Re: [Talk-us] Washington DC place node cleanup
Hi, On 04.12.20 12:33, Mikel Maron wrote: > I'm not sure what the "name" tag should be, but I am wondering what the point > of the translations are which simply duplicate the default name. Is it like a > marker to say "don't try calling this place anything else"? Is that common, > seems unneccesary? Every now and then we have an avid fan of language X go around the globe and add name:X tags, it always looks to me like an attempt at making the language more relevant (especially if name:X==name). "Hey, language X is not dead yet, we still call Washington Washington!!!" I have often argued for just dropping name:X if it is the name as name, because I would assume that every language-specific map or other use case would revert to the name tag if no language-specific name was present. The counter-argument was usually that if Washington has a name:de=Washington then you positively know that this is the name used in Germany, whereas if it doesn't have a name:de tag it might just be "not yet mapped". Fat chance with name:de ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Washington DC place node cleanup
Hi, when reverting an edit this morning I noticed that the node for Washington (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/158368533) has myriad name:xx tags, many of which seem to be some variant of "Washington D.C." (with or without commas or dots), whereas the "local" name seems to be just Washington, without the D.C. As a native speaker of German I can assure you that we don't call the US capital "Washington D.C." as the name:de tag claims; I would assume that it is similar for most other languages. The German-language OSM map at https://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html?zoom=10=38.70174=-76.93764 has a mechanism where it displays the German name and then, if the local name is different, the local name below; since the German name "Washington D.C." and the local name "Washington" are different, this leads to a somewhat funny display (whereas the logic works ok for other US cities). I could of course fix the German name but I think that it might need a more thorough review and I don't feel competent for that. Two name tags (and this is checking only those that use Roman letters) look like they might be entirely wrong and refer to the District of Columbia only: name:lfn=Distrito de Columbia name:mi=Takiwā o Columbia Then again, I've heard people say "I was in D.C." and mean the city, so perhaps that *is* a legitimate name for the city? Maybe someone in the US community wants to have a look and do this right. It is a bit of a conundrum in OSM - we usually say that local knowledge tops everything, but then again for many of the languages there might not even *be* a local Washington mapper in OSM ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)
Thank you all for your comments. I have now added access=no to the paths leading up to the site, and changed the site from tourism=viewpoint to military=bunker with an access=no added to the site for good measure. (Though historic=ruins would probably be as appropriate.) I have also changed the name from "Post-WWII observation point" to "Devil's Slide Bunker" which seems to be the commonly used name (and anyway the previous name was not a name but a description). There's a catalogue of bunker types on the wiki page and if anyone is in the mood, feel free to add the correct one. I think that in this particular case, even if the object is de-facto a tourist destination, tagging it as such invites too much misunderstanding (at least at a time when OSM data consumers, including our own OSM-Carto rendering, are generally not sophisticated enough to suppress advertising a tourist=* object when paired with access=no). The discussion has shown that some of you share this opinion and some would prefer to call a tourist spot a tourist spot even if illegal. I think that a nuanced approach is probably approriate; having the occasional illegal viewpoint on the map is not a big issue but in this particular case we have a fat sign directly at the site telling people to stay away, plus the site isn't off the beaten track but in a tourist-y area so a big tourist symbol on the map could tempt many to stop and look. I hope this is something people can live with. You're welcome to continue this discussion and if the community should come to a general agreement about how to tag tourist attractions with no access then I'm happy to see this changed. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI [parcel ownership]
Thanks all, I've made the change on OSM and informed the complainant. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI
Correct, sorry, my mistake! On 9/2/20 20:02, Kerry Irons wrote: > It's Copper Country, not Cooper Country. > > Kerry Irons > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020, 1:55 PM Kevin Kenny <mailto:kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:47 PM Joseph Eisenberg > mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > My goodness, look at that monstrosity: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1976405#map=8/46.459/-87.627 > > How can we claim that all of these patches of state-owned land > constitute a single OpenStreetMap feature? > > > Because they share a name, share a management plan, are managed as a > whole, are signed alike, enjoy the same protection status, and are > popularly thought of as a unit. > > The US has some untidy and diffuse features. Some of those untidy > and diffuse features are important to those who live around them, > earn their livings by them, or recreate in them. Don't demand that > we refrain from mapping them because they fail to conform with your > mental model of the world as it ought to be. It comes across as > saying, "My model is fine, fix your country!" I can't fix it, in any > reasonable timeframe at least. I'm constrained to mapping the > country I have. > > -- > 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Cooper Country State Forest in Keweenaw County, MI
Hi, the DWG has been asked to remove this bit of land https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146418027#map=13/47.3306/-88.4441 from the "Cooper Country State Forest" protected area since it has been purchased from the state by private individuals in 2006 and "the recent plat books show this". I have been unable to find an online resource to corroborate this claim. Googling for "plat books" turned up some very pretty scans of 1800's surveyor records ;) Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in the US public records landscape can help? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest
Hi, On 01.09.20 14:40, Kevin Kenny wrote: > We don't map cadastre at least partly out of respect for personal > privacy - something that is not at issue with government-owned land. I think I'm with Joseph here, we don't map cadastre stuff also because it makes no sense for us to become a copy of data that is authoritatively kept elsewhere. OSM's strength is that data can be edited by everybody based on observations. Data for which the sentence "if you edit this it will become wrong" is true should not be in OSM. > A larger point, however, is that we _do_ map land use; we _do_ map > protection status, and we _do_ map constraints on public access. In > this particular case, as with many cases of government-owned land, the > land use, the protection status, and the public access all follow the > property lines. That is what is (implicitly) being mapped; mapping the > property line is the way that it is achieved. I am wary of this line of reasoning because it will in many cases lead to doing exactly what I write above, making a low-quality copy of authoritative data that is kept elsewhere. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)
Hi,
On 31.08.20 05:38, stevea wrote:
> I don't mean to sound argumentative or antagonistic, but if someone more
> clearly draws a line between "entered map data" and "encouraged people (in
> any way) to do anything illegal," I'd like to follow that line. However,
> nobody has been able to do that (yet).
There *will* be a point where we will not be able to uphold this
distinction. The only question is, have we reached that point yet.
Imagine you set up a nice little web site where people can publicly say
something trivial about their lives. Nobody cares, it's a nice little
web site and of course if someone says something illegal it's not your
fault but that of the person who writes it. Fast forward a couple years,
and you're Twitter and the fact that people kill other people based on
what is written on your platform cannot be shrugged away; while you
would still like to shrug and say "it's not my fault if people abuse my
platform", the public won't let you get away with it.
The same *will* happen to OSM; it is possible that today we can still
get away with shenanigans like tagging a tourist attraction with "wink
wink access=no but everybody goes there anyway", just like in Europe
many people are adding mtb_scale tags to paths that are off-limits for
mountain bikers ("wink wink I am just recording how difficult it *would*
be for MTB if it *were* allowed to ride there..."), and if someone like
AllTrails ignores our "access=only_if_police_not_looking" tags we can
say "uh, their fault for misinterpreting our tags". But we won't be able
to deny this responsibility forever, at least if we record our data in a
way that can easily lead to misinterpretation.
And in my view, tagging something as "desirable to go there" via a
tourism=* tag, no matter how many
access=no/private/only_under_cover_of_darkness we add to that, that
would be disingenious.
I am all for tagging private/illegal/closed trails and paths and mark
them access=no or access=private; that's what DWG typically does when
land owners complain that they want "their" paths removed. We argue that
knowing about a private/illegal/closed trail can still be useful to aid
in navigation, and save lives in an emergency.
And I'd be ok with recording the fact that there is an old bunker at
that location. This knowledge, too, can be useful for navigation or
maybe even in an emergency. But tourism=*, I'd shy away from.
And @Mateusz, I am not convinced that "there are great views from here"
is sufficient for tourism=viewpoint because it is too subjective. With
that reasoning, someone with a personal low bar for "great views" could
plaster the map with tourism=viewpoint.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)
Hi, On 8/30/20 22:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us wrote: > Though I wonder what should be done with viewpoint itself. In my mind, a viewpoint is not just something from where you have a nice view; it needs to be signposted or called a viewpoint. This, while enjoying some "destination" or perhaps even "attraction" status, is not what I would call a viewpoint. And even a tourist attraction, I think, should not be something that is illegal to visit. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)
Hi, "Devil's Slide Bunker" is a WW2 observation point near Pacifica in San Mateo County in California. OSM has the bunker listed as a "tourism=viewpoint", along with access tracks from the nearby CA-1 highway: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.56868/-122.51506 The area is technically on private ground, and a sign at the location says: "Warning. Hiking or climbing prohibited in this area. This property is designated as a dangerous area. It shall be unlawful to trespass thereon. San Mateo County Ordinance No. 1462" (http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/dssign.jpg) At the same time, searching the web shows tons of tourist guides that recommend a visit to this prohibited place, replete with photos showing lots of people around, and "Devil’s Slide Bunker sits on private property and is technically not open to the public, but a nearby parking area for the Devil’s Slide Trail, easy access along a short dirt trail, and no fencing mean that people stop to check it out and walk around every day." The DWG has received a complaint from a concerned citizen (via AllTrails) complaining about this illegal tourist attraction on OSM. While it is undeniably a de-facto tourist attraction, and undeniably offers great views, I think it should probably be changed to historic=ruins, access=no, and the tracks leading up to it should also be changed to access=no. Opinions? Best Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mapcarta with wrong info in Utah - whom to contact?
Hi, On 27.08.20 00:30, Alex Weech wrote: > They appear to be pulling straight from Google Interesting! I didn't know you could (show an OSM map and pull POIs from Google). I'll relay that to them and suggest they discuss with Google. I'll also shoot Mapcarta a message, thanks Ian for pointing me to the contact, don't know why I missed that. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Mapcarta with wrong info in Utah - whom to contact?
Hi, does anyone have contacts with Mapcarta? https://mapcarta.com/Eagles_Campground_2422656 lists a camp ground that is not on OSM, and has never been, together with a phone number that belongs to the USDA forest service and they're not super stoked about would-be campers calling them to book. MapCarta claims to be using OpenStreetMap data (hence why the USDA forest service contacted us). But clearly this campground comes from a different source. (Which is just as well because Mapcarta doesn't have proper attribution.) (The phone number in question was indeed recorded for a different camp site in Utah, Monte Cristo Campground, and I've removed it from there. Doesn't solve the Eagles Campground riddle though.) Mapcarta doesn't have any point of contact on the site and the whois doesn't return anything useful either. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Someone from Craigslist here?
Hi, a recent complaint to DWG led me to investigate the area around Greenville (Plumas County, Northern California), and I found that a couple TIGER streets that had been deleted on OSM in January 2019 were still visible on Craigslist (https://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/craigslist.png shows current OSM left, and craigslist right; https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/66467286 is the deletion changeset). It would certainly be beneficial to both us and Craigslist if they could update. Maybe there's someone here who has contacts and could prod them. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule
Hi, On 5/15/20 23:12, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I also think that it makes sense to have counties as admin_level=6 in > Connecticut and Rhode Island, if local people still know their counties > and the governments still recognize them for geographic, statistical and > some other legal purposes. I didn't even want to weigh in on the discussion, mine was more a comment on process. You shouldn't delete something that has been there for 10 years and then say "btw let's discuss" ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule
(3d attempt, apologies if you should get this several times) Hi, I am tempted to revert stevea's removal of the admin_level=6 from counties (where this was in place for the last 10 years or so, eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1839542/history) until a consensus is found that they should actually be removed. It is clear that there is a need for discussion, and I feel that such a discussion should take place *before* a change is made and not *after*. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Moderation?
Hi, has someone switched on moderation for this list, and if so, why? I sent a message 6 hours ago and re-sent it one hour ago and neither seem to have gone through. Have I overlooked an announcement? Or is it just broken? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Someone near Big Bend, TX?
Hi, DWG has received a report from a hiker about a mistake on OSM regarding the "South Rim Trail" / "Boot Spring Trail" at Big Bend in Texas. Is anyone familiar with the area and willing to attempt a fix if I forward details? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Changes for USA data on Geofabrik Download Server
Dear US OSMers, for historical reasons, the layout of data for the USA on the Geofabrik download server has always been a bit peculiar: There wasn't a file for "all of the US" - there was a file for North America (including Canada and Mexico), and then there were files for the "Census Regions" (US Midwest, US Norhteast and so on, and for individual states. (The concrete historical reason is that there used to be a time when due to TIGER imports the US extract would have been about 95% of the North America file anyway, and not much would be gained by clipping Canada. And Mexico was initially not even part of North America on the download server, due to my own lack of geographic competence.) I'm in the process of straightening that out, so that there will be the standard structure (one file for North America, below that a file for USA and its neighbours, and below that the different states) in the future. In detail, this will mean the following changes: (a) for download links (pbf, bz2, diff directories etc) * North America remains unchanged. * US states (and Norcal/Socal) remain unchanged. * new http://download.geofabrik.de/north-america/us-latest.osm.pbf and ancillary files * the five census regions (Midwest, Northeast, Pacific, South, West) will be demoted by one directory from currently /north-america/us-midwest-latest.osm.pbf to /north-america/us/us-midwest-latest.osm.pbf - but I will set up redirects so that the old locations still work for a while. (b) for HTML pages * http://download.geofabrik.de/north-america.html will drop the US states and Census regions and instead list just three sub regions (Canada, USA, Mexico) * new http://download.geofabrik.de/north-america/us.html to list US states and census regions. I will make these changes incrementally over the coming days. On the whole, this should cause minimum disruption; the only thing that will stop working is when someone has written instructions somewhere that go like "open the North America download page and select Iowa from the list" but I hope that people would then be able to guess that maybe they need to click on USA first. If this has any unintended consequences let me know and we'll find a way to fix it. Bye Frederik PS: Just like with other countries, the "all of US" file is cut out of its parent continent file (North America) which means that those bits of the USA that lie outside North America will not be included. This mainly affects Puerto Rico. I'll be making a standalone Puerto Rico file available in the Central America section. -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] When is your doctor a clinic?
