Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions
Since you asked, I am a company employee myself and I fully support Michal in following his company's official position. We are not talking about a matter that would warrant whistleblowing, we disagree on an interpretation of a license term we all agree is not very specific. All interpretations are arbitrary, to know which one of them is (legally) right we would have to take Facebook to court. I agree with most of you that unless Facebook changes their position to something much more proactive and aligned with the spirit of the project, no one from the company should be allowed on the OSMF board. If, however, Michal had managed to convince the company to do just that, it would make him, as a Facebook employee, a very strong candidate. Conversely, if Michal had left his job to avoid a conflict of interest, he would obviously qualify but he wouldn't bring nearly as much value to OSMF. -ndrw6 On 4 December 2020 13:27:58 GMT, Christoph Hormann wrote: >Danke, dass Du dich hier noch mal ganz eindeutig für jegliche >Verantwortungs-Position in OpenStreetMap disqualifizierst. > >Zum Verständnis: Zunächst fällt Michal zum Thema Attribution nichts >anderes ein, als mechanisch-roboterhaft die Formulierungen anderer >nachzuplappern. Die Frage nach der eigenen Meinung, ob Facebook bei >seiner derzeitigen Datennutzung den Anforderungen der Quellennennung >von OpenStreetMap genügt, wird geflissentlich ignoriert. Eine eigene >Überzeugung zum Thema ist offensichtlich nicht vorhanden. > >Und dann schmeißt der Kandidat zum Abschluss noch einmal wild mit Dreck >um sich, wobei er sein Ziel um Meilen verfehlt und stattdessen als >Kollateralschaden Mateusz und Mikel trifft - stevea hat das bereits >recht gut und ausführlich erklärt. > >Zum Abschluss: Was mich freuen würde ist, wenn hier mal ein paar andere >Mitarbeiter von Großunternehmen auftauchen würden und deutlich machten, >dass das keine Haltung ist, die sie unterstützen. Wer in der >OSM-Community als Angestellter von Unternehmen im OSM-Umfeld nicht nur >als Vertreter seines Arbeitgebers, sondern auch als Individuum >wahrgenommen werden möchte, muss zumindest gelegentlich auch deutlich >machen, dass er oder sie Überzeugungen und Werte vertreten, die nicht >gegenüber dem Gehalts-Scheck zurückgestellt werden. Dies wäre eine >gute Gelegenheit dafür. > > > >Non-authoritive English translation from deepl: > >Thanks for disqualifying yourself for any position of responsibility in >OpenStreetMap. > >For understanding: First of all, Michal can't think of anything else to >say about attribution but to mechanically and robotically parrot the >phrases of others. The question of his own opinion whether Facebook, >with its current data usage, meets the requirements of source >attribution in OpenStreetMap is deliberately ignored. There is >obviously no own conviction on the subject. > >And then the candidate throws dirt around wildly at the end, missing >his target by miles and instead hitting Mateusz and Mikel as collateral >damage - stevea has already explained this quite well and in detail. > >At the end: What would make me happy is if a few other employees of >large companies would show up here and make it clear that this is not >an attitude they support. If you want to be perceived in the OSM >community as an employee of companies in the OSM environment, not only >as a representative of your employer, but also as an individual, you >have to make it clear, at least occasionally, that he or she represents >beliefs and values that are not put on the back burner compared to the >paycheck. This would be a good opportunity for this. > >-- >Christoph Hormann >http://www.imagico.de/ > >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
On 09/06/2020 16:00, Simon Poole wrote: Nearly all of the original authors left Mapbox a long time ago, nobody working on it today is an "original author". The grant that Mapbox received at the time was clearly instrumental in allowing them to start growing the company to its current size, so while we are obviously thankful for the support that Mapbox has provided over the years, it was clearly a win-win situation. Who owns the iD project now? What's happened after "nearly all of the original authors left Mapbox", has the project ownership been transferred from Mapbox to OSMF, or perhaps to current maintainers? Does Mapbox still retain the ownership rights to the project (even if they don't currently care about them)? The code license is very permissive so there is always an option of starting a new project based on it (forking). But the license and ownership of the project are not the same thing. Many would have argued that the OSMF should have received the half a million dollars and contracted the work out, maybe to Mapbox, but in any case just because what actually happened was slightly different, doesn't mean that the OSMF and the OSM community gave whoever happens to be working on iD the licence to control the projects destiny forever. Not saying that this shouldn't be the case, but clearly it wasn't, at least initially. And if it isn't ours we can't simply take it, even if we really, really want it. From my point of view - I am happy with the current project governance. It works well for iD, it works well for the OSM community. Controversies are all around minor issues and contributions - basically saying that the maintainers are doing their job. Ndrw ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
