Re: [OSM-talk] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?

2020-11-12 Thread Tomas Straupis
>> I see you do not manage to differentiate historical episodes and >> CURRENT situation. > Is May 2020 not recent enough? May 2020 is irrelevant: had no involvement of the US military, no war with neighbours. >> If you are not familiar with how things work in Moscow or relations >> of owne

Re: [OSM-talk] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?

2020-11-12 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-11-12, kt, 16:41 Clay Smalley rašė: > Anyway, this is clearly off topic and has veered into your personal > bugaboos about governments you don't like. I see you do not manage to differentiate historical episodes and CURRENT situation. > Maps.me doesn't seem to have any involvement in Russi

Re: [OSM-talk] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?

2020-11-12 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-11-12, kt, 15:54 Clay Smalley rašė: >> Maps.me (or crap.me as it is known in some places) is a known bad actor: >> * It disguises as made in Holland, when it is actually made in Moscow >> by a company having close ties with the Kremlin. > I don't think this is accurate or even relevant. Goo

Re: [OSM-talk] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?

2020-11-12 Thread Tomas Straupis
Maps.me (or crap.me as it is known in some places) is a known bad actor: * It disguises as made in Holland, when it is actually made in Moscow by a company having close ties with the Kremlin. * It does not clearly tell their uses they are using OpenStreetMap data (therefore their users have a WTH m

Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestions welcome | Re: Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch 2

2020-08-04 Thread Tomas Straupis
> In the absence of other proposals, even splitting it among the other two > would be a much better use, in my opinion. Chrm. iD gets the pile of money and the MAIN OpenStreetMap editor - JOSM - gets NOTHING? Or does this show that iD is so broken/unwanted that nobody wants to work on it with

Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of iD Development and Maintenance

2020-08-02 Thread Tomas Straupis
Will this mean that iD would adhere to de facto situation as well as wiki info and stop lying that original water schema is "deprecated" and authoritarian coder Brian will be removed from decision making and communication? ___ talk mailing list talk@opens

Re: [OSM-talk] Heresy - pure discussion

2020-07-24 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-07-25, št, 00:58 john whelan rašė: > If reliability and security are critical then you have to start balancing > things out. This is a lie or FUD. Microsofts security/reliability level was a joke 20-30 years ago, it got somehow better since then but security is nowhere close and the tools

Re: [OSM-talk] Heresy - pure discussion

2020-07-24 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-07-24, pn, 21:14 john whelan rašė: > I think we either run the largest PostgreSQL database there is or it is close > to it. Why do you think so? To my knowledge there are mch larger PostgreSQL databases going into petabytes. Can you be more specific as to what exactly was better in

Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground

2020-02-07 Thread Tomas Straupis
Note, that I'm opposing OTG rule application to non-physical objects as that is philosophically impossible as well as too unpracticall. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground

2020-02-07 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-02-07, pn, 17:18 Mateusz Konieczny via talk rašė: >> 1. On the ground rule has a number of different interpretations > Maybe. Is any of this interpretations leading to conclusion that Ukraine is > de facto controlling Crimea? No, why should they? Ground rule (interpretations I know about) h

Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground

2020-02-07 Thread Tomas Straupis
2020-02-07, pn, 16:18 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė: > the on the ground rule was set up to resolve difficult situations. So this rule is just for some specific small case(s) where standard (legal) base is not suitable for somebody? This rule (its new interpretation) was invented by a few without any

Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground

2020-02-07 Thread Tomas Straupis
Hello Some important points here: 1. On the ground rule has a number of different interpretations, interpretation of "we check everything on the ground literally" is an illusion of confirmation bias, especially when we talk about non physical objects such as borders. Anybody can look at the d

Re: [OSM-talk] landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2019-06-29 Thread Tomas Straupis
2019-06-29, št, 18:30 Mateusz Konieczny rašė: >> How many maps, analysis, QA routines, presentations, documentations >> have you created to come up with such a claim? > > To make such claim it is enough to look at tag statistics, history of usage > and note that water=reservoir is generally not tag

Re: [OSM-talk] landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2019-06-29 Thread Tomas Straupis
2019-06-29, št, 15:53 Mateusz Konieczny rašė: >> Don't change/brake stuff that works. > Software supporting only landuse=reservoir or only water=reservoir for > detecting reservoirs is already broken and was broken for a long time. How many maps, analysis, QA routines, presentations, documentati

