Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[stevea]

Sure, Alan.  I'll try to help by explaining a core of my process, 
and you and others can take it from there.


Great job - thanks for this. I'm sure it helps.


Appreciate the kudos.  We might all share like this when asked.  This 
is called a "workflow" and workflows with specific numbered steps are 
valuable/crucial nuggets of knowledge when somebody needs one to 
solve a specific problem AND a workflow HAS BEEN SHARED.  So, ask, 
and, if you KNOW, share WHEN asked!




7)  For ways (I'm not going to explain points), here is what I do:

...
So, we're basically duplicating the existing way and then "blessing" 
it. Is this really sufficient - to verify the "tainted" geometry 
instead of re-drawing it? If so, why is it not sufficient that, in 
many, many cases, the original creator of the way has not accepted 
CT, but many other accepting mappers have afterwards aligned (i.e. 
moved nodes) and tagged (in my case, with sources of sat imagery, 
local photo survey, county records, and/or even GPS survey) it? 
Haven't I already "blessed" it? Can't the redaction bot look at the 
source tag and see this?


Another point, at least in SoCal, is that many of our "tainted" ways 
are created by "blars", who has not accepted the CT. However, these 
are TIGER-imported ways. They carry the TIGER tags. I'm sure they 
could be verified as having come from the TIGER import. They were 
no-doubt the result of having split an existing TIGER way. In this 
case, why is it not sufficient to see the TIGER tags on the way to 
consider it "blessed" along with all the other TIGER ways? 
Especially when tagged afterwards by accepting mappers with sources 
as above?


8)   Repeat step 7 for all bad ways (or points) in the list of 
"data loss" that License Problems displays.


I'd like to suggest step 8.5: Run the OSM validator. It will find 
all the intersections that were missed, and probably a bunch of 
other problems that may or may not have pre-existed.



9)  Upload your re-mapping efforts.


I agree that a step 8.5 to run JOSM Validator is well-indicated here. 
Thank you for that excellent suggestion.


So, can someone from the redaction squad comment on the logic being 
used and the questions above?


I don't know that they reply to this list.  I believe they read it, 
but I have no proof of that.


Finally, it is true that my suggested workflow "duplicates an 
existing (tainted) way and then blesses it."  Yes.  The additional 
step of visually verifying with Bing Sat allows this to crystallize 
into a "solidly legal" footing:  "I can see it in Bing, therefore the 
duplication of something which was unlicensable is now licensable." 
In other words, "re-drawing" is not necessary (it is sufficient), but 
it is overkill (unless points are also tainted).  Duplication + 
visual inspection via Bing seems sufficient to me, but it would be 
really, really good to get the redaction squad to directly address 
that point.  Right here (talk-us) would be just fine.  OSM's wiki 
would, too.


SteveA
California

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Toby Murray]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Alan Mintz
 wrote:
> At 2012-04-16 20:41, Toby Murray wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Nathan Edgars II 
>> wrote:
>> > On 4/16/2012 9:18 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
>> >> At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> >>> Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the
>> >>> object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is
>> >>> something you would have done anyway).
>> >> Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad
>> >> comment?
>> >> Can I protect/"bless" a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by
>> >> (in good faith) adding this tag?
>> > We have no idea what rules the OSMF will use.
>>
>> Well I won't claim that communication has been great but this
>> statement is a little over dramatic.
>>
>> First of all: odbl=clean *will* be honored.
>> ...
>
>
> On nodes as well as ways? As I wrote earlier, if I have tagged a way with a
> source that includes imagery, and removed the tiger:reviewed=no tag, it
> means I have aligned it to that imagery, including leaving nodes that are in
> the correct place alone (sometimes). Can I bless the nodes in the same way?

Yes. odbl=clean immediately removes any object from further processing
by the bot. See comments on the first function:
https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change/blob/master/tags.rb

>> Also there is this:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F
>
>
> A nice empty page. Tough to argue with :)

Works for me. You can search for "what is clean?" and it should be the
first result.


>> And of course the code is available for anyone to view... although I'm
>> not going to claim that this is really good documentation on the
>> matter:
>> https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change
>
> Nor can you reasonably expect people to use this as a guideline. And I'm a
> programmer.