Hi,
On 1/23/20 22:42, Paul Johnson wrote:
> There may be a disconnect with what the US (or that spammer) means.
> Could I get a clarification on the difference between "doctors" and
> "clinic" as you understand it?
Personally (and in my country - Germany) there's precious little I would
tag as a clinic; in everyday language we use the (german version of) the
word clinic more or less synonymous with "hospital", with the possible
exception that we'd also apply clinic to something that deals
exclusively with non-illness-related things like e.g. a beauty clinic or
a drug rehab clinic. In my language, a clinic would always be something
where you can (and usually do) have a bed and stay for longer until the
treatment is over. A building with a couple of different medical
practitioners might be a "Gemeinschaftspraxis" ("shared practice") or
perhaps an "Ärztehaus" (doctors' house) but not a "Klinik". Then again
these would hardly ever be open 24/7...
I'm not trying to apply my understanding of medical establishments to
the US - just asking what the general understanding is on your side of
the pond. Does Jmapb's distinction sound more or less ok for others too?
He wrote:
> amenity=doctors:
> * are usually operated by (and even named for) a particular doctor (or a
> small partnership)
> * are usually either a general practice or specialize in a small number of
> areas
> * often require an appointment
> * usually have typical daytime business hours
>
> amenity=clinic:
> * are usually named like a business
> * feature a larger medical staff, often rotating
> * offer treatment for a wide variety of issues
> * generally accept walk-in patients
> * often have extended hours, including 24/7
Is this "usually named ..." really a thing - I have a feeling that
especially with dentists, even (what seems to me like) one-doctor
practices will often be called some thing like "Bay Area Smiles Family
Dentist" or something like that.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] When is your doctor a clinic?
Hi, hunting down spam in OSM I often stumble over medical establishments in the US that have maximum-length description tags exhorting just how beatiful your smile will be after your visit to that dentist, etc.; I also find many objects that sound like a simple doctor's practice but are entered as "amenity=clinic", e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4574659098 Especially in the US, when do you use amenity=doctors and when amenity=clinic - is this essentially self-determined by the business, or are there criteria that you as a mapper apply to select which to use? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Opinions on micro parks
Hi, the DWG has been called upon to mediate a conflict between mappers, and one small part of this conflict is the question of "when is a park a park". Some of you know the persons involved and some of you might *be* the persons involved but I would like to discuss this not on a personal level and have therefore tried to separate these examples from any changeset discussions or usernames, and I'm not providing direct links to OSM either, to avoid clouding anyone's judgement by mixing up personal and factual issues. I have prepared four examples on which I'd like to hear the opinion of a couple people (if you are one of the mappers in conflict here, please refrain from participating) but there are more like this. --- Case 1: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case1.png Two small coastal areas that look a bit like rock outcroppings. I believe they might originally have come from an nmixter import with a "zone=PR-PP" which was then interpreted as meaning it's somehow a "park". It has temporarily been leisure=park AND natural=beach and park:type=county_park and now it is boundary=protected_area and leisure=nature_reserve and park:type=county_park and protect_class=7, without any indication where that protection comes from (and looking at the aerial imagery it will be difficult to verify anything). --- Case 2: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case2.png The tree-covered green area in the middle of the image is a leisure=park, the woodland all together (sharing the eastern border of the "park" but otherwise much larger) is a natural=wood area. In the south and west the "park" connects to "residential" areas (that are partly covered by the natural=wood), in the north the park connects to a landuse=industrial (also partly covered by wood). One mapper says "not a park", the other mapper says that according to CPAD 2018a and SCCGIS v5 this is a park (none of these are listed as a source though) and then proceeds to say: "It is a park in the sense of American English as of 2019. Whether it is a park according to OSM may be debatable, as it is an "unimproved" park, meaning it is under development as to improvements like restrooms and other amenities. However, it is an "urban green space open to public recreation" and therefore does meet OSM's definition according to me." --- Case 3: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case3.png The highlighted area in the middle of the picture straddles a street and parts of an amenity=parking north and south of the street and seems to rather arbitrarily cut through the woodland at its northern edge. Mapper 1: "This isn't a park. It's just a small fenced off grassy area.". Mapper 2: "It is a park according to County Park as it meets the leisure=park definition of "area of open space for recreational use" and contains amenities (parking)." It is currently tagged leisure=park. --- Case 4: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/case4.png Red highlight is a "leisure=park" "zone=PR" (the latter probably left over from an import). Larger, green area that is mostly overlapping this "park" but also cutting an edge in the NW is natural=wood. Mapper 1: "This park doesn't exist." Mapper 2: "It is undeveloped land managed by County Parks in a sort of proto park state. How would YOU map this?" --- I find that both mappers here make valid points. Generally, in times where every teenager maps their back porch as a park in the hope of attracting Pokemon, I am leaning towards being careful with parks; I would love to have a rule of thumb that says "if it doesn't have a name (or if it's not more than sq ft) then it's not a park, it is just some trees" or so. Just because an area of a few 100 sq ft is technically a "park" in some county GIS system, doesn't mean we have to call it a park in OSM, and the idea that any patch of earth with three trees on it and two cars parked on it is a "park" because it is "open to the public" and "has amenities" sounds very far-fetched to me. Also, mapping micro-protected areas on a rocky shore seems to be of limited value to me and puts a big burden on anyone who wants to verify that. But I'd like to hear others chiming in. (This particular mapper conflict has other dimensions that just parks and DWG's further actions towards the mappers involved will not depend on the outcome of this discussion.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Need someone in the south to review an edit
Hi, On 6/15/19 6:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > How are we handling the operation behind the zillion throwaway accounts, > where they make a new account for each client, edit one time, then > disappear, never replying to comments or direct messages? I think this is done by PeanutButterRemedy. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Need someone in the south to review an edit
Hi, On 6/15/19 4:29 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > I'm not against companies for hire mapping, but...do we have any > guidelines actually requiring them to accurately geocode what they're > bringing? Kind of feel like most of my dedicated mapping time is now > spent dealing with SEO spam and low quality brand location data. We have organised editing guidelines that cover these kinds of jobs. The guidelines set some quality expectations and also request that people explain what they are doing *before* they do it, allowing us to ask questions like "how do you intend to geocode stuff" etc. https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines It makes total sense to point out these guidelines to any commercial mappers you encounter; if nothing else, this will divide those who want to play by the rules from those who don't give a shit. Not following the organised editing guidelines is not a rule violation in itself, but if not following the guidelines leads to bona fide mappers like yourself saying "most of my dedicated mapping time is now spent dealing with SEO spam and low quality brand location data." then this is clearly a case where the guidelines need to be enforced, and I'm more than happy to block any and all organised mapping teams who willfully disregard the guidelines and cause trouble down the line because of that. The guidelines are fairly new and haven't "arrived" in the community the same way the import or automated edit rules have, but I hope that awareness about this is growing, and everyday hobbyist mappers will start pointing out these rules to organiesed editors they encounter. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Need someone in the south to review an edit
Hi, On 6/14/19 10:27 PM, Rihards wrote: > I zoomed in on one location, and the node was, judging by the imagery, > on a street (literally). I hope Brandify does not set locations from > Google address searches. I did that a few days ago when investigating this large deletion, and also found that many of the objects are bang in the middle of roads. Which means at the very least that their location has not been visually inspected by the uploader. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Anyone near Angeles National Forest (Mt Wilson Loop)?
Hi, the DWG has received a message from a hiker who said they were sent along some really dangerous firebreak trails in Angeles National Forest with AllTrails and wonders if we could re-evaluate our track classification - he says that a less experienced hiker might well have come to more harm than he did following the trail. The message has some details. I wonder if there's anyone near the area, or with knowledge of it, or contacts with knowledge, who would be willing and able to look into this? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Anyone near Rockford, IL?
Hi, DWG have received a rather detailed report about some potential mis-naming (or missing names) of streets in Rockford IL but I think this would be best handled by a local. Any volunteers I could forward the issue to? Thanks Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Gated communities
Hi, DWG have been contacted by a resident of a gated community in Florida. They were unhappy about our routing which apparently leads people through an unmanned "residents only" gate where they won't get in, instead of to the manned main gate. I wonder how to deal with this, firstly from a "what is correct on the ground" perspective, but then also from a "what is useful routing-wise" perspective. Should all roads inside the gated community be access=private? What tags should be applied to (a) the main gate where visitors and delivery services are expected to report, and (b) resident-only gates? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove is_in:continent in USA
Mateusz,
as far as I am concerned, *all* is_in tags are unnecessary at best and
potentially misleading, and could be removed. I'd prefer adding these
tags to the auto remove list in editors though, rather than running
mechanical edits to remove them.
I strongly object to doing this in a *recurring* fashion for two reasons:
1. I don't want us to go down the wikipedia route where we have an army
of bots running to "clean up" contributions. If there's a consensus that
a tag is unnecessary then put it in the major editors.
2. I am in favour of mapper freedom. It is ok to recommend not using a
certain tag, but it is a whole different game to automatically and
regularly remove certain tags from the database so that even if someone
made the conscientious decision to use a tag, they are *still*
overruled. If you intend to run a bot like that in regular intervals
(which I would recommend not to do), then you need to provide a
mechanism for individual mappers to ask the bot to keep its hands off
something ("matkoniecz:bot=no" or so).
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Anyone interested in fixing Pine Mountain Trail, FDR state park, GA?
Hi,
DWG has received a message from someone at the "Pine Mountain Trail
Association Board", pointing out several mis-named trails and offering
to explain further in a telephone call ("CALL ME, not email me, not text
me"). He's also offering to send a trail map which may be used to take
correct names from.
He's mixing up OSM and AllTrails and it is not clear whether he refers
to particular AllTrails issues or genuine OSM issues, though with
AllTrails using OSM data it is likely that at least some of the issues
are OSM. He also complains about incorrect mileage shown but that is
most likely an AllTrails issue.
Would someone be interested in taking up the matter, making the phone
call, potentially receiving a trail map and fixing what needs to be
fixed in OSM, if anything? Then I'd forward the message. I'm not posting
it because it contains telephone numbers and names.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Forest Routes
Hi, apparently you have something in the US called "Forest Routes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Highway which even has its own kind of shield! (Yes I know, there are *many* shields. I've followed the discussions!) Is there some common understanding of how to map these, if at all? I've looked around a bit and found some roads marked "ref=FS" but these were few and far between. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)
Thank you all for the helpful discussion. I have now split California in a northern and southern part along the recommended counties. Let's see how long it takes until the parts grow too big again! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)
Tod, generally, the Geofabrik OSM PBF extracts are available across the size spectrum from continent to smallest extract, so the California OSM PBF extract will not go away (sorry if I was unclear about that). But my assumption was that there might be a need for smaller files because the whole-California file has meanwhile reached a size where it takes a while to process. The only thing that *does* go away when I split something in smaller files is the free shape downloads - these are only available for the "leaves" of the tree, i.e. the smallest regional units. On 06.11.2018 13:58, Tod Fitch wrote: > In any case, I assume a good description of the extract boundaries will > be provided Heh, I had hoped that by asking here, I'll be able to find a self-explaining split where everyone knows immediately from the name what's in it. Apparently not so easy ;) Best Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] California is too big ;)
Hi, On 06.11.2018 11:53, Vivek Bansal wrote: > 2. I would certainly love smaller more regularly updated extracts! I'm > not sure how much my team would pay for it though. The downloads are free of charge. Maybe I should check with the Interline folks, I don't want to step on their toes with anything. > 3. I think the most common analysis patterns rely on regions greater > than each county, but smaller than just NorCal and SoCal. The 6 > californias here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias > is pretty close to what I would suggest (except i'd have the Bay Area 9 > county region to be one group, perhaps the 7th California?). I don't > know of any spatial files with this breakdown. Creating the split bounds is probably the least difficult part of the puzzle. Reason I'm asking the locals is that I want to create a split that is as useful as possible so thank you for the pointer - is the "six Californias" idea well-known enough that someone in, say, Napa County would immediately know to look for themselves in "North California" and not in "Jefferson" or "Central California"? While I don't *like* overlapping areas, it would be *possible* to have them if it matches what people expect to find. I could do SoCal+NorCal+Bay Area, or the 6 Californias plus Bay Area, or whatever. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] California is too big ;)
Hi, on the Geofabrik download server, we usually split up countries into sub-regions once their single .osm.pbf has gone over a certain size. The aim is to make it easy for people to work with data just for their region, even on lower-spec hardware where it might be difficult to handle huge files. Every once in a while I check the list of not-yet-split countries and split up the largest of them. The current top of the list is 1. Netherlands 2. California 3. Indonesia 4. Spain 5. Czech Republic 6. Brazil 7. Ontario 8. Norway 9. Austria 10. India Hence the next country I'll split up is the Netherlands, but after that, for the first time ever, a second-level entity (California) will be larger than all not-yet-split countries. So I wonder: 1. is there already a site where someone interested in only a subset of California can download current data and potentially also daily diffs? 2. is there a demand for this? 3. what would be a sensible way to split California - in 58 counties, or maybe just go with SoCal and NorCal for now? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] What is people's experience with OSM import software?