On 09/06/2020 09:01, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 6/9/20 02:53, nd...@redhazel.co.uk wrote: Basically, can you please explain why do you think you should be able to influence decisions of the iD maintainer without forking the code, maintaining it yourself and in the end competing with iD on a level playing field. I think that we (the OSMF) give the independent iD project a huge platform by making it the default editor that people are sent to when they click "Edit" on our web page. (Would anyone go to a web site called "ideditor.com" to edit OSM?) Thank you, I couldn't find any "or else" in the blog post and was wondering what that could be. To me, OSMF wants the control of a project it hasn't developed but turned out too successful to ignore, and to add insult to injury you are asking the author to keep working on it by committing patches he disagrees with. I see several problems with it: - It's deeply unethical. OSMF should foster the development of the OSM ecosystem, not harass people working on it. How does this fit OSMF own charter and CoC? - Taking control from the original authors would slow down, if not stall, the development of iD. - Giving the control to a committee would steer the development in a different direction (as in: "different from the current, good direction"). At very least it would give an excuse for rejected ideas to be pushed again. Frankly, I would rather have iD hosted elsewhere and being developed further to the benefit of a broader OSM community. Better yet, talk to each other and come up with a workable plan. OSMF proposal is very one-sided and disproportional, what is _OSMF_ willing to compromise on to improve cooperation? Bye Ndrw ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
On 08/06/2020 21:41, Dorothea Kazazi wrote: The OSMF board is asking for comments on possible approaches to resolving controversies related to upgrades to and modifications of the iD editor. Please read the post by Allan Mustard: https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/06/08/toward-resolution-of-controversies-related-to-id/ These are some very strong statements. Questions to Allan: - Is this an official statement of the whole OSMF board? Who was in favor of it and who was against? - Is there any OSMF funding or other support for iD development involved? If so, can you provide the numbers? - Has this statement been discussed with and agreed on by Quincy and other iD authors? Basically, can you please explain why do you think you should be able to influence decisions of the iD maintainer without forking the code, maintaining it yourself and in the end competing with iD on a level playing field. For the record (if it wasn't obvious yet) I am strongly against this idea. I trust iD authors, even if I don't agree with _all_ their decisions, more than the committee you are proposing. The success of iD is a proof their vision for the tool development and its feature set are working very well (perhaps too well, which is why we are having this discussion). I am concerned that by alienating the authors and forcing all the ideas they would normally reject, you would be able to inflict a real damage on iD and, by extension, on OSM. My suggestion: rather than crippling down a good tool please focus on improving parts of the ecosystem that are in urgent need of investment. Official mobile app/editor, the default web map or an infrastructure that would enable others to use OSM-hosted tiles come to mind. Ndrw ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence
If uprn is supposed to denote an address, why not simply use addr:uprn? ndrw6 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?
On 04/10/2019 20:28, Frederik Ramm wrote: The reality is that people expect postcodes to be a functional search term on online mapping, at least in the UK, You *are* ware that UK post codes are fully findable on the OSM website and any site that runs the Nominatim geocoder? It must have been mentioned somewhere in this thread. This means that our web site and anything that uses Nominatim for geocoding already knows UK post codes without importing them to OSM. It is not like they were telling us "don't add addresses, we can do it better". They have done it to workaround two issues, one with OSM data, the other with Nominatim itself: - For a long time we had close to zero coverage of unique postcodes. Even now are are at around 16%. - Nominatim doesn't support searching addr:postcode tags (don't ask me why). Both are fixable, making the database more useful to everyone, including people not using external data. ndrw6 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?