Agreed


>> There has been talk of the "v0 rule" which I believe is being
>> implemented in the code. This means that the act of creating an object
>> by a decliner doesn't automatically make it dirty. So if a way was
>> created by a decliner with the tag name=Fred and then someone else
>> added the tag highway=footway then after the bot gets done with it,
>> the way will still exist but only have the highway=footway tag. If an
>> accepting user changes the value of the name=* tag then it will be
>> clean... except, see the next paragraph. However if all of the way's
>> nodes are dirty and get removed then the way itself will have to go
>> too since you can't have a zero-node way.
>
>
> I contend, though, that you should not have to change a node to make it
> clean. If one has tagged a source with an imagery (or GPS) value, they are
> saying that they vouch for the position of the way, including its nodes.
> Same applies to removing tiger:reviewed=no (or gnis:reviewed=no). The user
> is specifically claiming to have reviewed the position and tagging and
> approved it. Should that not be sufficient?

I don't disagree with your points although things get complicated in
practice. I've seen people mass removing tiger:reviewed tags on any
way that they happened to load into JOSM while mapping when they
obviously didn't even look at it. Also, what if a user only
reviewed/improved the geometry of a dirty way in one spot but the way
is several miles long? This may not be the case for things you have
touched but there are a lot of people who have done a lot of edits
that are less rigorous.


>> Unfortunately neither badmap nor OSMI fully implement all of these
>> rules so yes there is still far too much uncertainty. But there are
>> some facts to be had.
>
> Why, then, is it acceptable for us to be sitting here with a dagger hanging
> over our heads, uncertain as to when and how it will fall? Shouldn't all of
> this be nailed down, followed by a reasonable notice period? Why is there a
> deadline other than "we need to get it done for the long-term benefit of
> OSM?"

Won't disagree with this either. Ideally the bot code would have been
developed over the past year instead of the past month and then been
available to make tools like OSMI and badmap that use the actual code
to show what will happen. But that's now how things happened. I'm not
trying to lay blame. I've been mostly a spectator to the process
myself so I'm certainly not going to throw stones.

Toby

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Alan Mintz]

At 2012-04-16 20:41, Toby Murray wrote:

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 9:18 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
>> At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>> Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the
>>> object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is
>>> something you would have done anyway).
>> Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad comment?
>> Can I protect/"bless" a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by
>> (in good faith) adding this tag?
> We have no idea what rules the OSMF will use.

Well I won't claim that communication has been great but this
statement is a little over dramatic.

First of all: odbl=clean *will* be honored.
...


On nodes as well as ways? As I wrote earlier, if I have tagged a way with a 
source that includes imagery, and removed the tiger:reviewed=no tag, it 
means I have aligned it to that imagery, including leaving nodes that are 
in the correct place alone (sometimes). Can I bless the nodes in the same way?




Also there is this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F


A nice empty page. Tough to argue with :)



And of course the code is available for anyone to view... although I'm
not going to claim that this is really good documentation on the
matter:
https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change


Nor can you reasonably expect people to use this as a guideline. And I'm a 
programmer.




There has been talk of the "v0 rule" which I believe is being
implemented in the code. This means that the act of creating an object
by a decliner doesn't automatically make it dirty. So if a way was
created by a decliner with the tag name=Fred and then someone else
added the tag highway=footway then after the bot gets done with it,
the way will still exist but only have the highway=footway tag. If an
accepting user changes the value of the name=* tag then it will be
clean... except, see the next paragraph. However if all of the way's
nodes are dirty and get removed then the way itself will have to go
too since you can't have a zero-node way.


I contend, though, that you should not have to change a node to make it 
clean. If one has tagged a source with an imagery (or GPS) value, they are 
saying that they vouch for the position of the way, including its nodes. 
Same applies to removing tiger:reviewed=no (or gnis:reviewed=no). The user 
is specifically claiming to have reviewed the position and tagging and 
approved it. Should that not be sufficient?




Unfortunately neither badmap nor OSMI fully implement all of these
rules so yes there is still far too much uncertainty. But there are
some facts to be had.


Why, then, is it acceptable for us to be sitting here with a dagger hanging 
over our heads, uncertain as to when and how it will fall? Shouldn't all of 
this be nailed down, followed by a reasonable notice period? Why is there a 
deadline other than "we need to get it done for the long-term benefit of OSM?"


