/systemed/tilemaker/blob/master/CONFIGURATION.md#shapefiles . cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Project-OSM2VectorTiles-org-launched-tp5862757p5862759.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch down?
Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > Is it just me or is the OSM's built-in potlatch editor not currently > working? Should be fixed now. TomH identified that a Passenger upgrade caused requests to break, though exactly why isn't yet clear... Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Potlatch-down-tp5862638p5862659.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Nominatim weakness
John Goodman wrote: > And if its searching facility is braindead Please avoid being gratuitously offensive by describing something that lots of volunteers have put countless hours into as "braindead". Thank you. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Nominatim-weakness-tp5862392p5862453.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Involving Cyclists in OSM
Clifford Snow wrote: > I want to make sure I cover the salient points that would interest > cyclists. If you know of any websites that use bike routes or > otherwise make use of OSM data that would really be great. Where do I start...? :) Cycling and OSM have long been bedfellows. In Europe generally, and the UK in particular, cyclists were the interest group that took to OSM first. Part of the reason for this is economic (traditional geodata providers concentrate on cars because there's more money there) but partly also cultural, I think - cyclists have a culture of help-yourself and direct action, and that chimes very well with OSM. Historically cycle maps have been pretty poor, and OSM is the first chance to fix that, worldwide. Cycle mapping in OSM really started in earnest in 2006, when we started mapping the National Cycle Network in the UK: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=WikiProject_United_Kingdom_National_Cycle_Network&oldid=3142 and in 2007 Andy Allan released the first version of what is now OpenCycleMap to show this: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-July/016012.html (The National Cycle Network is run by Sustrans, a UK charity, and as it happens a bunch of UK OSMers are or have been Sustrans volunteers.) The other significant development at this time was mkgmap, which turns OSM data into a map you can use on a handheld (or handlebar-mounted) Garmin GPS. I put together perhaps the first OSM Garmin bike map in 2008: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=OSM_Map_On_Garmin/Cycle_map&oldid=71511 and since then others have done amazing work building more and more complex Garmin maps - Openfietsmap and Velomap are probably the two best known. So, routing. Routing is particularly important to cyclists because road systems and signage are generally designed for cars, funneling them onto more and more major arteries - and that's the absolute opposite of what cyclists want. If you're in London and simply follow the signs for Oxford it will take you along motorways built for cars and closed to bikes. You know all this. OSM is the first worldwide routable dataset that offers the potential for decent bike routing. Google has a go, and in many (mostly urban) areas Google bike routing comes up with good results, but it can also take you onto downright dangerous roads or impassable muddy tracks. If you ask Google for a route from Land's End to John O'Groats, the iconic end-to-end challenge in the UK (pretty much our equivalent of your Coast-to-Coast), it suggests the infamously dangerous main highway through Cornwall: https://goo.gl/maps/nwrbcAxgFRm and barely cyclable rural canal paths like this: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/599319 OSM has richer data and can do better. And with the advances in routing tools recently, particularly OSRM and Graphhopper, I think you could say that OSM bike routing is now the best in the world. There are lots of sites, but with no disrespect to the others who are doing good stuff (MapMyRide, Komoot...) there are three I'd single out. Mikel has already mentioned Strava, the favourite of road cyclists. Strava supplements OSM mapping with their own massive tracklog database from their users' rides, so it's not just sending you down roads that look good for cycling algorithmically, but those where cyclists actually ride. The big proviso with Strava is that it's a self-selecting userbase - they describe themselves as "a global community of athletes", and if, like me, your cycling isn't about being an "athlete" you'll find it takes you down the routes favoured by speedsters rather than the quiet lanes you might prefer. But it's the world's biggest bike routes site and they're doing a lot of really interesting stuff with OSM. CycleStreets (http://www.cyclestreets.net/), launched in 2009, was pretty much the pioneer in OSM bike routing. It's essentially UK-only other than an occasional outlier. It was the first site where you could ask for an A-B route and pretty much guarantee you'd get something good back. It looks at the full gamut of OSM tags to find a route, and is entirely custom-written code. It was spun out of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign and really makes the best of all their cycling knowledge. And at the risk of blowing my own trumpet, there's cycle.travel (http://cycle.travel/map), which I built. cycle.travel aims to give routes as good as an OSM specialist like CycleStreets, but with the speed and ease-of-use of Google's routeplanner - which means fully draggable routes, a custom map showing relevant bike stuff, and ridiculous amounts of preprocessing to get the OSM data just right. It started UK-only, then Western Europe, and now does the US and Canada too. The US routing is actually the most complex of the three, in its efforts to keep you off busy roads but also to avoid the TIGER residential trap - the last thing you want is to be routed along a "quiet rural residential road" that actu