On 04/10/2019 15:41, Richard Fairhurst wrote: 2. However... just blindly importing them seems to be a real missed opportunity. If you give me a nice interface with centroids for Charlbury, I will have a go at mapping them to actual, useful polygons, based on my knowledge of the street layout and Carla the post-lady's daily rounds (or I could ask her, but I'm not sure of the IP of asking an RM employee...). If you dump them into the database as-is I almost certainly won't get round to it. Having address points you can "copy" to buildings or POIs does help a lot, though. You can download my .osm files with address points from https://github.com/ndrw6/import_postcodes and try them out yourself. They work almost the same to what you would get after the import, but they are _not_ intended for importing into OSM. Just open them up as a temporary data layer in jOSM, and delete them before an upload. Some benefits of having address points I found in my testing: - Much faster and easier merging (about 3-5 times) than raster tiles. I was regularly adding ~1000 points per ~1 hr session this way. Basically, I used copy/paste-tags feature in jOSM, which I remapped to keys 2 and 3 to make it less taxing than default Ctrl-C and Ctrl-Shift-V. - More accurate (no typing required). I had a fair number of typos when using Chris's tile (entirely my fault). - It is easy to see which points have already been merged - simply delete ones that have been merged. This is very important when working on a larger area over multiple sessions. It is super easy to miss some sections. This is where Robert's page (https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/) helps but you need to wait a day or two for it to update. - It is easy to see multiple/overlapping postcodes - In some cases (sub-urban residential areas) It may be possible to merge addresses with building automatically. I've described the procedure in one of the earlier threads. That could be an option for places like Sheffield, which have tens of thousands of postcodes ready to merge. ndrw6 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?
On 04/10/2019 00:26, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: I think you're missing the point. Most contributors believe postcodes on buildings or property nodes, add quality to the OSM's database, but object to the import of codepoint as it's just not accurate enough as stated in this, & numerous other threads. This is incorrect. CPO/ONSPD postcodes _are_ accurate, up to date and include all postcodes in the UK except NI. They are not complete (contain one and only one delivery point per postcode), which is pity, but that's not a reason not to use the ones that are available, which is still _far_ more that what we have in the database. This may not be a perfect solution but the information CPO/ONSPD contains is still extremely useful for geocoding. Search for a postcode and you are _guaranteed_ to get an address in a close vicinity to a place you are looking for. How about not needing to start Google Maps when searching for a location on the go? There's no point in importing to stand alone nodes as deliveries are destined for buildings. Adding to streets is also pointless for the same reason plus they can have multiple postcodes. Addresses on nodes are commonly used in the UK OSM. Many mappers prefer them over placing addresses on buildings. There are also many cases (POIs) where nodes are objectively better than buildings. So, no, there right and wrong solution here. Besides, the main reason for importing these data is that we can get _all_ postcodes in the database. This gives users confidence that when they search for a postcode they will reliably get a result they are looking for. This is not possible when merging postcodes with buildings simply because we still have only a small fraction of buildings in the database. By the way, I'm not against merging addr:postcode with buildings, that's exactly what I was doing myself when adding postcodes manually. However, this is not a process that can be automated (lack of buildings, single OSM buildings having more than one address/postcode). Based on my experience with mapping postcodes with CPO, I would recommend starting with an import and merge postcodes and buildings later. ndrw6 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?
On 03/10/2019 09:26, Mark Goodge wrote: - The key (and deliberate) limitation Code-Point Open is that it doesn't distinguish between residential postcodes and postcodes assigned to "large users". This is not ideal but still useful - we know the postcode exists at a given location, we just can't be sure if it is the only postcode there. ONSPD solves this problem, because it includes the "large user" flag. That would be very useful, indeed. I didn't know ONSPD has it. From a cursory look at it in the past, I've got an impression it was simply a repackaged Code-Point Open plus some ONS specific data. The data format itself is not a big issue. To do any nontrivial data processing we still need to import data into something like GeoPandas and run some queries in there. Not that GeoPandas is that great either (the key feature, spacial join, is not accelerated) but that's a separate topic. ndrw6 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?