--
Alan Mintz 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Toby Murray]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On 4/16/2012 9:18 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
>>
>> At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>>
>>> Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the
>>> object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is
>>> something you would have done anyway).
>>
>>
>> Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad comment?
>> Can I protect/"bless" a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by
>> (in good faith) adding this tag?
>
>
> We have no idea what rules the OSMF will use.

Well I won't claim that communication has been great but this
statement is a little over dramatic.

First of all: odbl=clean *will* be honored. If it is abused, it will
need to be handled just like any other form of copyright vandalism we
have dealt with in the past. Before adding it to a way you might need
to delete tags that were added by a decliner unless you can personally
verify the information in the tag from a license clean source in which
case you might want to add a note tag explaining this (I have used
odbl:note=*)

Also there is this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/What_is_clean%3F

And of course the code is available for anyone to view... although I'm
not going to claim that this is really good documentation on the
matter:
https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change

There has been talk of the "v0 rule" which I believe is being
implemented in the code. This means that the act of creating an object
by a decliner doesn't automatically make it dirty. So if a way was
created by a decliner with the tag name=Fred and then someone else
added the tag highway=footway then after the bot gets done with it,
the way will still exist but only have the highway=footway tag. If an
accepting user changes the value of the name=* tag then it will be
clean... except, see the next paragraph. However if all of the way's
nodes are dirty and get removed then the way itself will have to go
too since you can't have a zero-node way.

Tag changes that are "trivial" will not affect the license status of
an object. Looking at the code right now I see it is checking
specifically for abbreviations/expansions. So a decliner changing
"Main St" to "Main Street" will not make a way dirty. On the flip
side, I believe an accepting user doing the same to a dirty tag won't
make the tag clean.

Unfortunately neither badmap nor OSMI fully implement all of these
rules so yes there is still far too much uncertainty. But there are
some facts to be had.

Toby

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/16/2012 11:04 PM, James Mast wrote:

I just saw this post on the rebuild list, so you guys might want to be a
tad careful when you're doing cleaning work by creating a new way and
keeping the old "tainted" nodes in it.

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/rebuild/2012-April/000206.html


Frederik is slightly exaggerating, in that it's OK to do so if all the 
contributors of any data you're keeping have agreed to the CT, even if 
you yourself have not surveyed or traced it. (Otherwise we'd have a 
major problem whenever a way is split.) In fact I believe Frederik has 
done this sort of copy-paste into a new object when the history of a 
relation has become too large.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[James Mast]

I just saw this post on the rebuild list, so you guys might want to be a tad 
careful when you're doing cleaning work by creating a new way and keeping the 
old "tainted" nodes in it.

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/rebuild/2012-April/000206.html
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Paul Norman]

> From: Alan Mintz [mailto:alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 6:18 PM
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
> 
> At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> >Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the
> >object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is
> >something you would have done anyway).
> 
> Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad comment?
> Can I protect/"bless" a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by
> (in good faith) adding this tag?
> 
> Any ways that I have tagged with source=;survey;image
> means I have aligned against imagery and personally photo-surveyed at
> least one street-name sign along it. It would certainly help to be able
> to just add odbl=clean to such ways that are complained about by the
> plugin instead of having to delete and re-add them, fix the
> intersections, and fix the relations.
> 
> I'm also more likely to get it done, since it multiplies my productivity
> many times.

If you've verified all of the tags on it from ODbL compatible sources (e.g.
a survey you did), you can add odbl=clean and the way will be kept. The
nodes may be deleted if they were created by a decliner. In this case what I
generally do is select all the dirty nodes in the way and delete them, then
re-trace the way.

If all blars did was split the way then the nodes will still be clean. If he
refined the geometry then the geometry will be reverted to what it was
before.

What I've been doing a lot of is going to a dirty way, deleting all the tags
and then copying all of the tags from CanVec (Canadian equivalent of TIGER,
but more reliable), pasting them to the way and adding odbl=clean. You have
to be careful that you don't remove other clean data (mainly cycle route
information here). To check that I open up the history (Ctrl-H) and see who
added it. Generally it's not a decliner, so I can keep the tag.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/16/2012 9:18 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:

At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the
object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is
something you would have done anyway).


Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad comment?
Can I protect/"bless" a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by
(in good faith) adding this tag?


We have no idea what rules the OSMF will use.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Alan Mintz]

At 2012-04-16 14:06, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the 
object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is something 
you would have done anyway).


Is this really sufficient? Can someone from the redaction squad comment? 
Can I protect/"bless" a way or node and prevent its redaction simply by (in 
good faith) adding this tag?


Any ways that I have tagged with source=;survey;image means I 
have aligned against imagery and personally photo-surveyed at least one 
street-name sign along it. It would certainly help to be able to just add 
odbl=clean to such ways that are complained about by the plugin instead of 
having to delete and re-add them, fix the intersections, and fix the relations.


I'm also more likely to get it done, since it multiplies my productivity 
many times.


--
Alan Mintz 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/16/2012 8:56 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:

So, we're basically duplicating the existing way and then "blessing" it.
Is this really sufficient - to verify the "tainted" geometry instead of
re-drawing it?

Only if the nodes are clean.


Another point, at least in SoCal, is that many of our "tainted" ways are
created by "blars", who has not accepted the CT. However, these are
TIGER-imported ways. They carry the TIGER tags. I'm sure they could be
verified as having come from the TIGER import. They were no-doubt the
result of having split an existing TIGER way. In this case, why is it
not sufficient to see the TIGER tags on the way to consider it "blessed"
along with all the other TIGER ways? Especially when tagged afterwards
by accepting mappers with sources as above?
Because the OSMF is lazy and wants us to do the work in identifying 
false positives :)


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Alan Mintz]

At 2012-04-16 13:52, stevea wrote:

At 2012-04-12 17:36, you wrote:
I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days of 
re-mapping.  If you are an editing maniac...


Can you comment on your process? I see very little real, coordinated info 
about tools, concrete solutions, or teamwork. As a formerly quite active 
SoCal mapper, I'm basically just dead in the water, wondering how much of 
my hard work has just been discarded (e.g. speed-limits, lanes, turn 
restrictions, source references, carefully aligned geometries, etc.) and 
whether to bother trying to get it back. I can't possibly be alone (?).


I almost forgot:  in step 7 of my previous message, the Delete step may 
inform you that you are deleting from a relation.  This is especially true 
of motorways, which are often described with relations.  If this is the 
case, go ahead and confirm the deletion from the relation, making note of 
WHICH relation(s) this element is a member of.


Glad you mentioned that - it's something I've spent a lot of time on. Be 
sure to note the role of the object in the relation as well. In the case of 
turn restrictions, traffic-control, and housing relations, the role is as 
important as the object's presence, and will break the relation without it.


So, we're left with:
I can't even find any info on the redaction. What is the plan? Where is 
it now? How can I see what it's doing? Shouldn't there be a big, bold 
link to this kind of info on the wiki main page?


Can someone involved comment?

--
Alan Mintz 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Alan Mintz]

At 2012-04-16 13:24, stevea wrote:

At 2012-04-12 17:36, you wrote:
I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days of 
re-mapping.  If you are an editing maniac...


Can you comment on your process? I see very little real, coordinated info 
about tools, concrete solutions, or teamwork. As a formerly quite active 
SoCal mapper, I'm basically just dead in the water, wondering how much of 
my hard work has just been discarded (e.g. speed-limits, lanes, turn 
restrictions, source references, carefully aligned geometries, etc.) and 
whether to bother trying to get it back. I can't possibly be alone (?).


Sure, Alan.  I'll try to help by explaining a core of my process, and you 
and others can take it from there.


Great job - thanks for this. I'm sure it helps.



7)  For ways (I'm not going to explain points), here is what I do:

Select a bad way by double-clicking the way in the "data loss" list,
Press 3 (JOSM's shortcut for the View menu's "Zoom to selection" verb 
(critical, as it "centers" JOSM),
Copy (could be "command-C" or another keyboard equivalent, again I'm on a 
Mac),

Either
Paste-Delete
or
Delete-Paste
...
Now, the new (pasted) "bad" way is there, and the old bad way is deleted, 
but the new one is "just floating."  There are two critical sub-steps 
here:  first, use Bing Sat layer to "visually verify." This makes the new 
way "legal" in the sense of "I, the new editor of this way, have verified 
it."  (I do this for motorways and streets I can see in Bing Sat layer, 
but not for POIs unless I personally know them).