Hi, On 04.10.2018 00:20, Kevin Kenny wrote: > The schema as given by 'osm2pgsql' has first-class relations only in the > 'rels' table, which is one of the 'slim' tables. The maintainers > deprecate using those in the strongest possible terms. Well, "strongest possible terms" is perhaps not the most fitting summary of https://github.com/openstreetmap/osm2pgsql/issues/230... as has been said there, quite a few people "mis"use osm2pgsql in that fashion, and if they ever were to introduce a breaking change you can simply stick with the osm2pgsql that you have... But answering your question about alternatives: * I have successfully used imposm3 to populate planet-wide databases and keep them current with diffs, and the overall performance was sligthly better than osm2pgsql's (with imposm having some features that osm2pgsql doesn't and vice versa), but what osm2pgsql does with its planet_osm_rels table imposm does with a file-based database and I have no idea how difficult it would be to establish your first-class relation table. * The "PG Snapshot" schema used by Osmosis provides an interesting concept of an "action" table which is filled upon the application of a diff and allows you to run arbitrary code on newly-added or modified things in the course of an update. The performance of Osmosis is, however, far worse than osm2pgsql or imposm in my experience, and the PG Snapshot schema is probably much too close to "raw OSM" for a mainly rendering use case. * If I wanted to achieve what you describe, I would likely either modify osm2pgsql to do what I want, or run stock osm2pgsql and devise a *separate* process, likely based on (py)osmium, that extracts the information I need from a planet file or diff, and somehow adds that to my PostGIS database. That way, I would continue to be able to use osm2pgsql for what it does best, and I could still add my special processing on top. Since my special processing is likely to only need a fraction of the data, and osmium is quite efficient at filtering, the risk of running into performance issues should be limited. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] NYC Name Vandalism
Hi, On 05.09.2018 03:36, Alan Brown wrote: > Granted, it would be nearly impossible to make this criteria perfect: I think it would already be nearly impossible to make these criteria even *good*. It is easy to come up with a knee-jerk "nobody should be allowed to change the name tag of New York", and many will nod in approval. It seems obvious, doesn't it. Who, then, makes the catalogue of such places? Is only their name tag "protected"? Or also their location? Can the node be moved by a mile, 10 miles, 100 miles? Can the population be changed, and if so, by what amount? > I'd have no idea what would be > offensive in Hungarian, much less Thai; someone could draw something > offensive (like a peeing Android) that would be very hard to catch; > there are places like "Dildo, Newfoundland" that are legitimate. All this is true, and simple regular expression matching will never fix things (the village of Fucking in Austria is a well-known example but the number of names that are legit in one language and offensive in another is high). > But I > don't think it would be all that hard to flag a changelist like this > last vandalism, If you prohibit me from changing the name of New York to "Jewtropolis", I'll just create a city node one block away from it with a slightly higher population, causing it to be rendered with priority. If you start down this road, you will end up not using OSM place names at all but instead relying on a curated data set like Natural Earth, which is a valid decision to make for a cartographer but means taking control away from mappers and giving it to a hand-picked circle of data curators. > At very least, you can force your vandals to be clever to succeed. But is this really what we want - ever more clever vandalism that is ever less likely to be detected? Is it not even *better* to have "obvious" vandalism that we can fix easily? Today, getting "Jewtropolis" written large across OSM for an hour or two is no big deal, nothing to brag about before your cool hacker friends. "So what" is the answer. Do we want to make this into a trophy? Today, the headline is "some asshole put 'Jewtropolis' on OSM" - tomorrow, "clever hacker penetrates OSM defences"? > In our usage, we will scan the names of significant objects for > potentially offensive changes. But it would be good to have some sort > of gateway in the OSM database itself. It is ok for a data consumer to do that. Nobody is hurt if your filters wrongly reject a valid contribution in Africa. It would also be ok to build something that prioritizes things for review. But trying to build some kind of "protection" into the data ingestion at OSM would * impact performance negatively * disenfranchise mappers * bind resources for the constant maintenance of block lists * encourage clever(er) vandalism and hence not be worth it. Bye Ferderik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] NYC Name Vandalism
Hi, On 30.08.2018 22:43, Frederik Ramm wrote: > We can only speculate about the motives here Ah, just a security researcher, I guess this makes it ok then? https://reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/9brqx4/this_is_medwedianpresident1_talking_what_i_did/ > frankly my money is on > "attention seeking teenager" Or maybe it is the same guy who's been asked to be more mature here? https://www.reddit.com/r/civclassics/comments/6rxu7p/before_you_leave_medwedianpresident_a_couple/ And what is this: https://archive.is/4NzTp Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] NYC Name Vandalism
Hi, On 08/30/2018 10:20 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > A problem here is that it gives us a tremendous black eye in the > press. I wonder how, moving forward, we can lessen the chances of > this sort of hate speech propagating off the project. We can only speculate about the motives here - frankly my money is on "attention seeking teenager" who could just as well have labelled a city the "Weed Capital". Which would not have been hate speech and maybe not reported as widely, but not really any better. > Other projects > have found that having a mandatory review and moderation process for > new users is helpful, Some have, some not; the English Wikipedia, for example, has not, while the German Wikipedia has, to a degree. A move like this would have to be very carefully considered as it binds resources and reduces our ability to attract new mappers (a certain percentage of whom would not make that first hurdle). It is also a technical challenge: If the new signup creates a new object, and before this is reviewed someone else creates the same new object, what happens? If the new signup modifies an object and before the modification is reviewed someone else modifies a different object in a way hat would make both edits clash (e.g. buildings overlap), what happens? If we don't attract enough reviewers and new edits remain unpublished for days or even weeks...? Reducing the possible participation envelope of new mappers is certainly something that can be discussed, but it's not something we should do on a whim, and certainly not to please unspecified and scared "Powers That Be". Perhaps educating our users about the strengths and weaknesses of crowd-sourcing is another option. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Vandalism
Hi, On 08/19/2018 07:27 AM, mr english wrote: > What's the procedure for revert things like this? If it's a "country" somewhere in the sea then it's relatively easy to delete, and everyone is encouraged to delete obvious vandalism like that on sight. It is always a good idea to add a public comment to the vandalism edits explaining that the data has been deleted, and why - more often than not, the "vandal" thought they were just doodling in their private sandbox! If the task is too daunting for you, you can bring it to the attention of other mappers who are more experienced - message to the mailing list is ok, though a synchronous channel like IRC or Slack might yield quicker results. There's also the Data Working Group at d...@osmfoundation.org to deal with matters that the community cannot easily resolve themselves - for example, if you have a persistent vandal that needs to be blocked from making further edits. The edits you highlighted have been reverted by user Carnildo a couple hours ago. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] buggy buildings in Maryland
Hi, On 08/16/2018 08:08 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: > I'd say go ahead and remove the extraneous nodes This has now been done. > and also any buildings > that are either version 0 or do not have any new tags (like names or > addresses) It appears that of the 177,151 buildings still there, only 29,513 have tags other than building=*. In most cases, these other tags are addr:street and addr:housenumber. I'll let this rest for a bit to give others a chance to chime in. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] buggy buildings in Maryland
Hi, over the last 2 years, DWG has had a three different complaints about a buggy building import that has been run on and off by the user "annapolissailor". The import was problematic in many ways, most obviously because huge batches of un-used nodes were uploaded and later it was attempted to connect them, which sometimes failed, leaving lots of un-used nodes in the database; also, almost all buildings are over-noded, taking 10 or more nodes for a simple rectangular building (eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435663194). Buildings that were in the area before have been deleted outright, and the data source and legal situation is unclear (many buildings are much too precise to have come from aerial imagery). (Needless to say, had the import been discussed up front as is customary, all these issues could have been avoided.) I have tried to work with the importer but they seem to be ultimately unable or unwilling to fix the problems even though they did seem to understand the issue at some point (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1587). They asked me a couple of times to "hold off reverting data until next steps are discussed on the imports list" but never followed up on the promise. They claimed to have spent hundreds of hours on the JOSM validator improving problems they had introduced. I am at the moment deleting about 70,000 untagged and un-used nodes that have been left over from this import, which is the uncontroversial part. The total amount of buildings created and still visible is 177,151, with a total of 1,980,336 nodes, in the general area "East of Washington DC, South of Baltimore, North of Chesapeake Beach". I think these buildings need to be deleted too, given their technical (over-noding) and legal (we don't know where the data came from and what license it is under) issues. However, given how much work the mapper claims to have invested in this, I wonder if there's maybe a way to salvage the data. That would first require us to clear up the legal situation, and if it turns out the source is legal, then we'd have to go about killing the extra nodes in buildings. I'm basically looking for volunteers here. Other mappers have tried to discuss the issue with the mapper himself and never got far either, but of course if someone wanted to try and enlist annapolissailor's support, fair enough (perhaps agree here on the list who's doing it though, so that we don't have 10 people spamming him...) I have prepared a file that contains all the buildings in question: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/annapolis.osm.gz Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Hostility towards US mappers
Bryan, On 07/25/2018 09:40 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: > That said - Frederik’s message made me really angry. I’m still pretty upset > about it. To your analogy, I’d never go on talk-de and threaten to revert > the work of some students in Germany just because they didn’t connect some > lines. What made me angry when I saw the edits was not that they were buggy - anyone starts out making buggy edits and I still make them to this day. And there's no difference between bumbling US newbies and bumbling German newbies or anywhere else in the world. What pisses me off is when bumbling newbiedom goes hand in hand with bigmouthed web sites about how the so-and-so project is making the world a better place, and then I look at what the project with the cool "store front" actually does in OSM and see rubbish. This is not the work of a student who has just discovered OSM and is taking their first steps. This is the work of a student who has signed up for a project, and been instructed by someone who is ultimately part of the group that makes the cool public-facing web site about OpenSidewalks. And what I see in OSM is not something that is suitable to achieve the project goals. It should be in the project's own interest to avoid or repair this. So my impression is, there's a project here that has invested a significant part of their time into convincing third parties that they're doing a great thing (maybe even convincing third parties that they're worth funding), but they treat OSM with much less diligence than they spend on their store front. In the end, it seems to be "good enough" to have students add disjunct lines that are unlikely to ever achieve any of the goals OpenSidewalks claims to pursue. If OSM was anything valuable to them, anything worth caring for, and not just a vehicle to piggyback their project on, then they would provide better training and supervision to their students so that mistakes like the ones I randomly stumbled across either do not happen, or are corrected. This is nothing to do with US mappers in general, I only posted here because it happens to be a US location. Similar things happen everywhere (even though some cultures seem more prone to do big PR than others). It is not even about mappers at all, because it is much more likely that those enlisting, instructing, and supervising the student are at fault here than that the student received excellent instructions and just wasn't up to it. I have no clue what the student(s) have been instructed to do, but whatever the goal is, the activity we see performed here is very unlikely to help achieve it. Those who set this up are responsible for fixing it; they can't just set up a half-baked project and then hope that OSM is somehow going to fix it. I am absolutely hostile towards projects treating OSM like an ever-forgiving receptacle into which you can pour anything half-baked and "the others" are somehow magically going to make it right. This is a deeply disrespectful attitude towards all those who are already spending lots of time building OSM. And if the occasional threat of reverting the whole lot is required to nudge the people managing such projects towards more diligence then that's a good thing for all of OSM! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Senseless Germans, again.
Hi, On 25.07.2018 12:33, Bryan Housel wrote: > Do you live in Austin, TX? > If not, why do you care whether the students want to map sidewalks there? What does this have to do with my nationality? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Senseless Sidewalks, again.