On 02/10/2019 14:20, Chris Hill wrote: I would not like to see that happen. OSM maps real objects, postcodes are not real and only apply as a part of an object's address. They apply to buildings (delivery points on buildings really). The postcodes in Codepoint Open are centroids derived from a combination of all the delivery points that share the postcode so are not at all real-world objects. Points with addr:* tags are commonly in use and accepted, there is no reason why addr:postcode would have to be different. When possible I also prefer tagging addresses on buildings or building:part but there are multiple conventions in use (points, points+interpolation, points on entrances). If you want to apply postcodes to addresses you can see the map overlay I have produced which you can use in editors as an overlay: https://codepoint.raggedred.net/ I will update it again shortly. You can also derive postcodes from other open data sources such as FHRS data. Thank you. I've been using your overlays a lot. However, given a choice, I would much more prefer a periodic, maintained import. Much less prone to errors, more up to date and easier to merge with buildings, if needed. ndrw6 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?
On 02/10/2019 13:43, Russ Phillips via Talk-GB wrote: I'm wondering if it would be feasible and advisable to import the UK postcode data from OS OpenData Codepoint <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData#Code-Point_Open>. I support it. From my own experience, requests like this tend to attract objections, so it is important for people who agree with such proposals to speak out. The key and, in my opinion, sufficient reasons for importing postcodes: - Objectively, postcodes are an important type of addressing and geocoding data in the UK. We've had two quarterly projects encouraging adding postcodes to the OSM database. Some people (including myself) don't like the fact the postcodes are proprietary to Royal Mail but we are here to map the world, not to judge it. - They are accepted in the OSM database and there is no tagging ambiguity. Their place is _in_ the OSM database, not in external overlays. They are searchable in most applications (OsmAnd, Maps.me), the exception is Nominatim, which uses an outdated overlay but this is more a workaround for lack of such data in the database, than a solution. - Code-Point Open is a legal and open source of postcode data. In fact it is the _only_ legal source of such data in bulk. All other sources are either derived from CPO or are based on local knowledge. All reasons _against_ the import I've seen so far are based on personal preferences. People are objecting because they don't like the idea of proprietary address data, do not find them important enough, do not find them comprehensive enough. These views are useful in establishing the context but are not a reason to block the import of what _is_ available. Talking about technical aspects: - The key (and deliberate) limitation Code-Point Open is that it doesn't distinguish between residential postcodes and postcodes assigned to "large users". This is not ideal but still useful - we know the postcode exists at a given location, we just can't be sure if it is the only postcode there. - Quality of building in OSM database. Large buildings, especially in town centres, are often not partitioned correctly. Different parts may have different street names and postcodes. Code-Point Open may in fact be helpful in finding and correcting such issues. - Some postcodes are for PO boxes (usually collocated with post offices) are are best left out. My recommendation: import missing postcodes "as is" (as points) with extra tags denoting the import, import date and an accuracy metric from CPO. Keep it searchable and easy to remove or update, if necessary. Code-Point Open is updated quarterly and sometimes centroids move to another building. Filter out PO boxes and postcodes which are already in OSM (I usually check if there is an OSM object with a matching addr:postcode within a 10m radius of the code point). Do not attempt to merge them with buildings as it is not guaranteed to work in all cases. This is best done manually and in some cases it may require a survey. Best regards, ndrw6 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only)
On 19/07/2019 20:29, Mark Goodge wrote: ONS postcode products are also OGL, so can be reused in OSM and similar. They're also more useful than Code-Point Open in that they also include lookups to a number of other government codes (such as local authority GSS codes). It also differentiates between "large user" and normal postcodes, and includes an introduction date and, where applicable, a termination date for every valid postcode. That would be very useful indeed but what is the license of these extra features? OGL alone doesn't mean anything if they qualify it with "data may contain third party IP" or similar. Their website says: "Our postcode products (derived from Code-Point® Open) are subject to the Open Government Licence." and then: "If you also use the Northern Ireland data (postcodes starting with “BT”), you need a separate licence for commercial use direct from Land and Property Services." I understand it as only the part that already exists in Code-Point Open is free, extra information may or may not be free, depending if it comes from ONS own data or other sources. Best regards, ndrw6 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only)