So, we're basically duplicating the existing way and then "blessing" it. Is 
this really sufficient - to verify the "tainted" geometry instead of 
re-drawing it? If so, why is it not sufficient that, in many, many cases, 
the original creator of the way has not accepted CT, but many other 
accepting mappers have afterwards aligned (i.e. moved nodes) and tagged (in 
my case, with sources of sat imagery, local photo survey, county records, 
and/or even GPS survey) it? Haven't I already "blessed" it? Can't the 
redaction bot look at the source tag and see this?


Another point, at least in SoCal, is that many of our "tainted" ways are 
created by "blars", who has not accepted the CT. However, these are 
TIGER-imported ways. They carry the TIGER tags. I'm sure they could be 
verified as having come from the TIGER import. They were no-doubt the 
result of having split an existing TIGER way. In this case, why is it not 
sufficient to see the TIGER tags on the way to consider it "blessed" along 
with all the other TIGER ways? Especially when tagged afterwards by 
accepting mappers with sources as above?



8)   Repeat step 7 for all bad ways (or points) in the list of "data loss" 
that License Problems displays.


I'd like to suggest step 8.5: Run the OSM validator. It will find all the 
intersections that were missed, and probably a bunch of other problems that 
may or may not have pre-existed.



9)  Upload your re-mapping efforts.



So, can someone from the redaction squad comment on the logic being used 
and the questions above?


--
Alan Mintz 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Nathan Edgars II]

It's easier to split a way right near the beginning and delete the first 
bit, creating a new way. But of course make sure that every tag on the 
new way was either added by a good user or can be verified by you. This 
keeps all relation memberships and nodes.


Or you can simply add odbl=clean if there's nothing ungood about the 
object (e.g. it was split from a TIGER way and the splitting is 
something you would have done anyway).


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[stevea]

At 2012-04-12 17:36, you wrote:
I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days 
of re-mapping.  If you are an editing maniac...


Can you comment on your process? I see very little real, coordinated 
info about tools, concrete solutions, or teamwork. As a formerly 
quite active SoCal mapper, I'm basically just dead in the water, 
wondering how much of my hard work has just been discarded (e.g. 
speed-limits, lanes, turn restrictions, source references, carefully 
aligned geometries, etc.) and whether to bother trying to get it 
back. I can't possibly be alone (?).


I can't even find any info on the redaction. What is the plan? Where 
is it now? How can I see what it's doing? Shouldn't there be a big, 
bold link to this kind of info on the wiki main page?


I almost forgot:  in step 7 of my previous message, the Delete step 
may inform you that you are deleting from a relation.  This is 
especially true of motorways, which are often described with 
relations.  If this is the case, go ahead and confirm the deletion 
from the relation, making note of WHICH relation(s) this element is a 
member of.


The following is true ONLY if you know how to edit relations, and if 
you don't, please learn!  AFTER re-stitching the new segment back in 
by merging nodes at intersections, you MUST open a relation editor 
window for EACH relation for which this segment was a member.  I do 
this by clicking on an element which is RIGHT NEXT TO the deleted 
element, and using that selection to scroll down (in the 
Properties/Memberships windowpane) to its relations, and then 
double-clicking that.  When that relation window opens, I position it 
so I can see the current selection (which is also highlighted in the 
left-bottom part of the relation elements), AND the deleted segment. 
I then click the deleted element (in the main JOSM window, not the 
relation edit window) and this puts it as a selection on the 
right-hand-side of the relation editing window.  Depending on order 
and direction, I then click the "second" or "third" button 
(insert-before-element or insert-after-element) to properly insert 
the new member back into the relation.  If it was all stiched back 
together properly, you'll see the arrows "line up" (and have 
black-connected dots, not red-unconnected dots).  If a member element 
needs a "forward" role (or another role), it is usually obvious from 
that role being on the surrounding members.  Use your judgement and 
experience to add back in a role (forward, for example) if it is 
necessary.


SteveA
California

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[stevea]

At 2012-04-12 17:36, you wrote:
I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days 
of re-mapping.  If you are an editing maniac...