Re: [OSM-talk] Community Conference
Ian Dees wrote: > As someone currently planning a more community-focused SOTM US, I'd > be interested in hearing what sort of changes you would propose to > the existing SOTM structure. It's a great question to ask; and I realise this may sound a little contrarian, but I actually find myself enjoying SOTM-US more than SOTM. SOTM-US is full of people shipping things, and "shipping things" is the OSM spirit. Whether they're corporate or not doesn't really bother me. SOTM tends to have a greater proportion of academia and unviable hobbyist projects, which arouses the 2007 militant OSMer in me: "yes, this is all very clever, but what are you actually _doing_ with it?". That isn't to denigrate the organisational effort of the SOTM crew, who conjure miracles out of nothing; nor to say SOTM-US is perfect. (_Way_ too much Node.JS at SOTM-US. ;) ) And SOTM-EU in Karlsruhe was neither SOTM-US nor SOTM, but was perhaps the finest OSM conference I've attended. But I would really caution against contrasting "corporate" and "community". cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Community-Conference-tp5861569p5861575.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A message to our friends at HOT, Peace Corps etc. about Changeset Comments
Blake Girardot wrote:
> As to the original issue Ramm raised:
Frederik's first name is Frederik. It's not that uncommon. :) Please can we
avoid this becoming _really_ unnecessarily confrontational by calling people
by their surnames in a sort of English public school style ("go it,
molesworth, show them wot yore made of").
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/A-message-to-our-friends-at-HOT-Peace-Corps-etc-about-Changeset-Comments-tp5860424p5860507.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] A message to our friends at HOT, Peace Corps etc. about Changeset Comments
Christoph Hormann wrote: > And if on http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/1300 i read: > > "Please draw one large area outline around groups of buildings > and tag them landuse=residential" > > that is in violation of one of the core principles of OSM, namely > to map reality, what's on the ground. The core principle you're looking for is that OSM is iterative. We iterate towards completion. Start simple, become detailed. Back in the day, we used big swathes of landuse= to mark residential areas, and abutters= to indicate shops beside roads. You and I are fortunate enough to live in OSM-rich countries where all the important stuff has now been mapped and people can concentrate on unimportant fripperies like building outlines and addresses. By definition, HOT activities aren't in such countries. It's absolutely reasonable to start with approximations and replace them over time - that's what we were doing in the UK when the map was at a similar state of development to these places. Call it a Minimum Viable Map. Let's have a bit less judgement, and a bit more helping newbie mappers (and their organisers, who may not have as long-standing an OSM background as you) to do things well. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/A-message-to-our-friends-at-HOT-Peace-Corps-etc-about-Changeset-Comments-tp5860424p5860499.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Release openstreetmap-carto v2.36.0
Matthijs Melissen wrote: > Today, v2.36.0 of the openstreetmap-carto stylesheet has > been released and rolled out to the openstreetmap.org > servers. It might still take a couple of days before all tiles > show the new rendering. Congratulations to all involved - real dedication to the cause despite the slings and arrows. Thank you. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Release-openstreetmap-carto-v2-36-0-tp5858363p5858367.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] License files
Malcolm Herring wrote: > The copyright page on the Wiki seems to only refer to tiles The canonical copyright pages for OSM are http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License not whatever Xxzme might have mauled on wiki.osm.org. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/License-files-tp5857939p5857944.