Hi, we had a long-ish discussion here (or was it over at imports?) about adding sidewalks, especially related to a project called "OpenSidewalks" which boldly announced a massive attempt at doing so. I recently stumbled across this changeset in Austin, TX: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/603909001 In it, an untagged line was added 24 days ago, with a vague promise of using JOSM later to add relevant tags, which hasn't happened yet. What's more, there are some erratic sideways in the same area, un-connected to the road network and un-connected to each other, see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id=603909004#map=21/30.28318/-97.74670 and as such hardly usable for anything like pedestrian routing. And they don't even look good on the map. I really wonder what the purpose of this is. At least they're all tagged with "project=OpenSidewalks" which makes it easier to delete them once the project has run out... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] admin_level=8 boundaries in Parker County, TX
Hi, I've recently traced a little bit of stuff in Annetta, TX. The area I looked at had a lot of potential for someone interested in mapping from aerial imagery (houses, tracks, driveways, parking missing; some driveways tagged as highway=residential etc.) and I did what I could in the small area I worked on, but there was one thing I didn't dare touch and that's admin boundaries. The ones I encountered often cut straight through residential buildings and I thought that can't be right, but I know too little about boundaries in the US to fix any of it. I am specifically talking of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/114418 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33245202 - maybe someone local wants to give them a closer look. Maybe it's ok the way it is. The Annetta North boundary is relatively straight but has one wobbly bit, is there maybe a waterway missing in OSM? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Slack: Do we need an Alternative (was Planning an import in Price George...)
Hi, On 06/09/2018 04:31 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > I have objections to the use of Slack in particular, and to the use of > real-time communication tools in general (not just Slack but other tools > like IRC, HipChat, Rocket.Chat etc.). I think that while it would be ok for any of these to be used by a smaller group to actually do some work, the smaller group should come back to the mailing list for anything of importance. (The same applies to in-person meetings btw, for example if you were to try and get an import approved at a SotM conference or so.) For example, a process where someone pops up on the mailing list and says "I have this data but I don't know how to import, can someone help", and then a smaller group huddles together on Slack/IRC/in a pub to flesh out a proposal, which then goes back to the mailing list for approval or feedback, would be totally ok and likely more productive than going every step on the mailing list. But what you can't do of course is say "we discussed this on Slack and decided we want to do it that way, now be quiet you weren't there" when someone suggests an improvement on the list later. Apart from the reasons you mentioned, having a record is also an important factor. Anything that has gone on on these mailing lists is practically archived forever and for all to see[*] but when I'm told "we discussed this on Slack" I have no chance of checking if there was indeed a discussion or just one guy with a big mouth and two of his pals applauding ;) Bye Frederik [*] minus things like the EU data protection regulations forcing us to remove someone who wants to be forgotten - but they will live on in my personal email folder, har har. -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Edit war after MapRoulette motorway downgrading task
Hi, On 03.04.2018 02:20, Clay Smalley wrote: > I'm... shocked. This is a really confrontational way of addressing > things, and it really doesn't make me feel good contributing here. Without knowing you, or the particulars of the mapping, or the other mapper, let me suggest one thing: Try to see this from the side of the other person. Imagine: * you have been doing a lot of mapping in your local area; * you have developed a certain way to map certain objects, that might be a little out of touch with what is considered the "right" approach elsewhere in the project, but you don't notice or care; * someone you don't know decides that the way you've been doing it is wrong, and sets up a challenge in some sort of task managing program you don't know; * one or more other people who have never edited in your area, suddenly start appearing and making very particular changes, driven, as you find out, by the task managing platform. This can easily create a sense of "I'm under attack" in the individual mapper. They weren't consulted; they weren't aware; all of a sudden, the locusts are there, and the mapper doesn't even know who sent them and why. Someone has overruled your judgement and doesn't even bother explaining it to you. Now if you're a seasoned OSM contributor then it would probably not take you long to find out that there's a MapRoulette task, and probably also a discussion or explanation related to that, and also whom to contact if you want to raise an objection - but not everyone might have that level of knowledge. I think that it is no surprise that "making you feel good contributing" might not the foremost thing on the other mapper's mind at that moment. Not assigning blame to anyone here; just trying to help humans understand other humans. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising
Hi, On 19.03.2018 01:08, Jordan Brod wrote: > I went looking for any information printed in guidelines or code of > conduct about advertising in the attributes of a feature and I couldn't > find where it is approved/prohibited or even mentioned. Does anybody > know where the rule against this is? Firstly, many rules in OSM are not written down. Just because there's no policy that says "don't do X" doesn't mean that X is welcome in OSM, or that someone who got their X deleted has a legitimate basis for a complaint. The current situation with written rules is that http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description says "Never use description=* to add advertising messages.", and more generally our "How We Map" rules (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map) say that what you add must be truthful and verifiable, both of which is rarely the case for advertising. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising
Hi, On 03/03/2018 12:32 AM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > Even as I knew my "contact one SEO/Marketing firm, see what happens" approach > was quite pedestrian I'd like to think of your approach - contact the business that is advertised, through the contact channel they voluntarily publish, and ask whom they've contracted for advertising - as the "front door" approach which I find preferable to the "back door" of trawling our logs for IP numbers and trying to find out who's behind it. Firstly, the "back door" approach is limited to those in OSM who have the requisite privileged access; secondly, it is likely to land you with subcontractors who have little interest in a cooperative future vision because they're just doing what they are told. So +1 for more people following the front door approach, and compiling a list of SEO companies and cataloguing their efforts and reaching out to them to politely requires compliance. In my opinion, this is something we should do as a community, locally, and not wait for someone to lead the effort. I think that "making it easier for them to conform" should have its limits in us defining and communicating the envelope of acceptable contribution. Suggesting that it should be us who develop software or invest time in curating third-party data sets would sound a bit disingenious to me; next thing that someone suggests is because we're doing their work for them we should also charge them? I wouldn't want to go down that route. And of course the non-confrontational approach can only ever be the carrot, and there must be a stick to complement it. For every conformant SEO company there will be a dozen who try to game the system, because gaming systems is their core business, that's what they do with Google & Co.; and even if we found some way to keep more advertising from entering OSM, there's several thousand advertising POIs in OSM in the US alone and they won't magically go away. So let's roll up our sleeves and get to work. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising
Hi, On 02.03.2018 01:17, Mike N wrote: > This is a good time to bring up the subject because the recent > 'locksmith' advertising was most bothersome: partly because the > locksmith industry as a whole in the US is as shady as you can get while > being barely legal, and partly because I'm sure the physical locations > had no relevance; almost no one goes to a 'locksmith shop' to get their > car door unlocked, and many of them just operate out of their residence. Yes, the locksmith advertising was one step up again - this wasn't even "unwanted advertising for a legitimate business" but "unwanted advertising for a scam". One mapper had verified one of the "local locksmith" locations in person and found it to be bogus, then called the telephone number given and was connected to (he said) an "outsourced answering serivice". The list I posted does contain a number of businesses that sound a bit shady - if not outright scams, then at least preying on those in difficult situations. Loan sharks, lawyers with dubious offers, people who claim to buy homes for cash and the like. Sometimes it's hard to tell from the outside. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Help fight advertising
Hi, On 02.03.2018 00:21, Ian Dees wrote: > I disagree that this is a "fight". Have we attempted to reach out to the > people running this operation? I've come across a lot of edits where mappers had written changeset comments against one of these one-off accounts, and were met with silence. It's not normally something the individual mapper would escalate - they write a comment and then forget about it, or simply fix it themselves after a while. I have also (sorry for the "lurkers support me in email" argument) received positive feedback from mappers about my deleting of advertising; twice, a mapper wrote to me along the lines of: "I've been annoyed by this for a while but I didn't dare remove it". > Have we asked the Operations team to > correlate IP address for the accounts that are created and used once? I have on occasion done that with my DWG hat on (when there was a particular flood of such edits) and it was usually possible to identify an IP address or email domain which was then blocked. However this is usually doesn't help for long. I don't think we're dealing with one single opponent here, I think there's an industry out there, and even if you successfully stop one firm from harming OSM, there'll be the next one just around the corner. If you get one to play by the rules, there will be the next one sensing a business advantage by ignoring the rules. (Or "being disruptive" in modern speak.) > Have we looked at what email addresses they use when signing up for > clues? It would be great to have these folks contributing the > non-advertising parts in a manner consistent with the rest of the > community, and perhaps they'd be willing to adjust their practices if we > are able to ask them. I don't know. It has never worked when I tried but I might not have tried hard enough. I think their (and their clients') interests differ too strongly from ours. Their goal is certainly not making the best map (or the best geodatabase). > Also, your characterization of US mappers being more lax about this is a > little insulting. The US mappers are not more lax, but there simply are less of them, and they are concerned with more important things than watching their home turf for an unwanted item. Combine this with a more intensive spam activity in the US than elsewhere (some spammers operate world wide but many seem concentrated on the US even if they hail from non-US IPs) and you get the current over-abundance of spam in the US. It's not your fault, and I'm not pointing a finger - I'm asking for help. There's certainly things that can be done policy-wise, establishing rules that can then be communicated to those willing to play by them; the upcoming directed editing policy will be helpful in outlining acceptable behaviour for groups who wish to contribute business information. But that's a different activity; the advertising that we currently have in OSM must be weeded out no matter what. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Help fight advertising
ncounter and not just those who happen to pay money to an online visibility enhancement firm. If we allow advertisers to flood OSM with POIs, even *if* they had none of the flaws above, OSM would still lose its appeal of being made by locals who know best. What should I do? Advertising has no place in OSM. If you encounter advertising, you have a few options: * Contact the mapper responsible and politely ask them to fix it and/or stop adding advertising. In most cases, since these are throwaway accounts created by professional spammers, you won't receive a response but when in doubt, try it. * Leave the factual information in place, remove only the advertising. I recommend to do this only if the factual information seems correct and meaningful and at the right place; if the factual information is only a name and an address, ask yourself: Should *you* be the one who completes the SEO company's job for them, or rather delete the whole business? * Remove the node altogehter - recommended if the tagging is buggy. * Use the business contact information provided to call/email them and ask which SEO firm they have paid to add data to OSM, and explain how this volunteer project is damaged by the actions of the SEO firm and that this also tarnishes the business reputation. Recommended if you like a little fight; some SEO operations have already been stopped from abusing OSM that way. * Should we have some MapRoulette task or OSMCha automatism or OSMI view to detect potential advertising? Examples of advertising in OSM I've made a list of roughly 1750 nodes in the US, sorted by state, that look suspiciously like advertising. The list is algorithmically generated and almost certainly has the odd false positive, where a mapper simply described where exactly the rare tree is hidden and my algorithm thought this must be advertising, or where something really is just a harmless description of products offered. The list is certainly not exhaustive; I'm sure that using Overpass to search for tell-tale SEO signs you can come up with may more. The data is in CSV format with the columns: date_last_edited,object,created_by,last_edited_by,name,description If you're in the mood, grab a few and kick out the most outrageous abuses of OSM. And maybe we can establish ways to make this a habit in the project. Ideas welcome! I wanted to include the list here but that would probably have condemned this message to spam filters, hence: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/us-seo.txt You will be surprised about the breadth of marketing blurb that has already crept into OSM. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] RetroFitness - file verification
Hi, On 12.02.2018 17:21, Margaret Sekscinski wrote: > Please let me know if we can answer any questions! I notice that the "addr:full" problem from the previous Walmart import hasn't been resolved. Is this an oversight, or was there a decision by the community that it's fine to have addr:full instead of proper addr:street/addr:housenumber etc. tags? The wiki currently says, about addr:full: "Use this for a full-text, often multi-line, address if you find the structured address fields unsuitable for denoting the address of this particular location." and goes on to warn: "Beware that these strings can hardly be parsed by software: "1200 West Sunset Boulevard Suite 110A" is still better represented as addr:housenumber=1200 + addr:street=West Sunset Boulevard + addr:flats=Suite 110A." Since we're only talking 150 or so points here, would it be too much to ask to specify the correct addresses for each instead of relying on community members to repair the data post-import? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] TIGER 2017 Pennsylvania county line import?