Re: [OSM-talk] iD forces mistagging again

2019-06-29 Thread Tomas Straupis
2019-06-29, št, 15:38 Mike N rašė: > I don't remember why but I arrived at the new scheme several years ago > and have been using it ever since. So apparently data consumers will > be ignoring my tagging? There are so many of them (data consumers) that it is possible to say that some will be

Re: [OSM-talk] iD forces mistagging again

2019-06-29 Thread Tomas Straupis
2019-06-29, št, 14:23 Mateusz Konieczny rašė: > All "I prefer tag Y over X" are "rule Z is good way to deciding which tag is > better" is > a personal opinion, so I am not sure why you are pointing this out. > I even started from "I see (...)". I pointed that: 1. Original OpenStreetMap water

Re: [OSM-talk] iD forces mistagging again

2019-06-29 Thread Tomas Straupis
2019-06-29, št, 13:38 Christoph Hormann rašė: >> This is your personal opinion. > No, that is a statement of fact. If this is a good reason for choosing > a certain tagging over another is a matter of opinion. When somebody simply says "I think this is better" - it is a subjective opinion.

Re: [OSM-talk] iD forces mistagging again

2019-06-29 Thread Tomas Straupis
2019-06-29, št, 11:58 Mateusz Konieczny rašė: > (1) Have you (or someone else) tried making issue on iD bugtracker requesting > revert > and explaining why it should be done? https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6589 > (2) I see significant benefit of natural=water + water=* This is y

[OSM-talk] iD forces mistagging again

2019-06-28 Thread Tomas Straupis
Hi I've noticed that iD started forcing people to retag waterbodies from original OpenStreetMap scheme like landuse=reservoir to new'er, less popular and in no way better scheme: natural=water+water=reservoir (and similar). What can be done about it? Is the only way to solve the problem is by

Re: [OSM-talk] iD influencing tagging

2019-04-07 Thread Tomas Straupis
2019-04-07, sk, 19:06 Bryce Jasmer rašė: > The wiki page for landuse=reservoir says: > "Description: Ambiguous and better alternatives exist, see water=reservoir" > So, is iD wrong to use this, or is the wiki incorrect? Wiki is incorrect. Even "creator" of "everything blue is natural=water" agre

Re: [OSM-talk] iD influencing tagging

2019-04-07 Thread Tomas Straupis
2019-04-07, sk, 17:47 Bryce Jasmer rašė: > Can you give some examples of what the OSM normals are and how iD differs > from them? There is no way (other than writing tags directly) to tag reservoirs as landuse=reservoir (original and still wider used water tagging scheme), iD insists on natural

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

2019-03-01 Thread Tomas Straupis
2019-03-01, pn, 17:55 Christoph Hormann rašė: > As long as data sources you use have been produced by people who got > paid for their work (through either taxpayer money or private > investments) the discussion is moot - that is not the same league, that > isn't even the same sport. You give first

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

2019-03-01 Thread Tomas Straupis
2019-03-01, pn 16:25, Mateusz Konieczny rašė: > For full screen map two lines of text is perfectly OK. > Two lines for ONE source, then additional lines for other sources. That is not OK. Plus corners are good spots for action places, it is not OK when attribution occupies two corners. It would

Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution

2019-03-01 Thread Tomas Straupis
I, being a mapper in the first place, do not put OSM contribution visible by default on webmaps I create (only after pressing data source link), because when you have more than one data source, it is not practical to show that much info. My second source is altitude data (hillshade, contours, altit

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

2018-12-17 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-12-17, pr, 11:00 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė: > for admin boundaries there will often be at least 2 "true" document > sources: one for each party / side. They are also often observable, > at least punctually. I wonder, of those saying that it is a peace of cake to map country boundaries by phy

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

2018-12-15 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-12-15, št, 13:57 Andy Townsend rašė: > If I want to find the border > between Ireland and Northern Ireland, for example, I might not (yet) > find anything stopping me driving through but I will see something along > the lines of "speed limits now in mph" or the reverse. And then the borderl

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

2018-12-13 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-12-12, tr, 15:47 Andy Townsend rašė: > If you're looking for a project that essentially mirrors "official" data > without actually checking that its valid then OpenStreetMap might not be > the project for you. I was never for indiscriminate, automated imports without manual checks. Acceptin