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > The line is going through multiple buildings and a wide low > wall. That's as unambiguous as it gets. The lack of any > other sign on the grass and highway areas are an additional > good hint. If you're mapping a railroad here, you're mapping > the past. Haha. I have, actually, been to the place you cited. Or, nearly. I cycled a couple of miles away from that example in June this year (I took a three-day bike tour after SOTM-US) and saw that railway - I actually explored its course for a few metres at one point. It was plenty in evidence if you knew what you were looking for, whether or not you can see it from the aerials. From what I saw elsewhere on the line, I cannot say with any confidence that there aren't distinctive traces of a former railroad there at the lat/long you cited. There might be. There might not. I suspect I'm more attuned to finding these traces than you are. Conversely I suspect you're more attuned than I am to some other stuff which you enjoy mapping. But I don't go and delete your mapping thousands of miles away just because I can't see it on some imagery. Come on. (And let's not get hung up about "if you're mapping a railroad". railway=dismantled does not mean it's a usable railway now, and no-one is claiming that. You have been in OSM long enough to know that the characters that make up a k/v combination are just that, characters. highway=footway is Not Actually A Highway. highway=trunk is Just Some Letters Indicating Importance And Isn't Even A Trunk Road In The UK. And so on.) But really... can we get a sense of perspective here? A few metres from the URL you cited is http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263868309 which doesn't exist, at all. No building. No sign of a building. It's fiction. Then there's http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263878931 which is an imported square footprint that looks nothing like the actual building. Pan south a mile and you get http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/41.88892/-74.03297 which is a textbook example of TIGER barf - a cluster of "highway=residential"s that are neither highways nor residential and whose geometry bears little or no relation to what's actually there. (Also, NY State Bike Route 32 sucks rocks. The traffic is heavy and the shoulder is either non-existent or too narrow to ride. I would love to find a way of mapping that.) If I were going to write 40 messages to a thread trying to make OSM better (I'm angry enough with myself that I've been drawn into writing four), in this area or anywhere, I would not choose deleting a few "railway=dismantled"s as my top priority. I really wouldn't. Please, give it a break, have a bit of respect for others' differing views, and go and make OSM better somewhere where it matters. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Abandoned-Rails-tp5852866p5854394.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Now it is done with railways and may be stopped. But if > completely dismantled railways are not deleted from OSM > what would stop somebody interested in mapping completely > destroyed buildings, canals etc? You're absolutely right. We should also stop mapping bus routes. These are often not supported by on-the-ground evidence, just by patterns of usage, and that might lead someone to map (say) the functionally equivalent corridors most often used by taxis or Uber vehicles. We should stop mapping official council boundaries. These aren't on the ground, and they are just administrative delineations of certain services. What would stop someone taking this and mapping pizza companies' delivery boundaries? We should stop adding postcodes. These usually aren't on the ground and they are just the reference system of one private company[1] among many. Someone might add the internal reference identifiers used by utility companies or indeed any other company with assets to manage. And we should stop making hypothetical points on the mailing list, because what would stop someone interested in applying those hypothetical points to other bits of OSM? Richard [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail#Privatisation -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Abandoned-Rails-tp5852866p5854391.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Railways yet again (was "THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject")
Frederik Ramm wrote: > But what if I have said the same thing five times already and the > others STILL don't see that I'm RIGHT Please try not to bring OSMF board meeting conventions onto the talk list. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/THIS-is-the-kind-of-enthusiasm-some-would-reject-tp5854124p5854261.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Three-months ban is over
Ilya Zverev wrote (re: Xxzme): > For me, it's clear that the ban did not work, and nothing has changed. Quoting Xxzme on the wiki: "What is clear to me is that you make ~0 improments to Main namespace "And constantly repeating yourself with magical "purpose" of Beginners' guide which was clearly defined and not by you! "I doubt you are the person to teach me or anyone else with your pathetic 4.5k houses per 7 years of editing Xxzme (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)" I would like to see a permanent ban for Xxzme from the project. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Three-months-ban-is-over-tp5853930p5853932.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Therefore I will delete any object that no longer exists or never > existed (after communication with mapper or other method to > verify whatever I am mistaken, with exception of highway= > proposed). OSM would be a better, and nicer, place if people went out and did mapping, rather than staying at home and doing deleting. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/stop-deleting-abandoned-railroads-tp5852056p5853420.