Hi, On 01/24/2018 12:46 AM, Albert Pundt wrote: > I noticed many of the county lines in Pennsylvania are off by quite a > bit. I took the county lines from TIGER 2017 and imported them into > JOSM, and am ready to begin switching out the existing county lines Do you mean you'll keep the relations intact and just replace the member ways, or do you intend to delete the relations wholesale and introduce new ones? Where county boundaries are shared "upwards" by the state boundary, or "downwards" by a city boundary, will you ensure that these links are kept? County boundaries often don't exist in a vacuum and hence when the county bondary changes, the city/state boundaries need to change too, else you'll end up with cities straddling a county border or counties straddling a state border... Depending on what exactly you're planning to do, the JOSM "utilsplugin2" function "replace geometry" might be useful; it would try to keep the existing objects in OSM and just refine their geometry, rather than deleting and re-creating stuff. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] New to lists and would like to suggest some imports
Hi, On 09.01.2018 01:54, Russell Meier wrote: > I am new to the idea of discussing additions to OSM and like to do my > best to follow best practices in suggesting an import. I am not sure > were to start. First of all, be aware that data imports are not the normal way in which data is added to OpenStreetMap. They are an exception. Opinions are divided about whether they are good or bad and I won't go into that now, but largely OpenStreetMap is a project of citizen cartographers (making the map themselves) and not an IT project that focuses on the assimilation of data sets created by others. Even where data is imported to "kick-start" the map, the imported data is never the last word; it will be modified, updated, improved by volunteers through manual work later. It is therefore a very good idea to earn your stripes by doing some old-fashioned manual mapping yourself before embarking on a grand import project; that way you'll get a better idea of working with the data as a mapper, of what makes sense and what doesn't. Of just how precise you'd like a building footprint to be when you edit it by hand later, and so on. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing
Gleb, On 11/21/2017 12:02 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Of course multipolygonizing couple of buildings that touch coastline in > Monterey was wrong. Sorry, I was in a multipolygonizing rage as I was > going through the coastline. :) We have a general (unwritten) convention in OSM and that is "don't force your taste on other mappers". When you edit data contributed by others, and you improve it with your own knowledge or data collected on the ground, then nobody expects any restraint from you - improve away! However, in matters of taste - where you are NOT adding information, and instead just changing the represenation of the data in the database - we tend to say: It is for you to decide the style in which YOU contribute, but do not try to overrule others and force your style on them. (There's another issue that mappers never agree on, and that's whether when there's a track on the edge of the forest and beyond that, a meadow, all three should share nodes, or whether room is to be left to the left and right of the track because "the forest doesn't end in the middle of the track"). These things are matters of taste, and neither representation is more correct or contains more information than the other; two stubborn mappers at loggerheads could potentially re-style an area from one style to the other and back every week. Hence: Apply your personal style to new contributions that you make, but don't go around applying it to contibutions made by others. This sort of "cleanup" benefits few but your personal sense of orderliness, and your time is better spent actually improving data instead of just fiddling with how the same data is represented in the database. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Multipolygonizing
Hi, On 11/19/2017 11:48 PM, Douglas Hembry wrote: > glebius believes that this approach (with the help of the reltoolbox > JOSM plugin) is easier and less error-prone than having multiple simple > closed ways (eg, a building footprint and an adjacent pedestrian area) > sharing a set of nodes on their adjacent boundary. . (I hope I'm > representing this accurately, glebius will correct me if I'm getting it > wrong). He's not entirely wrong; this approach is something we have come to expect when you have a mesh of areas, like for example county administrative areas: One begins where the other ends, and allowing each to have its own "way" connecting the nodes would only increase the amount of data and complicate editing. However, when it comes to very small areas, like adjacent buildings or landuse areas that only share a handful of nodes, introducing a relation seems an unnecessary complexity. It is most often mappers with an IT background and an unwillingness, or even inability, to accept that there can be more than one way to do it right - they tend to follow the "everything is a multipolygon" approach. I've occasionally had to forcibly convince them to re-think that approach because they were essentially turning their home turf into a creative multipolygon landscape that nobody else dared edit. This is IMHO the foremost reason against this "multipoligonism" - you're making things harder to edit for others. (Another frequent hobby of multipolygon fans is combining several disjunct areas, say three landuse=farmland areas, into one multipolygon, because this "saves" space, since landuse=farmland then only needs to be tagged once not three times. IMHO this is only acceptable if the three areas have more in common than being farmland; for example if the three areas together share a local name or so.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Integrating our open source data into OSM
Hi, On 09.11.2017 02:53, Brian May wrote: > Its critical to know where the lat/longs came from. For example, if they > came from Google Maps - then its a no go, because Google's licensing is > incompatible with OSM. Their geocodes are not public domain, etc. Same > thing applies to many / most other commercial geocoding services. If you > don't know how the lat/longs were derived, then that is probably a show > stopper as well. I've enterered a random sample of addresses from this data set into Google for geocoding and ended up with the exact same lat/lon in about half of cases - but I only tested a handful. Of course it is totally possible that a public domain geocoding source is used by both Cybo and Google which would lead to both having the same data without Cybo having copied from Google. As a further explanation to Sean, in case you're not familiar with the legal situation; while deriving "facts" from Google's database and re-using them in your own data set will often not violate copyright (because "facts are free"), it can violate database protection which is a different legal concept that protects a database from repeated extraction even if the individual extracted bits are not copyrighted. This concept doesn't exist in the US to my knowledge, but someone using such a database in, for example, the EU, could be sued by the database owner. That's why OSM must avoid adding location data that has been derived from non-free sources. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports
Hi, On 10/13/17 15:52, Kevin Kenny wrote: > (I ignore the arguments that > are based solely on contentions that "imports are always bad for the > community," or else I'd never import anything.) I only posted that on the talk list and not here, so for those on talk-us who don't read talk and who are familiar with the "imports are always bad for the community" discussion, you might want to have a look at a scientific paper recently written by Abhishek Nagaraj (UC Berkeley-Haas) which finds that: "... a higher level of information seeding significantly lowered follow-on knowledge production and contributor activity on OpenStreetMap and was also associated with lower levels of long-term quality." The paper can be freely downloaded here https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3044581 and there has been a little discussion about it over on the talk list, here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-October/079116.html Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Low-quality NHD imports
Hi, there's a LOT of NHD:* (and nhd:*) tags on OSM objects, see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=NHD%3A - 1.9 million NHD:FCode, but also 188k "NHD:Permanent_" (note the underscore), 10k "NHD:WBAreaComI", or 1.5m "NHD:Resolution" just to grab a few. I haven't researched who added them and when, but they would certainly not clear the quality standards we have for imports today. Most of this information can be properly modelled in usual OSM tags, and where it cannot, it probably shouldn't be in OSM in the first place. Is there any systematic (or even sporadic) effort of cleaning up these old imports? Is there reason to believe that the neglect extends to more than just the tags - do geometry and topology usually work well on these, or are the funny tags a huge "this whole area hasn't had any love in a long time" sign? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr
Hi, On 27.09.2017 21:49, Martijn van Exel wrote: > That is helpful. Let us know when you have re-executed the analysis and > posted the results. http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/chdr.details A new list (CSV file) with way id, coordinates, and country/state/county information. I've eliminated all objects that have been reported to be ok, and plan to remove or change the names on these remaining ones. (To avoid misunderstandings: There's a column in the file that says what I plan to do, either "change to XYZ" or "delete", but that does NOT mean "delete the object", just "delete the name tag"!) I'll start doing that in ~ 20 hours from now. I'll then redact the versions that carried the "bad" name. The redaction will also affect a few historic objects that *used* to have a "bad" name and where the name has meanwhile been changed again, or where the object has been deleted; these redactions will be of little consequence. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Code for America
Hi,
have other members of this mailing list received an advertising email
from Code for America ("We have work to do together") today? Their web
site says that they subscribed me to their advertising list "because you
have either opted in, attended an event, or applied to our program",
none of which I remember doing. It's totally possible that I simply
forgot though.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Requesting to remove stoplines in San Jose
Hi, On 19.09.2017 03:39, Vivek Bansal wrote: > Hey, I noticed pfliers has added lots of unconnected ways w/ > `highway=stopline` all over San Jose. It’s really been cluttering up our > workflows in iD, and now it’s triggering JOSM’s validator as we’re > adding sidewalks. Who is "we"? > Can we remove them in one big mechanical edit? Even if > the concept is good, they’d have to be remapped in order to be useful > anyways. I'm unsure - why do you think they have to be "remapped to be useful"? Useful to whom? Have you discussed this with the user (or have you at least tried)? It sounds to me as if there are two contravening goals here. One, we would like to avoid people adding "niche" information to the map that makes it more difficult for other mappers to do their work. But on the other hand, we encourage people when they're planning to introduce a new tag, to "test-run" it for feasibility. You don't have to ask for permission to map something new, and you shouldn't have to expect others to simply remove your stuff because their chosen editor pops up a warning. (It could be the editor or the workflow that need changing, not the data.) > Maybe they should be a node along the centerline. Or instead > they should be a road_marking. That's a valuable discussion to be held, and I would suggest to hold this discussion before removing anything, if possible (and if the user in question is willing to discuss). Your sidewalks are not per se more important or more valuable than pfliers' stop lines, and you wouldn't want someone else to simply mass-delete your sidewalks because their editor showed them a warning when adding stop lines! > Here is pfliers proposal: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/stop_line The proposal certainly needs fleshing out. Personally I think the use of the "highway" tag is questionable since there will be many applications out there that treat any linear feature with highway=* as something you can travel on. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] "System Continuity" in the Functional Classification network
Hi, On 07.09.2017 16:51, Max Erickson wrote: > Broadly speaking, yes, such continuity should apply. Maybe not using > exactly the same rule as the US DOT. I know this is talk-us and I won't attempt to say anything USA specific but such continuity definitely does not apply world-wide in OSM (there have been cases where people tried to enforce such continuity without local knowledge only to be repudiated by locals). Bye Frederik ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tampa/Clearwater Building Import to aid in Irma Recovery Efforts
Clifford, could you share some thoughts about your general process with these imports? I notice that you seem to be working on a lot of them. - Have you forgotten to raise Tampa/Clearwater on imports@ or was the Corpus Christi one assumed to be a kind of template for all Microsoft building footprint imports? I'm unclear about the status. Your posting simply says "the wiki page for the import is available". What does that mean? The wiki page for Corpus Christi says "Pending acceptance", the "stats" tab on http://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/118 says "0% complete" yet the "activity" tab says "Glassman marked #233 as done about 6 hours ago". Was that a test edit, or is the import already started? Do you have plans to prepare further regions for imports? Since you're not local to the areas in question (would it be fair to say you're on the other end of the country?), do you undertake any efforts to enlist local mappers besides posting on talk-us? Do you have any statistics about who the participants in these imports are? As you know, the reason we're doing these "community imports" is that we hope to bring local knowledge to the table; do wo know if this works, or is it the same people (potentially from the other end of the country) that perform the majority of import tasks on each? I'd also be interested in how long it takes for these imports to complete; obviously if we should notice that people add 10k buildings in an hour we must assume that the necessary diligence was not applied. -- I know that when HOT apply their tasking manager they often have a step where a second person verifies the data added (or maybe just spot-checks it). Is that a feature that the imports you run also have? The wiki page for Corpus Christy says "QA: Validation: Use of validation tools in the Tasking Manager process", but I assume that just refers to usual automatic checks done by JOSM, not a second person inspecting the result? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed import of building footprints for Hartford, CT
Hi, On 05.09.2017 04:41, Clifford Snow wrote: > Please join us on Slack [1] to help discuss > the import. If anything meaningful is ever discussed there, please don't forget that it is a proprietary platform not used by everyone, and add summaries or transcripts to the public import documentation. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr
Hi,
On 08/27/2017 08:51 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
> Also, Frederik, I think your script picked up false positives. Spot
> checked in DC, and these are expansions of both the street and the
> quadrant ("St NW" -> "Street Northwest"(. Can we fix the script and
> regen the list?
I have modified my "name equality rule" to consider "N" equal to "North"
etc., also it will ignore case, whitespace, and as before the usual
street type expansions (St->Street etc).
This brings the number of problematic objects down by around 5500, and
practically all of them are in the US. However, I noticed that I forgot
to account for "Saint"->"St", and will re-do the numbers yet again
before publishing an updated list.
I think the best course of action would be:
1. Wait a while, until various communities (potentially pointed to this
conversation via the widely-read weekly new roundup) have had the time
to check whether my automated assessment of which names count as
"contributed" by chdr is correct. Mikel has found the issue above and I
fixed it; it is quite possible that there are others.
2. Run the redaction, and remove all names contributed by chdr. At
present it looks as if less than 10% of these objects had a different
name before; more than 90% had not name at all. Perhaps it is indeed
best to remove the name in these cases as well instead of reverting to
the old name.
3. Load the IDs of all affected objects in a MapRoulette task or
similar, so people can check the names by survey, or from different
sources. (I assume that, as Simon pointed out, open data will not be
available for all countries affected. I fear that, with MapRoulette
geared towards armchair mapping, there might be a temptation for people
to yet again fill in the blanks from inadmissible sources. Maybe we
should limit the use of MapRoulette to countries where we know that open
sources exist, and use fixme tags or notes for other countries?)
I think that would be cleaner than verifying the names ahead of time.
Also it would create an audit trail - from the object history, you could
then see that the name was removed for copyright reasons, and you could
then see that user XYZ has added a new name. If it should later turn out
that this name was also copied from an indadmissible source, we know
that user XYZ is at fault, whereas people creating lists with
independently verified names is not something that would give us such a
recording.
I must apologize for not having given a time frame in my initial email;
there's absolutely no reason to panic. This matter has been sitting idle
for years, and a few more weeks won't kill us. We can sort this out
calmly and then do the right thing.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr
Steve: thank you for your work. I'll save your list. It appears that others might be eager to do the same, maybe we can find a good workflow for that. I wasn't expecting the community to start working on this pre-redaction but if people prefer that to fixing issues later, it is of course an option. I certainly prefer out-of-band "marking" of verified objects to adding a new tag to each! Tod: On 08/27/2017 07:31 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > When you reviewed Orange County, how did you do it so quickly? The only way I > know to go through this is looking at each one, one at a time. I could of course make a page with links to the ways, even per county if that helps, or we could upload the list to some suitable tool. Ian mentioned MapRoulette but I'm not sure if that would make things easier. I'm certainly happy to try. Maybe Martijn would like to chip in about MapRoulette? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr
Hi Ian,
On 08/27/2017 06:23 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
> Thanks for notifying us about this. I hope that you treat this as an
> import or automated edit and follow the rules you would expect to see
> the rest of the community follow.