Can you comment on your process? I see very little real, coordinated 
info about tools, concrete solutions, or teamwork. As a formerly 
quite active SoCal mapper, I'm basically just dead in the water, 
wondering how much of my hard work has just been discarded (e.g. 
speed-limits, lanes, turn restrictions, source references, carefully 
aligned geometries, etc.) and whether to bother trying to get it 
back. I can't possibly be alone (?).


I can't even find any info on the redaction. What is the plan? Where 
is it now? How can I see what it's doing? Shouldn't there be a big, 
bold link to this kind of info on the wiki main page?


Sure, Alan.  I'll try to help by explaining a core of my process, and 
you and others can take it from there.


Currently, the BADMAP layer on the CLEANMAP tool 
(http://cleanmap.poole.ch) shows how much more work needs to be done 
for the re-mapping effort ahead before unlicensable data is deleted. 
Yes, it is true that BADMAP layer "lags" edits by anywhere from one 
to three days, but it is nonetheless a useful tool.  So is the 
"License Change" view/layer on Geofabrik's map tool 
(http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=wtfe).


My process includes editing with JOSM (I am using version 5177, yours 
may be earlier as "tested" or later as "better" when you read this), 
and enabling a couple (at least!) sub-tools within it:


1)  Turn on "Remote Control."  This is done with JOSM Preferences -> 
click Remote Control icon on left (looks like a TV remote, the 9th of 
12 such left-most icons on Preferences window) where you check the 
checkbox "Enable remote control."  This allows JOSM to "listen" to 
web browsers viewing a map (like BADMAP) when the browser is 
instructed to send JOSM a message "go load this area into a JOSM edit 
buffer."


2)  While in JOSM's Preferences, click the "Plug-ins" icon (looks 
like an electrical cord and socket, the 4th of 12 such icons) where 
you scroll to about the middle of the list and turn on the "License 
Change" plug-in.


3)  If you are on a Macintosh, you may want to make a correction to 
Keyboard Shortcuts (looks like a corded keyboard, 7th of 12 leftmost 
icon) so that your Delete key actually deletes the current JOSM 
selection:  scroll to a bit higher than the middle of the Keyboard 
Shortcuts Preferences screen so you see "Edit: Delete" on the left 
side.  Single-click on the key (a pentagon surrounding an x) and then 
click on the area in the bottom of the screen which is below the text 
reading "Key" (it shows a picture of the key and has a scroller on 
the right).  Click on the scroller (looks like a downward arrow) and 
you will get a scrolling list of special keyboard keys.  You want the 
SECOND selection from the top, the one which is a LEFT-pointing 
pentagon surrounding an x.


(I entered this bug into JOSM's trac system, but I'm not sure it will 
migrate into the codebase soon).


Click OK to save your new Preferences, and you MUST restart JOSM to 
make these changes "stick."


4)  Turn on JOSM's Imagery menu -> Bing Sat.  Thank you, Microsoft.

5)  Now, use BADMAP or Geofabrik tool as above to find an area that 
"needs re-mapping for new license."  Zoom/pan so "just enough" screen 
surrounds the area you want to re-map.  In BADMAP, select "Edit in 
JOSM" or in Geofabrik, click the "J-pencil" button, and the browser 
will send a Remote Control message to JOSM to load the displayed area 
into an edit buffer.  Activate JOSM, putting your browser in the 
background.


6)  In JOSM, wait (if you must) for your map edit buffer to finish 
loading.  Now use the License Check plug-in's "Licensing Problems" 
window (should be in the lower right) to click the "License Check" 
button.  Wait for the Quick History service to do its comparisons. 
You now have the Relicensing problems window showing you a 
similar-to-Validator-style list of bad map elements.  The crucial 
ones are the red-circle (do not enter icon) "data loss" elements.


7)  For ways (I'm not going to explain points), here is what I do:

Select a bad way by double-clicking the way in the "data loss" list,
Press 3 (JOSM's shortcut for the View menu's "Zoom to selection" verb 
(critical, as it "centers" JOSM),

Copy (could be "command-C" or another keyboard equivalent, again I'm on a Mac),
Either
Paste-Delete
or
Delete-Paste

I say it like that because you have to see what the GUI does each 
way, and choose which method you like.  Paste-Delete is less obvious 
by the GUI, but you may like it (I do).  In essence what you are 
doing is pasting a copied bad way on top of the bad way.  So you MUST 
select the original bad way explicitly from the "data loss" section 
of the Licensing Problems, THEN delete THAT (with the Delete 
key...see why you fixed it?)