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

2018-12-12 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-12-12, tr 19:18 Richard Fairhurst rašė: > 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, y

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

2018-12-12 Thread Tomas Straupis
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)? Thank you for example anyway, I would have never ever believed such a thing could be true in GERMANY. (No sarcasm) in post soviet countr

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

2018-12-12 Thread Tomas Straupis
Germany is not the "whole world". If you have multiple datasets for addresses then you have to decide, and physical check could be the solution for your country because of registry collision, whatever German community decides. In Lithuania there is one and only one official source for ANY official

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

2018-12-12 Thread Tomas Straupis
Discussions about mapping invented addresses shows exactly what I wanted to say: we get drowned in endless pointless counter-counter-examples of counter-examples. Rules would have to be invented for addresses separately, and then separately for each country or even more detailed. We once again get

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

2018-12-11 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-12-11, an, 16:41 Rory McCann rašė: > On 11/12/2018 12:38, Tomas Straupis wrote: >>If someone puts a label "Military academy" on their house, would we >> map it as an actual military academy? > > No, but you would put "addr:housename=Military aca

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

2018-12-11 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-12-11, an, 13:27 Jochen Topf rašė: > It seems you haven't understood the on-the-ground rule 5 years ago and > you still haven't. For all intents and purposes there is such an > address. Mail will arrive there, people can find the house when looking > for it. Mail will not arrive there as ma

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

2018-12-11 Thread Tomas Straupis
> Note i have explained to Tomas in length the meaning of the concept of > verifiability for not directly physically manifested statements in > > http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/#comments > > Using the example of a bus stop without signs or shelter i

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

2018-12-11 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-12-11, an, 12:06 Frederik Ramm rašė: > Non-physical (non-observable) things should definitely be the exception > in OSM, and it is my opinion that each class of non-physical things we > add needs a very good reason for adding them. I agree, but that is a different question. My suggestion is

[OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

2018-12-11 Thread Tomas Straupis
Hello I think we should settle the question of how "ground truth" or "verifiability" applies to NON-PHYSICAL objects (it is clear with physical objects). Because currently I see at least two opinions: 1. Non-physical objects are mapped by observing/verifying their REFLECTION in physical world

Re: [OSM-talk] Distribution of OSM ids could be much more useful!

2018-11-25 Thread Tomas Straupis
Could you ealborate more on why you mention permanent id here? I see your idea, but do not understand how it is connected to permanent id problem. There were some tests done regarding permanent id in Lithuania, but those were regarding places of interest. If this has something in common, I could

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

2018-11-23 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-11-23, pn, 18:57 Andy Townsend rašė: > Where that best matches the situation on the ground about who has > control, yes. Ok. So do I understand OSMF position is this: 1. There are no technical problems with having international boundaries overlapping and representing official position of

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

2018-11-23 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-11-23, pn, 18:23 Andy Townsend rašė: > Yuri, I suspect that literally every statement that the DWG has made > throughout this process has said exactly the opposite of what you've > just suggested that we said. You're saying DWG position is that it IS acceptable to have overlapping country p

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

2018-11-23 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-11-23, pn, 11:19 Oleksiy Muzalyev rašė: > The topic of territorial claims is very complicated, long lasting, and > painful. It involves not only such relatively remote and insignificant > cases as Hans Island, Sudan, Croatia, Crimea, Pakistan, etc. cases, but > also the industrial developed l

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

2018-11-23 Thread Tomas Straupis
> I fear that this is only "kicking the can down the road" though because > we'd likely have - just as we have with names - one "default" set of > boundaries where we say "that's the one you get if you don't ask for any > particular one", and the fight would then be on which one that is going "d

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

2018-11-21 Thread Tomas Straupis
Congratulations to Ukraine celebrating the Day of Dignity. You HAVE a strong backbone! This thread is depleated. Bye ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

2018-11-21 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-11-21, tr, 16:04 Mateusz Konieczny rašė: > Taken together it means that Crimea (territory occupied by Russia) should be > marked > as de facto within Russia. On OSM-Carto map - it could be so. But I see no objective reasons why this should be the case in the data. Data could represent a

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

2018-11-20 Thread Tomas Straupis
Are we looking for a solution of existing problem? Or thinking of hypothetical future problems and how they could potentially be harder (but not impossible) to solve using proposed solution? With a purpose of declaring it "too difficult" so "lets do nothing"? Most of us are happy to live in countr