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > Remember that interpreting osm data is actually a lot of work. > Very few people have the manpower to verify what railroad= > dismantled actually mean to decide wheter they want to use > or filter out that data. Most of them will just match railway=*, > plus perhaps some special cases for railway=rail and railway= > subway. Now they're looking at historical data without even > knowing it. They are confused. Please don't make stuff up. cycle.travel's rendering is 1300 lines of CartoCSS, 1400 of .mml, 300 lines of Lua preprocessing, and 350 lines of Ruby/PostGIS postprocessing. Of this, the code required to show only operational railways is 100 characters - a rounding error. It's a detail in a 1400-character line of .mml and it was copied directly from OSM-Bright, the base style used by switch2osm. In other words, anyone setting up an OSM tileserver from the canonical instructions already gets this for free. There are plenty of issues with OSM railway tagging that make decent rendering, routing and analysis hard. (railway=station covering both mainline stations and preserved heritage attractions is the first that springs to mind.) railway=dismantled is not one of them. As to whether utterly dismantled railways belong in the OSM database, I couldn't really care less. In terms of doctrine, they probably don't, though let's not overstate the issue: I suspect more bytes have been spilled in this thread than it would take to encode a dump of current railway=dismantled in .pbf format. But Gregory, Greg and Jason have it right. This is not about some precious notion of purity, it's about community. Outside the two fundamentals of "openly licensed" and "crowdsourced", OSM is characterised by its pragmatism. We do what works. What works is a community of people who feel respected and empowered. And bearing in mind that we're talking about the US here, we need all the community we can get. Read Minh Nguyen's excellent new diary post (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Minh%20Nguyen/diary/35646). Even in the super-affluent, super-educated Bay Area, OSM is barely at the stage that Europe reached five or more years ago. It is "an endless parade of outdated street configurations, missing landmarks, test edits". But, he notes, there is "plenty of rail and bike infrastructure". This is what characterised OSM adoption here in Britain. The enthusiasts are the first to "get it": the railfans, the cyclists. Widespread take-up comes later, once the enthusiasts have built something good. The last thing we want to do in the US is drive away the few enthusiasts we currently have. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Abandoned-Rails-tp5852866p5853037.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
Frederik Ramm wrote: > What everybody can see is a clearing or change in the surface > of something. That's fine to map. > > Inferring from that that there must have been a railway there is a > step too far. We are mappers, not trappers. Ok, let's try an experiment. Go to http://cycle.travel/map/journey/15120, click the route highlight (in purple), and click 'Find photos'. I spot a bridge in the characteristic Victorian railway style, a viaduct, the remains of a signal box, a large embankment of the type used to build railways and nothing else from that period, and A SODDING RAILWAY PLATFORM FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. Tell me again you can't infer there must have been a railway there. I dare you. I double dare you. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/stop-deleting-abandoned-railroads-tp5852056p5852474.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mappers and apps should focus on relations at the very start
Jo wrote: > even more sorry you stopped being the lead developer of iD For the record: the mantle of lead developer of iD passed to Tom and John immediately after SOTM-US Portland because it was wonderfully clear that their JavaScript skills are pretty much on a different planet to mine, and I was delighted to see them take up the torch. My reluctance to continue work on OSM editing software dates from before this, as you can see if you look at the commit graphs of both proto-iD and Potlatch 2. This is why I was so keen in summer 2013 to get iD made the default instead of Potlatch 2: so that the burden of maintaining the default editor could pass to someone else and I wouldn't have to endure the shit flung at the holder of that role any more. I think you, and others, need to consider why it's only those with the thickest skins that are prepared to work on OSM site (and, particularly, online editor) development. I am not the only one to have burned out. You have your own views. That's fine. Your view is that "there is a problem". That is not objective truth, that is your view and it may or may not be informed by actual facts. Others may believe that the main challenge for OSM is to be welcoming enough for a million new users to contribute their local knowledge - not to provide more and more detailed methods for a diminishing number of power users to map the locations of angels on a pin, without ever being troubled by thoughts of how new users will interact with those detailed methods. That too is not objective truth, it is a view (it happens to be mine). What is unacceptable is the relentless, harrying, dismissive, abusive manner in which you and others advance the former view over the latter. That is why we cannot retain developers. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] What's your OSM story?