Hi, Over past several months I've been adding postcodes from Code-Point Open. I've streamlined the procedure a bit, so I can now add the tags without spelling out every single one of them, but it is still a manual and labour intensive process: https://github.com/ndrw6/import_postcodes/ While working on that, I've noticed there are a lot of simple cases where automatic collation would have produced very similar results. For example, in case of existing OSM buildings without an addr:postcode tag located at or very near to a Code-Point Open centroid. Therefore I'm requesting permission to use the following automated edit procedure: 1. Open an osm file containing missing postcodes (from the above website) in jOSM 1a. Select all points from the above dataset 2. Download OSM data in the area of interest 2a. Select all ways with a "building" tag of typical residential house size and without an "addr:postcode" tag (search phrase: 'building -"addr:postcode" type:way areasize:50-1000') 3. Use a collation plugin to collate both datasets with "centroid distance" set to "< 15m". The condition is there to apply postcodes only to small buildings in direct vicinity of the codepoint centroid. There are some caveats I've noticed, often not different from manual editing: a) Some buildings have addresses added as separate points rather than tags (automated edit will add addr:postcode tags directly to the building, this is what I chose to do manually as well) b) Collation plugin doesn't support relations (these postcodes will get ignored and can be added later manually) c) Often OSM buildings contain multiple addresses or postcodes and should be split into several buildings or building parts. This affects both manual and automated procedure, to minimize the impact I am setting relatively small "centroid distance" and building area limits. Best regards, ndrw6 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Tools for adding postcodes from Code-Point Open
I've added a tool converting postcodes from Code-Point Open to a format (.osm) that can be used in jOSM. Optionally the converter can filter out existing postcodes, or only output postcodes that do not exist in OSM and are located near an OSM building. https://github.com/ndrw6/import_postcodes The repository contains pre-generated .osm files and instructions on how to use them. Cheers, ndrw6 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes
On 09/11/2018 19:49, Chris Hill wrote: I maintain a GB postcode overlay, based on the Codepoint Open datasets. This was last updated using the August 2018 data. I expect another update shortly. You can see postcodes on a map I provide or use the overlay tiles in your favourite editor. More details can be found here: This is a fantastic resource, thank you for making and maintaining it. I've been using it for a couple of weeks and almost enjoyed tagging postcodes! Sadly, osm.org doesn't seem to make use of addr:postcode tags and maps.me is painfully slow when searching for them. But that's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, I guess, as there are still not many postcodes in the database. I found it useful to highlight buildings and nodes tagged with addr:postcode. Otherwise it is very easy to lose track of what building have already been tagged. Below is a JOSM map paint style that does that and displays the existing postcodes: https://pastebin.com/raw/RxKNky3E If you find any problems please let me know. Not really problems but: - Overlapping labels can be difficult to read. Perhaps the script could detect co-located postcodes and concatenate them. - After the update some postcodes point to different buildings (likely centroids have changed and snapping function produces a different result). That could be a feature. It would be good to have a simultaneous access to all versions of tiles. I also maintain a postcode layer based on the Office of National Statistics OGL postcode data (ONSPD). There is currently a problem with the way the tiles are generated, which I'm addressing. I believe Codepoint Open and ONSPD are pretty much identical with the current postcodes, but there is much more historical data in the ONSPD data. It would be great to have e.g. a JOSM plugin combining address information from open sources and making it easy (ideally with a single click) to annotate postcodes and/or street names. Many thanks, ndrw6 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