Sorry for not being clear about this. I posted this with my DWG hat on,
and this is not an import or an automated edit but an "official" removal
of incompatible data which would be an everyday thing for DWG if it
weren't for the sheer number of contributions and the fact that they are
so old, hence the discussion ahead.
> Please post samples of your changes,
The change will be removing the name tag on all ways in the file I made
available, or reverting to whatever it was before chdr edited the
object. Other properties would not be edited.
If this was not a misunderstanding, and instead you wanted to use the
opportunity to start a discussion about DWG accountability ("every
revert of an automated edit is also an automated edit and hence needs to
be discussed in advance", etc.) then I would kindly ask you to do that
in separate thread with a suitable topic.
> and thanks for working to get buy-in
> from local community.
Let's call it a heads-up for, rather than a buy-in from, because even if
the local community were against it, I don't see a legally clean way
around removing these names.
> Is your plan to revert changes to the name tag made by chdr or will you
> be completely removing the name tag? Personally, I would prefer to see
> the name tag completely removed so we can more easily come back and
> correct it. It might also be better to load this list you posted into
> maproulette or similar so we can systematically validate the name values
> on the ways.
Streets that would end up not having a name will probably show up in
enough QA tools already, no?
I'll do a count of how many names would revert and how many would be
removed altogether. Maybe it is indeed best to simply ditch them all.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Redacting 75,000 street names contributed by user chdr
Hi, in 2010 I was privately contacted by another OSM user with the suspicion that user "chdr" might be copying names from Google maps (there were few "easter eggs" in Oman that were only on Google and not in the real world, and they suddenly popped up on OSM). "chdr" was contacted at the time, but continued unfazed. In 2013 another mapper lodged a complaint with DWG about edits by chdr, and I emailed chdr asking him about his sources. At that point chdr stopped mapping. He never replied about his sources though, even when I set an ultimatum (of 31st August 2013) threatening to remove all names he contributed if he can't tell us his source. We do have to assume that all names contributed by chdr are copyright violations. (chdr has added names all around the world, making a harmless survey unlikely.) For various reasons I neglected to act on this, and was only reminded now, 5 years later, when DWG received a complaint from a user in Brazil where chdr has even used "source=google" occasionally. (But as I said, the suspicion is that Google was used throughout.) I have now compiled a list of all street names that were contributed by chdr and are still visible today; we're talking about almost 75,000 street names world wide. The most affected countries are: 18023 "United States of America" 16345 "Mexico" 15109 "Brazil" 6791 "RSA" 2802 "Spain" 2614 "Australia" 1923 "Argentina" 1673 "Nigeria" 1569 "India" 1441 "Canada" 954 "Malaysia" 744 "Botswana" 717 "Philippines" 619 "Indonesia" 553 "Italy" 414 "Turkey" 290 "Hungary" 284 "Chile" 250 "Kenya" 127 "Saudi Arabia" 107 "Paraguay" 106 "Panama" 100 "Morocco" I've left out those countries with less than 100 affected ways. For the US, I can break it down by state: 5696 "Arizona" 5116 "Texas" 2294 "New York" 1164 "District of Columbia" 740 "Iowa" 494 "Colorado" 416 "New Jersey" 339 "Illinois" 268 "Michigan" 239 "Pennsylvania" 181 "Missouri" 147 "Georgia" 129 "New Mexico" 123 "North Carolina" 115 "California" 106 "Virginia" The breakdown for Mexico: 7749 "Baja California" 2084 "Puebla" 1964 "Chihuahua" 1539 "Coahuila" 1161 "Mexico" 1040 "Chiapas" 342 "Tamaulipas" 241 "Sonora" 185 "San Luis Potosi" 129 "New Mexico" and Brazil: 10904 "São Paulo" 2605 "Paraná" 945 "Rio de Janeiro" 270 "Rio Grande do Sul" 154 "Goiás" and South Africa: 4422 "Gauteng" 750 "KwaZulu-Natal" 600 "Eastern Cape" 439 "Western Cape" 400 "Northern Cape" 179 "Mpumalanga" - each time leaving out a couple others under 100. We believe that only names, not geometries have been taken from other maps so we'll remove and redact the names only. In identifying "names contributed by chdr" I took care to really only pick up the names that were introduced by them, not names that were there before, and also when chdr split a way that had a name I will make sure that the newly created way doesn't count as "named by chdr". Additionally, I have ignored those cases where chdr simply performed a TIGER expansion (St->Street etc) of a name that was there before. My process has two weak points (that I am aware of): 1. It doesn't properly "follow" a chrdr-contributed name through way splits performed by other users; if someone has split a way created by chdr, then the name will remain on the bit that was created by this user. This is somewhat unsatisfying but after having manually checked a random sample I think the problem is small enough to be ignored. 2. It is possible that, like with a recent case in Switzerland where I had to do a similar redaction, some of these chdr-contributed names will have been confirmed by others in a survey, i.e. someone else surveyed the area and checked the name, but saw no need to change it in any way since it was already correct. Sadly my process will now remove the name even though, had the name not been there in the first place, that person could have added the name. This is not nice but I don't see how it could be avoided. Here's a list of way IDs affected, with country and state: http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/chdr.details I am trying to keep the damage to OSM to a minimum while at the same
Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 116, Issue 20
Hi, On 11.07.2017 22:31, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: >> The only reason to have an admin level 4 boundary inside a state, would >> be if there was somehow a piece of *federal* territory inside the state. >> Only then would the state have a "hole" in it that would be tagged with >> admin level 4! An area inside the state that is state-governed because >> of a lack of admin_level 5+ entity does not need its own boundary. It is >> defined by the boundaries of the admin_level 5+ entities that surround it. > > OK, I'll take your word for it. But I ask you to please further clarify that > in that first case (where you say *federal*): is it more correct to say > "anything above state?" Yes, if there were something at admin_level 3 then of course the area where a hole was punched into the admin_level 4 area (*or* a gap between neihgbouring admin_level 4 areas!) would be assumed to be governed by that admin_level 3 body. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Differences with USA admin_level tagging
Hi, On 07/11/2017 08:18 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote: > I'm glad Adam brings up the topic of Gores, as I'm also unclear on how such > "holes" get "punched into" larger (multi)polygons via tagging. For example, > I am "sort-of-sure" (but not positive) that in Vermont, a "gore" (or grant, > location, purchase, surplus, strip...usually the result of "leftovers" from > survey errors) get a tag of admin_level=4 to accurately reflect that the > governmental administration happens via state-level bureaucracy. I think there might be a misunderstanding here and I would like to chip in before this gets out of hand, even if I don't have any specialist USA knowledge: If you have an admin_level 4 entity - like a state - then the boundaries with admin_level 4 are the outer demarcation of that, i.e. they separate the area where the state is responsible from the area where the state is not responsible. The only reason to have an admin level 4 boundary inside a state, would be if there was somehow a piece of *federal* territory inside the state. Only then would the state have a "hole" in it that would be tagged with admin level 4! An area inside the state that is state-governed because of a lack of admin_level 5+ entity does not need its own boundary. It is defined by the boundaries of the admin_level 5+ entities that surround it. > without using a multipolygon relation, You will be using boundary relations which are practically identical to multipolygon relations. Any attempt to create a "lower 48 states" polygon without relations would hit the 2000 node limit. > is it correct within OSM to tag, say a very large "lower 48 states" polygon > with admin_level=2 AND ALSO tag admin_level=2 on, say, a national_park inside > of it That would only be correct if the national park was *not* part of the lower 48 states but somehow part of another nation. I'm not 100% sure what you want to achieve but think of it like coloured polygons. If you have an admin_level 2 area for the USA, think of that as one colour, and then you have a lot of states, each with a different colour. In those areas where the "USA colour" shines through, because they're not covered by any state, that's automatically federal territory and you do *not* want an admin_level 2 boundary surrounding that (because then not even the "USA colour" would shine through, there would be nothing there). > Guidance by knowledgable people with real answers might guide us on a number > of these situations, not just "Gores" (et al) but other kinds of "hole" > tagging without multipolygons. If you mean not only "without multipolygons" but "without boundary relations" too then I think you should stop right here and leave it to people who can work with relations. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tiger Zip Data Removal Project (Update)
Hans, On 07/08/2017 10:37 PM, Hans De Kryger wrote: > So last month i started a discussion about a project i took on removing > Tiger zip data across the U.S. I brought it to the community after i > received concern from quite a few mappers in the U.S. I notice that at least two people who have negatively commented on your recent edits in changeset comments - Max Erickson and Steve A - are regulars on this mailing list, but they didn't get involved when you discussed the issue here four weeks ago. A reason for this might be that your thread title at the time was: "Need advice on a project I've taken on" and not "Tiger ZIP removeal across the whole US" which might have attracted more eyeballs at the time! I also notice that, in the discussion at the time, you received a number of comments, like * observe guidelines for mechanical edits (since downloading stuff with overpass and removing a tag without actually looking at the object you are editing *is* a mechanical edit) * use a separate account for the activity * use a changeset comment that clearly states it's an automated edit to remove obsolete tags - none of which you seem to have heeded. At least one person here asked why the data was being removed, and you tersely replied "The usefulness is nonexistent" - which may be totally correct, but this exchange could have demonstrated to you that more explanation is necessary. Now I don't know what kind of abuse you received in personal email and I am not condoning any of that, but I don't think you did your best for a successful project. Next time, discuss it under a meaningful headline ahead of making the first edits; set up a wiki page explaining why you think the tags are useless; then proceed using good changeset comments that point to the wiki page for explanation. For bonus points, make an estimate before you start about how many objects will be touched and explain how you plan to execute the edit. Perhaps Steve A would like to explain what problems he saw with your edit in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/49381249 ? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Finding one-trick ponies
Hi,
in case someone wants to run their own analyses on what might constitute
spam edits, here's a couple steps I did to come up with the numbers
posted over in the "SEO Damage" thread. Some Perl required!
1. Download the latest changeset dump (changesets-latest.osm.bz2)
2. Here's a small Perl script that counts how many changesets per user
and lists those that are the respective user's only work:
--- cut ---
while(<>)
{
if (/{$user}}, [ $id, $changes, $comment,
$editor ]);
$num->{$user}++;
}
($id, $user, $changes) = ($1, $2, $3);
undef $comment;
undef $editor;
}
elsif (/{$user}>2)"
# if you wanted to list those that have one or two changesets etc.
next unless($num->{$user}==1);
# this grabs the user's first changeset which in my configuration
# is also the only changeset, you might need a loop here if you
# want to output multiple
$cs = $changesets->{$user}->[0];
# the below quits if the changeset has more than one edit
next unless ($cs->[1]==1);
# output user name, changeset id, comment, and editor
printf '"%s",%d,"%s", "%s"%s', $user, $cs->[0], $cs->[2], $cs->[3],
"\n";
}
--- cut ---
Run this with
bzcat changesets-latest.osm.bz | perl myscript.pl > changesets.csv
This is what gave me the initial list of 140k changesets.
3, Now if you want to continue and download the contents of each
changeset so identified, run the csv through this other script
--- cut ---
use LWP::UserAgent;
my $ua = LWP::UserAgent->new;
while(<>)
{
chomp;
my ($user, $cs, $comment, $editor) = split(/,/);
# line below ignores all with a short comment - this is where one
# could also filter for other kinds of characteristic comments
next unless (length($comment) > 50);
my $r =
$ua->get("http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/$cs/download;);
if ($r->is_success)
{
print;
foreach (split(/\n/, $r->content()))
{
if (/<(node|way|relation).* id="(\d+)"/)
{
print ",\"$1\",$2";
if (/ version="([^"]+)"/)
{
print ",$1";
}
else
{
print ",";
}
if (/ lat="([^"]+)"/)
{
print ",$1";
}
else
{
print ",";
}
if (/ lon="([^"]+)"/)
{
print ",$1";
}
else
{
print ",";
}
}
elsif(/ changsets-with-edit.csv
The script tries to download the object from the changeset and outputs a
CSV with the important properties. (It's not really geared towards
changesets with more than one edit though.)
After this I had the ~ 12k changes left, and used "grep" to concentrate
on those that had a website, note, or description tag, leaving me with
~3500.
Then if you need to augment that by downloading the *latest* version of
each object and see if it is still the same as before, you could pipe
that CSV through a script like this
--- cut ---
use LWP::UserAgent;
my $ua = LWP::UserAgent->new;
while(<>)
{
chomp;
/^(.*),"(node|way|relation)",(\d+),(\d+),(.*)/ or next;
my ($a, $b, $c, $d, $e)=($1, $2, $3, $4, $5);
my $r = $ua->get("http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/$b/$c;);
undef $version;
undef $t;
if ($r->is_success)
{
foreach (split(/\n/, $r->content()))
{
if (/<(node|way|relation).* id="(\d+)"/)
{
if (/ version="([^"]+)"/)
{
$version=$1;
}
}
elsif(/{$k}=$v;
}
}
}
print "$a,\"$b\",$c,$d,$version";
$same++ if ($d == $version);
foreach (split(/,/, $e))
{
if (/^"(.*)=(.*)"$/ && ($2 ne $t->{$1}))
{
printf ',"%s=%s->%s"', $1, $2, $t->{$1};
}
else
{
print ",$_";
}
}
print "\n";
}
--- cut ---
And you'll end up with something like my "one trick ponies" CSV posted
in the other thread.