In just over a week's time it's State of the Map US (yay). I'm giving a talk which will touch on why people contribute to OSM - and how we can get more! I'd love to hear your story as to what got you started. I know there's some good Serious Research on the topic, but for now I'm more interested in local colour - individual stories from OSM contributors. Post here, drop me a line (rich...@systemed.net), or on my diary at http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/35107 . Thanks! cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Please ban Xxzme in wiki
Andy Mabbett wrote: > In the absence of blatant vandalism or base abuse, I would > have expected, first, a recent, clear and unequivocal warning on > the user's talk page No. Please remember that the primary means of discussion and consensus in OSM is mailing lists, even when the subject is the wiki, and even though the mailing lists suck. There is no precedent for obtaining consensus on community decisions via wiki talk pages. Talk pages might be how it's done in Wikipedia, but we're not Wikipedia. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Please-ban-Xxzme-in-wiki-tp5843984p5844138.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Please ban Xxzme in wiki
Ilya Zverev wrote: > Who banned Xxzme in wiki a while ago? Please do it again. Seconded. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Please-ban-Xxzme-in-wiki-tp5843984p5843986.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Routing across parks
Dave F. wrote: > On Richard F. cycle.travel routing. How do reset & start again? There's a "Close route" button at the top of the turn-by-turn directions - click that and it'll clear the route. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Routing-across-parks-tp5836533p5836536.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] amenity=bicycle_repair_station :::: only 18 so far
brycenesbitt wrote: > Are there any additional comments on the issue of importing (actually > synchronizing) 500 bicycle repair stations? > With this import OSM would become the most comprehensive database of > repair station locations. Where the location is good, it would be great to have these in OSM. In cases where the location is a bit less firm, I still suggest you go for it in rural areas (bike routes, small towns, etc.): the location is likely to be "good enough" and it could make a real difference to someone stranded miles from anywhere. For cities where there are local OSM mappers and where the location is inexact, I'd suggest that you just use notes. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/amenity-bicycle-repair-station-only-18-so-far-tp5824412p5832848.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Potlatch 2 - Is it still being developed? Tasks?