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

2018-11-20 Thread Tomas Straupis
>>Do you know a country which has a fluctuating representation of its >> borders say in schoolbooks? > > In my lifetime, lots - countries (and I don't mean where boundaries > changed, but the external recogition of them did). For example, the US > only recognised the People's Republic of China

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

2018-11-20 Thread Tomas Straupis
> From a practical point of view different applications such as OSMand take a > snapshot of the database at a point in time. > How would your proposal work with these derivatives and there are quite a few > including the odd one that gets updated once or year or so. Sorry, I did not understand

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

2018-11-20 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-11-20, an, 20:58 Christoph Hormann rašė: > This is not a workable approach as an universal rule. The volume of > boundary relation overlap world wide would be enormeous. You would > have a significant number of boundaries that have no practical meaning > today. Some countries have pretty ex

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

2018-11-20 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-11-20, an, 19:59 Rory McCann rašė: > How should we decide which way to map disputed borders?! As it was mapped a week ago: BOTH ways (included in BOTH country polygons). If required - disputed territory (polygon geometry) can be mapped as "disputed=yes" with a tag "ground_control=ICHTAMN

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

2018-11-20 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-11-20, an, 14:33 john whelan rašė: > I think you have expressed your opinion but unfortunately whilst difficult > for you to accept traditionally OSM maps a certain way and has done > for sometime even though many governments and others would wish > we did something else. Can you give an ex

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

2018-11-20 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-11-20, an, 12:42 Elena ``of Valhalla'' rašė: > looking at a map where Crimea is part of Ukraine may lead people to plan > a trip to it, only to be stopped and possibly questioned. But going to Crimea without Ukrainian visa (and not via Ukraine controlled territory) would have legal conseque

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

2018-11-20 Thread Tomas Straupis
> If you ask students to contribute to the map and at the same time say > "btw they are in favour of evil Russian aggression" then of course > students (at least in Lithuania) will give it the thumbs-down. But if > you patiently explain the "on-the-ground rule" and that using this rule > has many p

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

2018-11-20 Thread Tomas Straupis
Youre saying something written in pdf is more important than huge practical and reputational damage done? Pdf cannot be wrong and it does not matter that OpenStreetMap loses a lot of opportunities and probable contributors? What will ordinary people understand from this decision? Will they read s

[OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

2018-11-19 Thread Tomas Straupis
Hello I think this needs more attention and should not be silently buried in archives. OSMF/DWG has sided with Moscow to recognise illegal annexation of Ukraine's territory - Crimea. https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018-11-14_Crimea Note that there was a vo

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

2018-02-17 Thread Tomas Straupis
2018-02-17 11:56 GMT+02:00 Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote: > For instance, reviews. I hope it will not come to what there is at some > commercial maps, when one adds say a building and then has to wait for a > month that an almighty moderator approves it, so that it appears on the map. This is an expect

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-11-02 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-11-02 11:49 GMT+02:00 Lester Caine wrote: >> P.S. And all I wanted was to talk about topology rules... BTW: here is >> an example of topology rules in Lithuania: >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Lithuania/Topology_rules > > <...> In your rules #2 and #5 seem to be at odds?

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-11-02 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-11-02 11:24 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis wrote: > The current situation is not helping in producing useful maps. Too > often I find myself in a residential area with large gardens and trees > when I expected to find a real forest based on what OSM is displaying. This is exactly why I started the to

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-11-02 Thread Tomas Straupis
> IMHO there are semantic implications in the key, as has been said many > times, <...> And that is subjective -> nobody is wrong -> everybody is right -> everybody thinks THEIR proposal is the right one -> this topic is not settled for so many years -> I suggest doing a compromise and agreeing

Re: [OSM-talk] Label language on the Default stylesheet

2017-11-02 Thread Tomas Straupis
What was the reason NOT to use vector tiles? As that would solve most of the problems discussed in this thread. -- Tomas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-11-02 Thread Tomas Straupis
Currently according to taginfo the most popular are: natural=wood 4,5M landuse=forest 3,5M others are way behind. for example landcover=trees - 11000 objects... So maybe there is a point to choose one of the two popular tags and be done with it? If anybody wants more detail - subtags could be use