This is all super hacky of course, suffers from lack of proper escaping
and XML parsing, and could all be done properly in a more modern
language. But if this encourages one or two people to play a bit then
maybe it was already useful.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] SEO Damage to OSM
Hi, On 06.07.2017 13:01, Mike N wrote: >In the larger picture, what damage is being done to OSM by the > 'spam', once the correct and standard tags are being used? ... and we can be reasonably sure that whoever said the business was at this location, actually knew and not just guessed ;) > I'd like to > have it clear that it's being reverted on the basis of being a stealth > import where the origin of the geolocation data is suspect, rather than > just having more words in the description tag than an average mapper > would include. Yes. I think that if someone registers to add their own shop and is a bit over-enthusiastic, that's totally forgivable, it's just when someone offers this as a service to third parties that we'd like the SEO company to be a partner who understands and respects OSM, and not someone who treats us like another advertising dumping ground. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] SEO Damage to OSM
Hi,
On 05.07.2017 23:05, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I've done some numbers, maybe it helps.
The CSVs I uploaded were a bit difficult to process because of lack of
escaping. I've made a new one here
http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/one-trick-ponies.csv
To recap, this file contains all changesets - numerically ascending -
that are the only changeset of someone, and that contain only one edit,
and where the changeset comment is at least 50 characters long, and
where the object has at least one of the note/description/website tags.
This doesn't mean that all of them are spam (nor does it mean that
there's not other spam done by people who have more than one edit).
The file now not only contains the object type and object id of that one
edit, but also the version, as well as the *current* version of the
object (as of a few hours ago), allowing you to see whether the object
has changed meanwhile.
Additional columns list all the tags the object had when edited by the
one-edit-user. If the tag has meanwhile changed, then the column will
have a little "->" arrow with the new value (e.g. "name=John's Bitter
Beers->Paul's Beautiful Beverages").
I'll follow this up later with a small howto in case someone wants to
repeat my analyses with different parameters.
With my DWG hat on:
Reverting all these edits would probably create a lot of collateral
damage. We could manually go through them and revert all that contain
marketing speak, but even that would probably throw out a few babies
with the bathwater here and there. If anyone has a recommendation... I
noticed that typical SEO content tends to begin with the business name
("Waldo's Warts is a health spa overlooking the beautiful parking lot of
...") but that's probably not a hard-and-fast marker.
With regard to blocking or deleting accounts: DWG usually blocks
accounts only to stop someone from doing someting or to force them to
read a message; hence we don't see much reason in blocking month-old
accounts that will in all likelihood never be used again. Pure spam
accounts (usually that's diary spam) can be deleted by the admins, but
in these cases that would actually hide the traces of spammers, since
the edits they made would now be by user "user_1234" instead of user
"soandsohotel" and it would be more difficult to follow their actions
through the web interface. So I can see the frustration of spam hunters
when the spam account is not removed, but I don't think it would
actually help.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] SEO Damage to OSM
Hi, > These spam changes do not need that complexity to detect. I've done some numbers, maybe it helps. I counted all users that only ever commited one changeset with one edit inside. This number is 140352. Then I discarded those where the changeset comment was shorter than 50 characters or where the content had been redacted long time ago, leaving me with 12173. Then I looked at the objects modified/created, and discarded all where the object had neither website, nor description, nor note tag. This left me with 3323 objects. Then I looked at the list and found a broad range of edits. Some, while having an advertising slant, seem a legit addition of someone's own business: user=Martin Merkur changeset=38362589 comment=Our doors are always open. Come and visit, taste our coffee, see what we do object=node 4103514010 addr:city=Berlin;addr:housenumber=38;addr:postcode=12435;addr:street=Elsenstraße;amenity=cafe;cuisine=coffee_shop;internet_access=no;name=passenger coffee;note=https://www.facebook.com/PassengerEspresso/;opening_hours=7:30-15:00 Uhr;smoking=outside;website=passenger-coffee.de or user=otheryan changeset=13150739 comment=Added in West Town Bikes as it is at the same address and has enough of its own activity that it needs to be recognized on the map. object=node 1585399965 addr:housenumber=2459;addr:postcode=60622;addr:street=W Division;name=Ciclo Urbano/West Town Bikes;shop=bicycle;website=http://ciclourbanochicago.com/ some look more SEO-y user=northcarolinahealth changeset=43324244 comment=Updated Osborne Insurance Services at Raleigh, NC object=node 4474950186 addr:city=Raleigh;addr:housenumber=5316;addr:postcode=27609;addr:state=NC;addr:street=Six Forks Road;hours=Mon-Fri :8.00AM-6.00PM;name=Osborne Insurance Services;phone=919-845-9955;suite=110;website=http://northcarolinahealth.org or user=blakemanhart changeset=43027180 comment=Updated State Farm - Blake Manhart at Springfield, VA object=node 4456153164 addr:city=Springfield;addr:housenumber=8322;addr:postcode=22152;addr:state=VA;addr:street=Traford Ln #B;name=State Farm - Blake Manhart;Owner=Blake Manhart;phone=703-992-9664;website=http://blakemanhart.com I had a look at trying to automatically match website and user name; 457 of them actually contain the user name in the web site. but that is a too coarse check. I fear that it might be necessary to look through the rest manually to detect the dodgy ones. Of the 3323, 208 have a highway tag. But here it bites me that I took everything that had either note or description or website, because some of the edits with highway=* are legit and have a description/note where the newbie mapper explained what they did. 170 of the 208 do have a website tag, and finally, they *all* seem dodgy. (Interestingly it was not all ways - some highway=traffic_signals too!) I've run a revert on these 170 but the majority had already been fixed by others! That leaves us with a good 3115 objects to investigate. Many do clearly violate our "no advertising" rules but then again we don't want to bee to harsh with the cycle shop owner who maybe oversteps the line. I've put my interim results here http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/username-in-url.csv (for those where the username is in the URL) - do you think we should revert them all automatically? (Keep in mind many may have been reverted already - we'd only work on those where the spam version is still current.) and http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/other.csv for those where the username is not (fully) in the URL. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] SEO Damage to OSM
Hi, On 07/05/2017 05:40 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 05/07/2017 16:27, Greg Morgan wrote: >> I've seen the DWG go after real newbies because they are exited and >> want to make a difference but make a few mistakes. > > Have you got an example of that (offlist if it would be preferable)? Yes, I would like to see that claim either substantiated or withdrawn with an apology. > A significant amount of my DWG time is spent trying to persuade mappers > around the world to allow new users to make mistakes, which they > inevitably will before they get the hang of things. I've certainly not > seen "the DWG go after real newbies". It does occasionally happen that the first thing an ambitious new sign-up does is import a couple thousand nodes which will then swiftly be reverted - but that's not "going after" someone, and I seriously doubt that the freedom to sign up and import data without consultation is what the community wants us to uphold. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] SEO Damage to OSM
Hi, On 06/30/2017 07:24 PM, Ian Dees wrote: > Every edit was made by a new/separate user account that only ever makes > one edit. In most cases, these edits are useful (it's someone adding a > business POI) but in some cases they add the details to the wrong piece > of geometry. I see. We had a couple similar issues in the past, presumably from some kind of SaaS SEO tool that will automatically sign up new accounts for users of the tool. But we might also be dealing with "mechanical turk"(*) type of human work. These tools tend to get more sophisticated in flying under our collective radar, but usually not sophisticated enough to get the tagging quite right and avoid adding duplicate data. The addition of advertising copy in the changeset comment is something I've seen a lot (often duplicated or amended by a note or description tag). I wonder if downloading a changeset planet and feeding all changeset comments to some sort of Bayes filter could help identify more problems. Bye Frederik (*) Where I live this term would be considered really offensive towards those who do this kind of work but it seems to be the normal term in the US? -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] SEO Damage to OSM
Hi, On 06/30/2017 06:21 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > Edits, from what appears to be a search engine optimization company > (SEO), have damaged a number of ways in the US. Was it not possible to determine the user accounts responsible and then have DWG revert all their contributions? Or did these accounts also contribute good data? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Help needed, Babcock Ranch near Fort Myers, FL
Hi, thanks for the responses. On 05/15/2017 03:11 PM, Brian May wrote: > The new Digital Globe Standard imagery shows some of the new > development. I re-checked and none of the roads I deleted appear on either DG imagery, not even something that looks like construction. The developer who emailed us said: "The data was from an old plan and does not reflect the current plan, and is certainly not a built roadway network." I have indeed overlooked the fact that the original mapper had a source tag "Charlotte County GIS" so I could have at least confronted the complainant with that. -- They haven't yet got back to me on my question of more current plans. > Also the mapper in question is a very active and detail oriented mapper > focusing on the Fort Myers area. I emailed Eraque22 on 08 May and haven't heard back, but they haven't mapped in 2 weeks so maybe they're on holiday. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Help needed, Babcock Ranch near Fort Myers, FL
Hi, DWG recently had a complaint from a property developer about a series of fictional roads South of Lake Babcock. I have removed them after checking with aerial imagery and after giving the original mapper a chance for comment. However, the whole "Babcock Ranch" area is cris-crossed with streets in OSM that are not even remotely visible on any of the available aerial images (and other roads that are on these images, are not in OSM). This is the area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/26.7888/-81.7157 Maybe someone in the area fancies a fact-finding mission ;) I'll also ask the property developer if they have better information but of course nothing beats a field survey. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Response from TIGER about "driveways
Hi, On 04/04/17 23:17, Kevin Kenny wrote: > There's a lot that's wrong with the import systemically, and a lot > that's wrong with it locally. Around here, a lot of TIGER ways are > outright hallucinations, and I'm not afraid to delete or edit them. In > private emails, I've joked about all the "TIGER [excrement]" in the > database It was before my time, but the TIGER data we have now is already the 2nd incarnation; the very first TIGER import must have been so bad that it was deleted completely. See https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2006-November/002561.html for details. (I chuckled when I read that message which begins with a complaint about the mailing lists.) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints Date: March 28, 2017 at 2:06:33 AM PDT
Hi, On 03/28/2017 05:48 PM, Denis Carriere wrote: > Instead of having tons of different people trying to attempt loading all > of these 8 Million buildings, [...] > After all the "hard work" is done.. you can simply add those > small chunks of data with JOSM using any Tasking Manager This is where I have violently disagreed with Denis and his team in the past and still do; in my eyes, the *hard* work starts once the data has been prepared and converted and set up, because *then* I want people familiar with the area to load the data, compare it with what's there, NOT blindly delete what's there, cross-check with aerial imagery and so on. In my eyes, all the data preparation is peanuts, and the real value is added to the import at the upload stage. This is where it is decided whether this import will be successful or rubbish. A sad example for a rubbish import is almost all of CanVec, which tends to be uploaded by people who think that the "hard work" is already done by those who prepared the data, and that all that is left for them is hitting the upload button in JOSM. While a task manager can help, it tends to invite contributions by people who are not at all local to the area just to "colour it green". This is undesirable in my opinion. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Available Building Footprints
Nathan, On 03/28/2017 11:06 AM, Nathan Mixter wrote: > California has more than triple the amount of data available than any > other state. Importing it will be no small task but doing it in chunks > by several people will make it manageable. I know that singling you out borders on the impolite but I can't resist on this occasion. I haven't analysed data in the US systematically but I have had very many cases where I looked at an area in the US and thought to myself "uh, someone has imported individual plot boundaries here", or "uh, this funny landuse origami here seems to be totally out of touch with imagery" and then when I looked at who was behind that, it turned out to be another nmixter import. Over the years, you have imported a lot of stuff into OSM that probably would not stand up to scrutiny in an import review like we do them today. The thought of you leading any kind of major import attempt in the US fills me with dread. Now maybe I'm doing you injustice and you are having second thoughts about some of the things you did in the past. That would of course be great. I do remember at least one discussion in which you agreed to revert a particularly broken landuse import that a couple of your countrymen complained about but I don't know how rare an exception that was. If I had a choice, I would much prefer if you could apply your time to revisiting the data you have imported over the years, and check whether that data stands up to today's quality expectations, and whether it is worth keeping at all. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] How to apply changesets
Hi, On 11.03.2017 15:48, David Niklas wrote: > 1: Do I need every changes set or just the latest of the year? You don't say exactly what you want to achieve so I can't tell you exactly what you need. In your subject you talk about changesets, but it seems that you are concerned about diff updates published on openstreetmap.org. If that'S the case: They are not cumulative; you have to find out what the timestamp of your data set is and download those between then and now. Osmosis' "read-replication-interval" action can help you keep track of how current your data is, and download all changesets between then and now, and combine them into one automatically. > 2: If I need multiple changesets, can I apply them all at once using > multiple --read-xml-change directives? Yes, *and* multiple --apply-change of course. But if you use "read-replication-interval" then you will only deal with one diff file that has all the changes. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Key:man_made... Outdated language?