Dave F. wrote: > I still use P2, I've tried the others a few times, but keep > returning. Is it still being developed? I've noticed a 'tasks' > button has been added. Yes, it is, albeit sporadically. Now it's free of the pressure of being the default editor, it's able to gain a few more unusual features now and then. I've documented them in my user diary: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Potlatch-2-Is-it-still-being-developed-Tasks-tp5828078p5828082.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Balance of power (was: Re: How to vote to match your view)
[Apologies to talk@ readers for this follow-up to a post on osmf-talk@. I'm not an OSMF member and therefore can't post to osmf-talk@, but as I'm being spoken about over there, I'd appreciate the opportunity to respond.] Steve Coast wrote: See, there was no group that "mobbed" Richard out the board. The CWG took away Twitter access from everyone without any consultation, thinking Ivan's tweet was mine. I asked for it back, used every channel as I outlined. Richard sadly quit feeling CWG was being overpowered by the board but that's not what happened. The CWG took Twitter away from the people using it without talking to anyone, then was surprised this wasn't okay. For the record: Communications Working Group didn't think Ivan's tweet was yours. We genuinely didn't know who had sent it. (From what I remember of the content of the tweet, it didn't appear to be from a native English speaker, and at first I thought it might have been Emilie.) At the time, CWG was aiming for a step change in our communications. In particular, we were aiming to follow up our very successful switch2osm campaign, and were in the early stages of planning a second campaign aimed at recruiting new mappers. A large part of that was professionalising our message - bringing sharper focus to OSM's outbound communications, to consistently push the message that mapping was accessible, enjoyable, and made a difference. Basic marketing and not the sort of thing that should come as a surprise to anyone. To get this focused message across, we needed to ensure that everything going out on our Twitter, Facebook and Google+ accounts was in line. In an ideal world we would like to have drawn up simple house style and messaging guidelines (again, marketing 101) for those with access. However, our hand was forced by this badly phrased tweet, from persons unknown, endorsing a map which failed to attribute OSM (years later, I can't even remember what map it was!). Changing the Twitter password and asking those who wanted a message to go out to contact us, which is what we did, seemed the easiest and most sensible short-term measure. Unfortunately you decided to take this as a personal affront, when no such affront was intended, and to campaign volubly for CWG's work to be overruled because of this. There is absolutely no personal animus in this. Sure, I disagree with you on many things, but you're an engaging guy to chat to over a pint and I have no doubt we'll do so again some time. But let me make it clear that I did not quit because "CWG was being overpowered by the board". I quit because it was clear that there was no likelihood of improving OSM through the Foundation, in any fashion, when well-intentioned, industrious, and skilled volunteer work could be overturned by emotive say-so. I see no sign that this has changed, and that is why I have no intention of rejoining the Foundation. As a postscript, I believe switch2osm was the last substantial marketing effort that OSMF has done. All the good publicity for OSM since then has been from third parties, particularly Mapbox. Progress in OSM happens despite the Foundation, not because of it. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Unelected OSMF "advisers"
Michael Collinson wrote: For transparency, I have attended about one year of board meetings now I think (it is minuted). I took the approach that I should simply listen and pick up items that the MT could handle. I was however encouraged to take a more participatory role provided that I do not take part in voting. On board email, I answer questions that are asked and occassionally make reports or specific requests from the Management Team or License Working Group. Else, the value is that I am generally aware of issues and do not need to be briefed. I cannot make comment on board meeting or email detail, but I do not think it breaching confidentiality to say that Steve's participation is overwhelming passive ... he makes his engagement through public, open channels to my knowledge. During the approximately the past three weeks, and only then, I have certainly been aggressive in giving advice ... and asking it. Yes, it is possible that I have over-stepped bounds. I find it difficult to imagine our mild-mannered Mike Collinson being aggressive! The new board members have been elected because the electorate believe they are the people best placed to make OSMF better; because the electorate likes their vision for change. When a benevolent long-timer offers advice and briefings, there is an implicit invitation to the newcomers to go native - for future activities to tend towards "business as usual". No document is neutral, no matter how well-intentioned; it is written within a particular worldview, with its own assumptions and backdrop. But sometimes a fresh pair of eyes is exactly what's needed, without preconceptions about "we tried that once and it didn't work", without "we always have to think about this important matter". If the more long-standing board members choose to resist change, they do at least have a mandate. Advisers don't, and should bear their privileged position responsibly. By all means you, and Steve, and others can be on hand to offer advice if asked. Your newly published document is interesting - very much so - but it's written with the experience and from the perspective of us old farts. Newcomers to the board should have fresh perspectives, fresh ideas. Let the new board form their first thoughts free of external pressure. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Unelected OSMF "advisers"
I am a little concerned that the (already overwhelming) task of fixing OSMF, which has been entrusted to a board of seven good people, is being made still harder by people in mysterious unelected roles offering their advice. I know of at least two: Mike Collinson is chair of the (AIUI moribund) 'Management Team'. Steve Coast is 'chairman emeritus' - I'm not sure whether Simon Poole has also been offered this title. I believe (but don't know) there may be others who receive copies of, and can send, management emails but aren't elected in any way. Two requests: First, for the sake of openness, it would be good to see these relationships documented on the OSMF website. Second, while the new board decides on its direction, a period of self-imposed silence by these people would be considerate. Frederik, Kathleen and Paul have been newly elected to do a difficult job. Their work will be made all the more difficult by a cacophony of advice from those without a mandate. This isn't personal - I like Mike very much, while I think it's fairly comprehensively documented that Steve and I don't get on - but it seems, to me, common decency that if you ask someone to do a job, you give them the time and space to do it. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Fix a Forest - experimental tiles from US Forest Service data
On 11/11/2014 20:57, Clifford Snow wrote: Suggestion - set the tile background to transparent so we can see underlying image in JOSM. I can certainly have a look at doing that. Do you/anyone know whether transparent tiles would still be usable in iD? cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Fix a Forest - experimental tiles from US Forest Service data
Hi all,
I've created a set of tiles from US Forest Service road data for the 155
US National Forests.