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-10-28 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-10-27 22:44 GMT+03:00 Warin wrote: > What you are talking about looks to be the rendering into layers and which > layer comes higher than the other. > > That is the choice of the render and what could be higher in one rendering > could be the lower in another rendering. While I agree with y

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-28 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-10-25 16:40 GMT+03:00 Stefan Keller wrote: > 1. My ceterum-censeo is, that we really need a polygon type in OSM. > This would make mapping, and many written and unwritten(!) rules much > easier (not to forget software). What exactly are we missing on this polygon topic? Because currently

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-10-27 Thread Tomas Straupis
>>Fine. Let's say in higher level there is only one "forest". Then my >> topic moves one layer down and stays exactly the same otherwise. >>What I'm talking is about virtual hierarchy. >>OSM tagging comes AFTER that. > > As I map & tag what I see in reality; could you expand on what you

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-10-27 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-10-27 12:25 GMT+03:00 Dave F wrote: > You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing > OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary. If we make no such distinction, then in order to be topographically correct, we would have to "cut out" (create multipolygon

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-10-27 Thread Tomas Straupis
> In; F1 there are the words "general landuse polygons" > > F2 there are the words "residential, commercial, industrial zones" that > clearly imply land use. > > So your discussion is clearly about land use? Fine - that is ok. No. It is about virtual layers, calculated from OSM data for cartogra

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

2017-10-27 Thread Tomas Straupis
Some info on how/why forest/wood tagging is used in Lithuania. I will not give specific tags (forest vs wood, landuse vs natural etc), because in my opinion that is a secondary issue. Let's say we have tags F1 and F2. F1 is for general forests. Those are the ones depicted on small scale maps (full

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-25 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-10-25 14:03 GMT+03:00 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> For a long time I wanted to hear opinion on the topic of topology rules. > most important is IMHO: when do you share nodes, and when not. > <...> Thank you for notes about the rules, I will think about it at least for local rules. For

[OSM-talk] Topology rules

2017-10-25 Thread Tomas Straupis
Hello For a long time I wanted to hear opinion on the topic of topology rules. By "topology rules" here I mean just simple rules such as: * polygon X should not overlap polygon Y * polygon X should always be above polygon Y * point X should be not further from line Y than D etc. Th

Re: [OSM-talk] Could we just pause any wikidata edits for a month or two?

2017-10-24 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-10-25 8:56 GMT+03:00 Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > Roland, thanks for the links. Local knowledge is very important, but lets > not make it into a sacred cow at the cost of common sense. I have not been > to every single street in New York City. I am nearly 100% sure that all > editors has edited ob

Re: [OSM-talk] Could we just pause any wikidata edits for a month or two?

2017-10-24 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-10-25 6:53 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote: > You mean "stop any editing, cause we need two weeks or two years to make > sure refs are correct and we don't have any other means to remember about > the problem than to leave some obvious mistake everyone will trip over until > we are sure about th

Re: [OSM-talk] Could we just pause any wikidata edits for a month or two?

2017-10-24 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-10-24 15:56 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote: > Why, in this case is it better to have Wikipedia links in OSM point to > disambiguation page instead of link Hillfort 1 in OSM to Hillfort 1 in > Wikipedia, link Hillfort 2 accordingly and fix Wikipedia doubts in > Wikipedia? So that the case is

Re: [OSM-talk] Could we just pause any wikidata edits for a month or two?

2017-10-23 Thread Tomas Straupis
>> There was a link to disambiguation page which was detected using >> other tool which is not using wikidata. > Could you point me to that tool? It is a local Lithuanian tool. But here you can have a look at results: http://patrulis.openmap.lt/wikipedia.html > That's exactly my point. I me

Re: [OSM-talk] Could we just pause any wikidata edits for a month or two?

2017-10-22 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-10-22 23:20 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote: > So, to sum up: > 1) There was a link to disambiguation page that no one has corrected until > it was detected by Yuri's tool. There was a link to disambiguation page which was detected using other tool which is not using wikidata. That other tool

Re: [OSM-talk] Could we just pause any wikidata edits for a month or two?