Hi,
On 03/10/2017 10:27 PM, Joshua Houston wrote:
> It occurred to me that "man_made" is an outdated term
Two observations:
1. Our tagging system is complicated, illogical, and has little to do
with real language. Things are tagged as amenity even if they're hardly
that in any normal use of the word ("amenity=prison"). Most amenities
are human-made, so why not man_made=prison? And why is it landuse=basin
even though that's also human-made, etc? So if you start taking this
apart on the basis that man-made things can also be made by women or
people who don't associate with either gender, then there's a whole lot
more you might want to pull straight.
2. For the reasons given in 1., we're exposing users less and less to
the actual tags - witness editors and the web site's own "identify
feature" function which will use presets and translated terms to present
things to the user in proper words and in their language. I think that
here lies the future of inclusivity; changing from man_made to
human_made is something that only very few users in OSM would even
notice, and even then you'd still exclude all those who don't speak
English. But working on presets and tag translations and maybe even
styling tools that abstract from tags will help to include not only
English-speaking technically-interested women, but also everyone who
doesn't speak English and everyone who doesn't deal with databases as a
hobby.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] MO Stare Road Classifications.
Hi, On 03/05/2017 10:08 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > I'm not a vehement anti-importer (there are a few around here I don't know what you are talking about ;) > There are "county > highways" that you'd expect to be highway=tertiary that are in fact > highway=track, for instance. Or the myriad "highway=residential"s from TIGER that have lead to some bicycle routing engines to ignore highway=residential/tiger_reviewed=no in the US because they're often no more than dirt tracks. A good way to deal with such external data sets as discussed here is to massage them until they fit the objects on OSM, and then create a map showing where the state highway department appears to differ from what's in OSM (maybe using different colours for "their road class is higher than ours" and "their road class is lower than ours"). Then we and/or local mappers could investigate the differences and make adjustments where deemed sensible. And while our ODbL licensed data is probably not suitable for direct back-import into the state highway department's database, they might actually find such a comparison useful as well - maybe it can help them spot errors in their own data. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] NY/Connecticut state boundary near Glen Cove/Port Chester
Hi, yesterday I repaired a hole in the NY/Connecticut state boundary here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46107026 It appears that individual city and county boundaries had, earlier, extended out to meet the state boundary in the middle of the water, and had now been changed to follow the coastline, and in the course of that, a bit of the state boundary was lost. Lack of local knowledge kept me from dabbling in city and county boundaries in that corner so some of those might still be incomplete. Perhaps someone can have a look. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Blue Ridge Parkway
Hi, I added the takeaway from this discussion to the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aboundary%3Dnational_park=revision=1424102=1373291 Feel free to amend as necessary. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Blue Ridge Parkway
Hi, I stumbled across the Blue Ridge Parkway in OSM (you learn something new every day, that's one of the things I like so much about OSM). I noticed that Wikipedia has: "The parkway, while not a National Park, has been the most visited unit of the National Park System every year since 1946..." but we have boundary=national_park delivery=no hgv=no leisure=park Is our definition of national park different than Wikipedia's, or should one of the two be changed? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] U.S.-Mexico border fence update
Hi, On 01/23/2017 11:13 PM, Michael Corey wrote: > Does anyone have thoughts on how to do this most efficiently and without > causing major headaches? I wouldn't bother, it's going to be replaced by a wall soon anyway! SCNR Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Am I wrong to be bothered by this?
Hi Tod, On 01/05/2017 09:26 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > I monitor a number of places I’ve done mapping in and suspect I’ll be back to > in the future. Today I noticed a change set that covers nearly all of > California and Nevada [1]. It looks like this same mapper has even done some > changes that span continents [2]. > > I guess I prefer geographically compact change sets: It makes me feel that > all the changes have actually been looked at. And, at least with how I use > the OSM tools I know about, I can quickly take a look and see if I agree or > not. In this case, I’ve found a few of the actual ways changed in my area of > interest [3] and wonder why the street name was dropped from the way. I guess > I need to dig through all the changed ways now and it would just be easier if > the change set did not cover so large an area most of which I have no way of > doing a site survey to verify. > > Am I out of line to be annoyed when I see a change set like this one? Well maybe annoyance is too intense as a first reaction. We have rules about automatic/mechanical edits that say that any edit where the person making the edit doesn't actually look at the concrete object they're editing needs to be discussed and approved in advance. So "I'll find all mini roundabouts in California, look them up on Bing imagery, and remove them if what I see isn't a mini roundabout" is ok to do just like that, but "I'll find all mini roundabouts in California and remove them whoesale because there can't legally be any" is something that would require prior discussion which obviously hasn't happened in this case. But it's quite possible that the user in question didn't know that so the best thing is to make contact via a changeset discussion and find out what happened and what the user was doing/thinking. If necessary, the edit can then be reverted. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bulk import for large healthcare system in central PA
Hi, On 11/14/2016 06:40 PM, Justin Mosebach wrote: > Would lat/long suffice for the location info (in addition to the address)? It would certainly be enough to point a human to the right spot on the map where they could then verify whether the object in question is already on OSM (in which case they might choose to just add some of the extra data you have), or whether it needs to be newly created. Note that the "advertising slogan" you have included in your data is not suitable for OSM and must be omitted. If you want you can look for ways to boil this down to verifiable facts (e.g. where it says "Has served families since 1976" you could put "start_date=1976",or where the text includes information about what the practice specializes in, this could lead to a "healthcare:speciality" tag as documented in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare) but somethink like "fast, friendly, convenient" or "small enough for X yet large enough for Y" is not something that can be put in OSM. Best Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Municipal Tree Survey
Hi,
On 09/19/2016 05:13 PM, Adam Old wrote:
> For the most part we would like to send people out using their mobile
> devices and an app like Go
> Map!! https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/go-map!!/id592990211?mt=8
> <https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/go-map%21%21/id592990211?mt=8> or a
> paper survey form that we could then update OSM with. Hopefully this
> would introduce a good number of new people to OSM as mappers and/or
> users.
Sounds like a win-win situation.
Two thinks you should be aware of though:
1. OSM usually maps what is visible on the ground. Whether a tree is
damaged or not, is something an experienced person could probably
determine with the naked eye, so that's ok. If you venture into the area
of rating things ("health of this tree from 1=perfect to 6=rotten") then
it becomes difficult, as people might disagree. Sticking to observable
facts helps avoid problems. "Date last cut" is also something that won't
be visible on the ground and hence isn't strictly something within the
OSM envelope but I guess it's harmless on the scale you're attempting it.
2. Putting data in OSM also means that you're surrendering any authority
over it; others who have no relation to your organisation can and will
modify (hopefully, improve) the data. I assume you'll count that as a
blessing and not a curse and then all is fine. It's just that some
people are peculiar with "their" data ("what, only registered and
trained members of the Springfield City Tree Board can be trusted with
assessing the tree cover, keep out you unwashed public" etc).
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Deleting / Closing / Renaming all places in a chain
Hi, On 09/07/2016 03:25 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > Your comment comes across as bizarre and hostile to the US mapping > community, as if you think it's horribly broken and proving that > point is more important than improving the map. I think there's a misunderstanding here. I had the same comment when someone in Germany wanted to automatically remove all "Schlecker" drug stores. It is neither bizarre nor hostile. Any map in any country has its weak spots. If a chain restaurant in the US - or in Germany - changes its name overnight, some areas will be fixed quickly because they have local mappers who care, and other areas will take half a year or longer because they lack local mappers who care. This is an undeniable fact, and it doesn't have anything to do with whether this is in the US or in Germany or elsewhere on the planet. To me, *not* running an automated edit means honestly communicating to the map user where the weaker areas are (and that the map is likely more reliable in one part of the country than in another). Running an automated edit hides the weakness but doesn't fix it. There's no shame in admitting to a weakness in the map; on the contrary, admitting it is more likely to attract people who will help fixing it. And no, I don't think the mapping community in the US is horribly broken - it is just developing slower than I had hoped, and I see many attempts to make up for this slow development in ways that ultimately slow things down even further instead of helping. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; as I said, I've made the very same recommendation for the very same reasons in other countrie s. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Deleting / Closing / Renaming all places in a chain
Hi, On 09/07/2016 02:48 AM, Mike N wrote: > But if one less > thing is wrong or outdated, that makes the data more useful to all clients. Except those humans who could have used that outdated thing as a marker to tell them that the map is dated. Yes they could look at the last modification date of things or analyze how many contributors the area has or myriad other OSM insider things. But seeing a "Domino's Pizza" on the map doesn't need an API, or insider knowledge, it doesn't even need a web site - it is the universal language of map dating. Automatically fixing that is like a car salesperson fixing a leak with bubble gum because it looks better and they can't be bothered to fix it properly. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Deleting / Closing / Renaming all places in a chain
Hi, On 09/06/2016 11:01 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: > Should we launch an automated edit, or some kind of batch process on OSM > to clear the database `name=ITT Tech` (or similar) worldwide? This is a discussion that has happened in the past when Domino's Pizza has rebranded, or when the "Schlecker" drug store chain closed in Germany. I think automated edits are not a good solution mainly for two reasons: 1. In many cases, the world doesn't change instantly at the behest of some guy in marketing or legal. Individual locations might retain their signage for various reasons and we map what's on the ground, not what's in the franchise agreement. Individual shops of a closed-down brand might remain open because of special local agreements that the automated edit has no knowledge of. 2. If a chain is renamed or closed country-wide, and this change is not reflected on OSM in one area, then this can be a valuable sign for lack of mapper attention. A sign that has the best user interface of all: Because for any map user, dealing with an outdated map is normal, and the way you identify just *how* outdated something is is exactly by looking at such things: "Ah, this map seems to be from a time then Domino's was still called Domino's Pizza!" - Leaving these valuable markers of outdated-ness in place tells the map user that this area hasn't been touched for a while and that the other POIs in the vicinity are likely also a bit aged. When a local mapper touches up the area they will likely also update other things than just the closed-down shop, and then the map will be current again. Automatically editing away something country-wide hides the fact that the map lacks attention in an area. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Proposing import of sidewalk data Seattle, WA, USA
Clifford, On 08/02/2016 05:59 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > We tell people not to map for the renderer. In the same spirit shouldn't > we tell people not to let the limitations of the editor stop them from > mapping? Usually, when you deal with individual mappers who come up with a tagging scheme, you can simply let them try it because they are just one person and the amount of stuff they can survey in any given time is limited. Before they can break a lot, others will notice what's going on, and a discussion can develop. Importing sidewalks for a large city is something different. It allows you to add thousands of objects in a short time frame. Hence the request to "talk before you import" - something we don't expect from the hobby mapper who adds a few sidewalks according to a tagging schema he has made up. > I'm not following you. They did announce their plans and are discussing > the proposal with the community, including how to route. I am concerned that they might want to start importing data 5 days from now which is certainly not enough time for a solid discussion. Maybe I misread. > Unlike existing routing systems, they are proposing to enable people > with limited mobility to find a route to their location. As I have said, there have been a number of publicly funded projects that had this laudable aim. Solving the issue by adding ways for every sidewalk is one of many potential solutions; a solution that has advantages and drawbacks which should be discussed widely before an import is done to "kick-start" world-wide adaption of a tagging schema. > Yet their plan is the easiest for a new mapper to follow. I've followed > mapping of sidewalks. Where are these proposals you talk about? I linked some in my post to the tagging list. Some of the failed/single-minded projects in the past didn't even bother documenting their tags on the wiki, insofar this project is superior - and it's totally ok for them to start a discussion. Just not an import one week after mentioning that by-the-way-we-have-a-proposal-here ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Proposing import of sidewalk data Seattle, WA, USA
Meg, sidewalk tagging in OSM is a complex issue. The fact that sidewalks are not tagged as individual geometries is not purely a shortcoming, it is a compromise that keeps OSM data editable. Having individual geometries for every single sidewalk on the planet will not only massively increase the data volume but also require new and better tools for editing, e.g. moving the geometry of a street without having to move three parallel lines manually and so on. There have been several local imports of sidewalk data that were removed again because lack of prior discussion and/or because they were single-purpose imports that did not care about integration with the rest of OSM (for example: what should rendering engines do with sidewalks; how do they integrate with normal footways; how is a sidewalk linked to the road along which it runs so that routing engines can say "follow sidewalk along XY road" instead of "follow unnamed footway"; how can routing and rendering use individual sidewalks and still gracefully fall back to another method where these are not defined, and so on). People are experimenting with different ways of mapping sidewalks. Under no circumstances should you perform an import that creates facts before your proposal for separate mapping of sidewalks has been discussed more widely. Several ideas have been proposed to get around mapping sidewalks as individual geometries, which is in many ways the most primitive way to tackle the problem and the one that puts the most work on the shoulders of our volunteers. Your wiki page states that you had "feedback from the global OSM community"; I'm surprised that these details seem to have escaped you until now. Which sidewalk mapping experiments in OSM have you studied, and what have you learned? Which global OSM community did you talk to and where? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