This is to help with TIGER fixup in these rural areas, where tracks,
trails and entirely non-existent paths are often tagged with a bare
"highway=residential". The US Forest Service data is greatly superior to
the original TIGER data and has metadata on surface type/quality, but is
unsuitable for automatic import into OSM because it would overwrite
mappers' existing work in these areas.
You can access the tiles at:
Potlatch 2/JOSM - http://osm.cycle.travel/forest/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.png
iD - http://osm.cycle.travel/forest/{z}/{x}/{y}.png
and they're included in the editor-imagery-index list used by P2 and iD.
The tiles are available up to z19. Use of Potlatch 2's new "floating
imagery window" mode is recommended, so that you can work from both Bing
imagery and these tiles at the same time. :)
You can also explore from the comfort of your browser:
http://osm.cycle.travel/index.html
where there's an "Edit this area in OpenStreetMap" link at the bottom right.
The key is:
Surface:
yellow outline = paved
grey outline = gravel
Road type:
white with black casing = paved road
dashed grey = gravel road suitable for cars
dashed brown = dirt road
dotted grey = not maintained for cars
Maintenance level:
grey dots = 4x4 only
green dots = usable by cars
black dots = moderately comfortable for cars
black frequent dots = very comfortable for cars
Points of interest:
car = roadside park
flag = Forest Service station
ski = winter recreation area
hiker = trailhead
campsite = campsite
picnic site = picnic site
(There's some degree of overlap, but this is present in the original
USFS data.)
When remapping, I would suggest the following tags as a minimum:
highway=unclassified - paved road
highway=unclassified, surface=unpaved/gravel/dirt - unpaved road
suitable for cars
highway=service - road to isolated dwelling or other building
highway=track - unpaved track or road suitable for 4x4s
highway=path - narrow linear clearing, too narrow for motor vehicles
[delete entirely] - raw TIGER data with no signs of track or path in
either imagery or Forest Service tiles
US Forest Service data is public domain so there's no need for further
attribution when using this data, though a source= tag is always good
practice.
Hope these are helpful, and let me know of any further suggestions.