2017-10-15 Thread Tomas Straupis
Lets take an example. History of this hillfort: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1717783246/history What happened here: 1. I've added a hillfort object "Žagarės piliakalnis" (Žagarės hillfort). 2. Med fixed wikipedia tag (removed underscores - good change, my mistake fixed). 3. I've updated

Re: [OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

2017-10-14 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-10-14 15:57 GMT+03:00 Jochen Topf wrote: > Do I understand this correctly? You are creating tags in the OSM > database for your private tool? I hope there is some misunderstanding > here, because that isn't acceptable behaviour. The problem is much much larger. This whole wikidata unfort

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

2017-10-01 Thread Tomas Straupis
> Tomas, this is what I understand from what you are saying: > * You download a geotagging wikidata dump and generate a table with > latitude, longitude, and a wiki page title. > * You also generate the same table from OSM for all nodes, ways (using geo > centroid?), and relations (using ??) > * yo

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

2017-10-01 Thread Tomas Straupis
>> So you have two tables of same structure. Voila. You can compare >> anything (title, coordinates), in any direction with some >> approximation if needed etc. No OSM wikidata involved at all. > > Thomas, this will not work. Matching wikidata & osm by coordinates is > useless, because the coordi

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

2017-10-01 Thread Tomas Straupis
>> It is mostly because you pushed the effort, not beaucse of >> "advantage of wikidata". The same fixing has already been done for >> YEARS before your effors based on wikipedia tags only. > > > Tomas, you claimed that "It adds NO value." This is demonstrably wrong. You > are right that the sam

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

2017-10-01 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-10-01 20:04 GMT+03:00 Yuri Astrakhan: >> 2. Its not a WORK to automatically update one osm tag according to another >> osm tag (anybody can do it online/locally/etc). It adds NO value. > > It adds HUGE value, as was repeatably shown. Thanks to Wikidata IDs, the > community was able to see and

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

2017-10-01 Thread Tomas Straupis
I guess the point is that: 1. Its ok to play with some pet-tag like wikidata 2. Its not a WORK to automatically update one osm tag according to another osm tag (anybody can do it online/locally/etc). It adds NO value. 3. It is totally unacceptable to introduce idea that wikipedia tag could be remov

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

2017-09-26 Thread Tomas Straupis
> p.s. OSM is a community project, not a programmers project, it's about > people, not software :-) Totally agree. If some script can automatically add new tag (wikidata) without any actual WORK needed, then it is pointless, anybody can run an auto-update script. When ordinary (non geek) mapp

Re: [OSM-talk] The real face of MAPS.ME edits and notes - a short analysis

2017-06-12 Thread Tomas Straupis
> Clearly quality can be an issue, but it's not just an issue on maps.me, it's > an issue with any tool and any community. Of course, the more people use a > tool, the more of an issue it becomes. The problem is that percentage of very bad edits with @#$%.me is way too high. I do not remember AN

Re: [OSM-talk] The real face of MAPS.ME edits and notes - a short analysis

2017-06-12 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-06-11 6:29 GMT+03:00 Michał Brzozowski wrote: > Much has been said about MAPS.ME note and edit functionality on this > list and elsewhere. I tried to get a real picture of how good/bad they > are. I went to mmwatch.osmz.ru and assessed 73 edits/notes made > between June 6th and 10th in Poland.

Re: [OSM-talk] Responding to vandalism

2017-03-17 Thread Tomas Straupis
> Is your process documented anywhere and is the code available? There is a "help" page, but it is in Lithuanian... Maybe google translate can help: http://patrulis.openmap.lt/pagalba.html Code (php+postgresql) is very basic and dirty (i'm not a web developer) and I didn't have time to put

Re: [OSM-talk] Responding to vandalism

2017-03-17 Thread Tomas Straupis
> Interesting, I didn't know such patrolling took place at a country scale in > OSM. Have you revert/re-map stats? No, such stats are not collected. And it would be hard to do that, because it is not yes/no. Sometimes it's just a minor problem, sometimes it is something much worse. Until appeara

Re: [OSM-talk] Responding to vandalism

2017-03-17 Thread Tomas Straupis
Let's get on the higher level first. There are two ways of doing it from the process perspective: 1) EDIT->TEST->COMMIT 2) EDIT->COMMIT->TEST The first one gives higher quality but also discourages edits and maybe even prohibits edits in areas with no/few "checkers". So obviously the way to go f

Re: [OSM-talk] Fixing broken multipolygons

2017-02-18 Thread Tomas Straupis
2017-02-18 16:26 GMT+02:00 Dave F wrote: > Why do you believe this to be a problem? It may be pointless, but not an > error. As I pointed out there is no problem with geometry. So yes, it is not an error. But import(?) with lots of errors in ETL or source data. -- Tomas