cheers
Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap ten years on, and why it's time for a fresh slate
This one's going to be long, but it might be worth it, I hope. I've been involved in OSM for almost ten years now. 22nd November is my OSM birthday: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2004-November/000111.html Message 000111. Right now talk@ is up to 71235, never mind the other lists. Come to Charlbury on the 22nd, I'll buy you all a drink and find you somewhere to sleep. (Don't tell Anna.) OSM has changed my life, and my outlook, in several ways. One is realising that a small number of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world, without any hope of a fast buck - which is a noble idea we all have in our 20s but this was the first real-life proof, to me, that it really does work. The other, perhaps more important, is: it's down to you. If you want change, change things. In 2005 we expressed this by demanding action, not words, from anyone who said 'OSM should do it like this' on the lists. The word 'should' was a red rag to us back then. In time the word 'do-ocracy' was coined. But the other half of the do-ocracy equation has never received enough credit. It's not just that "actions speak louder than words"; it's that "we trust you to carry out the actions". OSM doesn't have a moderation system for edits. Site improvements don't have to go through five board committees. It's OSM. You're a contributor. You've given us your time. We trust you. Do great things. That, more than anything, is why OSM works. We value, and trust, our contributors. Every one of them. OSM is 'do great things' multiplied by ten thousand. The slight wrinkle is that this only gets you 95% of the way there. The 95% is astonishing. The 95% is mapping large parts of the world to ridiculous levels of detail. We are by most metrics the best available map of Germany, the UK, increasingly France, Russia and the urban US, and a hundred places I don't even know about. (I made this comment elsewhere. I was immediately picked up by a Belgian mapper, Marc, saying "hey, what about us?". He was right. I didn't know. That's how far we have come.) The 95% is running the most crazily lean, efficient hardware setup, constantly reinventing: our API went from plain-old-Ruby to Rails to C++, our tile servers from monolithic to distributed, our database from MySQL to Postgres, our UI from entirely serverside to largely clientside. The 95% is an ecosystem of renderers and routers and, dare I admit it, the sleekest desktop map data editor there is and its universe of amazing plugins. (It begins with J. Don't make me say the name.) So if I talk about the 5% that do-ocracy doesn't accomplish, that's no slur on the OSM community. Our 5% is Wikipedia's 30% and Google's 95%. We do more, ourselves, better, than anyone else. Rewind to 2012. It was pretty clear we needed a new default editor on osm.org. Potlatch 2 still worked, but Flash Player was already (rightly) on the way out, and the six-year-old Potlatch user interface - initially designed for moderately clued-up users working on a blank canvas back in 2006 - was confusing for the newbies attracted by the explosion of public interest in OSM. This was a 5% problem. We needed a new beginners' editor, but no-one was clamouring to write it. The 95% of experienced OSMers, understandably, wanted to work on JOSM plugins for experienced OSMers. I tentatively started work on a newbie-friendly JavaScript editor called iD (I'm terrible at naming software) but I was pretty burned out on OSM development at the time and only got so far. Happily, in this case, there was a Fairy Godmother in the shape of the Knight Foundation and Mapbox. The Knight Foundation funded Mapbox to rebuild and complete iD. As part of this some incredibly skilled JavaScript developers and designers got to work on it. I don't think the outcome could have been any better, and it continues to delight me right now: while we're pointlessly beating seven shades out of each other in this thread, "osmbot: [osm-website|master|John Firebaugh] Update to iD v1.6.1" has just flashed up on IRC. iD is how it ought to work. iD isn't telling the 95% how to map or what to map. It isn't saying "Mapbox want turn restrictions, therefore the osm.org default will be devoted to mapping turn restrictions". It's simply a 5% intervention, a new tool which no-one else was writing, to increase the 95% of do-ers, to bring us more contributors. The effort in building it will benefit us many times over. But we can't always expect a Fairy Godmother to appear. We struck lucky in this one case. There are plenty of places where we haven't. I can recite a few of them. We have very little mobile presence, even though smartphones are ideal surveying devices; a 5% intervention here would bring so many more people to our 95%. Diversity is almost becoming a hackneyed word in OSM but let's restate the truth of it; a 5% intervention would make sure that our 95% of do-ers grows
[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Simon Poole wrote: Kathleen Danielson wrote: That said, I would like to voice my support for Richard's suggestion that the full board step down. It simply is a very unrealistic option given that it would require a mechanism that doesn't exist to force all board members to resign. Absolutely no force required. I would hope that the existing board members would recognise the virtue of a fresh mandate and a clean start. Incidentally, only three of the current board members (Simon, Frederik and Kate) have contributed to or shown any sign of being aware of this debate. Matt of course is stepping down but I hope Dermot, Henk and Oliver will take this chance to engage with the community they represent and serve. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