Re: [OSM-talk] Fixing broken multipolygons

2017-02-18 Thread Tomas Straupis
Another interesting example are polygons like this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/400182030 Polygon geometry is fine here, but it has one pointless node close to one of the nodes. Pointless because it does not influence the final geometry of the polygon. And if you look around there are

Re: [OSM-talk] Fixing broken multipolygons

2017-02-18 Thread Tomas Straupis
>> There are literally hundrets of building which have 4 edges as nodes >> but them beeing connected over cross so that a construct like a >> butterfly resembles. > > Any chance of a link to an example? I guess Florian ment geometries like this: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/460032394 Th

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM for government

2017-02-03 Thread Tomas Straupis
Hello 2017-02-03 15:44 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe wrote: > With the Belgian community, we're making some careful progress into getting > government to really integrate OSM/VGI into their data management efforts. > So not talking about background maps here, real data contribution or > community engag

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

2017-01-04 Thread Tomas Straupis
> This all conversation confort my (un-educated, I confess) idea of the > uselessness of cross referencing the Wikipedia ecosystem with OSM with OSM > tags. > > Automated addition of wikidata id to OSM objects seems worthy, so why not > doing it on the fly instead of writing it to the database? Nex

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

2017-01-04 Thread Tomas Straupis
There was a flow of undiscussed automated wikidata additions in Lithuania with problems. I asked for discussion before automated changes. I was given a promise that a discussion will follow. But there was no discussion. And automated changes resumed. I see it as violation of automated edit rules an

Re: [OSM-talk] Spoken street names

2016-08-17 Thread Tomas Straupis
> Speakig of that, I have MAPS.ME installed on my Android and it's supposed > the app has a voice navigation system but it doesn't work. Any thoughts on > that? Maybe because it has a nickname CRAPS.ME and lots of mappers hate it? :-) ___ talk mailing

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-22 Thread Tomas Straupis
>> Water proposal tried to change the tagging: >> landuse=reservoir => natural=water|water=reservoir >> And in general all water landuse=x => natural=water|water=x (basin, pond >> etc.) >> waterway=riverbank => natural=water|water=riverbank > No. > The water proposal didn't change or deprecate

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-22 Thread Tomas Straupis
> I am generally against such harsh measures, if a new way to tag > has advantages, it has them even if only 20% of applicable objects > are tagged with it. And 20% endorsement isn't actually a fail IMHO. So after a new scheme to tag X is introduced we have two schemes valid at the same time and

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-21 Thread Tomas Straupis
My question/proposal was about what to do with failed proposals in general. That is: 1. How to identify a "failed" proposal 2. What to do with it My proposal for point 1 is: If after say two years new schema does not get at least equal tagging count as the old schema - proposal failed. My proposa

Re: [OSM-talk] MAPS.ME edits - partly sub-standard

2016-06-21 Thread Tomas Straupis
OsmAnd has had online/offline simple editing feature for years and still there were no problems with that. Therefore my guess would be that mapsme does not make it clear to users that they are actually editing the global/common database, not their local "favourites". -- Tomas ___

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-20 Thread Tomas Straupis
>> My main point is to get back to reservoir/basin being tagged as "landuse" > why would that be desirable? There will always be more than one opinion on which naming of tags is "better" because there is no "universal best way" (unless it's "42"). What I'm striving for is STABILITY for taggin

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-20 Thread Tomas Straupis
> You need to decide if you want to abolish the water=* or if you just > prefer using waterway=riverbank instead of natural=water + > water=river - which does not in any way conflict with the water=* tag. Once again: I do not want to abolish water=*. My main point is to get back to reservoir/

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-20 Thread Tomas Straupis
> actually the way it was before HAD big issues, you could not even state if > something was a lake or just the basin of a fountain (most kind of water > areas just mapped as natural=water). Everything what can be mapped with new water schema can be (and is) mapped with old schema. The proble

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-20 Thread Tomas Straupis
> I'd like to add to this that on a semantic / natural language level, > waterway=riverbank (deliberately ignoring long standing, widespread use and > acceptance) would seem to indicate a riverbank, i.e. the bank of a river, or > in other words, the area along a river, which will occassionally but

  1   2   >