Now, the new (pasted) "bad" way is there, and the old bad way is 
deleted

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Alan Mintz]

At 2012-04-12 17:36, you wrote:
I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days of 
re-mapping.  If you are an editing maniac...


Can you comment on your process? I see very little real, coordinated info 
about tools, concrete solutions, or teamwork. As a formerly quite active 
SoCal mapper, I'm basically just dead in the water, wondering how much of 
my hard work has just been discarded (e.g. speed-limits, lanes, turn 
restrictions, source references, carefully aligned geometries, etc.) and 
whether to bother trying to get it back. I can't possibly be alone (?).


I can't even find any info on the redaction. What is the plan? Where is it 
now? How can I see what it's doing? Shouldn't there be a big, bold link to 
this kind of info on the wiki main page?


--
Alan Mintz 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Toby Murray]

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:26 PM, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> andrzej zaborowski  wrote:
>
>> On 14 April 2012 03:30, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
>> > One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some
>> cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to
>> match the real world.  So, in order to make the cleanup bot not
>> consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map
>> data less accurate than it had formerly been.
>> >
>>
>> It also will remain tainted, only the bot will not know about it and
>> consider it untainted.  So it's a way to trick the bot and potentially
>> put the OSM Foundation under legal risk.
>>
>> This is why the remapping effort before the bot run is finished, is a
>> Really Bad Idea.  It is both more time costly and it is provoking
>> users to cause incompatible IP to be preserved over the license
>> change, often unconsciously.  See all the ideas of using the
>> incompatible IP to create the new "compatible IP", such as using the
>> tainted coastlines data to remap small islands.  (RichardF said he
>> does not agree it's a bad idea, but he wouldn't explain which point he
>> disagrees with or why)
>>
>> Cheers
>
> I was assuming that there was an additional data source, such as aerial 
> photos and/or GPS traces, which could be used to judge the accuracy of the 
> tainted node.  As I understand the way the bot judges taintedness, if you 
> delete a tainted node, then insert a replacement node in the same location, 
> the new node is also considered tainted even though it was added by someone 
> who agreed to the new license terms, and even though that might be the 
> correct location to mark the corner of a polygon.

Any new (version 1) node created by someone who has accepted the new
terms is clean and will be in the ODbL planet. The only exception
might be if it is an untagged node that is a member of a dirty way
that gets deleted. Although I'm not totally sure about this. If this
doesn't happen, we will end up with probably millions of orphaned
nodes. Also, the only way to replace a node with the exact same
location is to copy/paste it. It is virtually impossible for a human
to place a node at exactly the same location.

And shifting nodes by a few inches just to make it show up clean in
OSMI is definitely not ok. If a node is off and needs to be corrected,
then fine. But if you are moving it just to clean it, delete it
instead, along with any surrounding dirty nodes and recreate it based
on imagery or GPS or whatever you normally use to map. This is why I
delete all dirty nodes in a way and then use the w mode in JOSM to
recreate the geometry from clean sources.

Toby

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[John F. Eldredge]

andrzej zaborowski  wrote:

> On 14 April 2012 03:30, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> > One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some
> cases, the tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to
> match the real world.  So, in order to make the cleanup bot not
> consider the nodes to be tainted, we have to knowingly make the map
> data less accurate than it had formerly been.
> >
> 
> It also will remain tainted, only the bot will not know about it and
> consider it untainted.  So it's a way to trick the bot and potentially
> put the OSM Foundation under legal risk.
> 
> This is why the remapping effort before the bot run is finished, is a
> Really Bad Idea.  It is both more time costly and it is provoking
> users to cause incompatible IP to be preserved over the license
> change, often unconsciously.  See all the ideas of using the
> incompatible IP to create the new "compatible IP", such as using the
> tainted coastlines data to remap small islands.  (RichardF said he
> does not agree it's a bad idea, but he wouldn't explain which point he
> disagrees with or why)
> 
> Cheers

I was assuming that there was an additional data source, such as aerial photos 
and/or GPS traces, which could be used to judge the accuracy of the tainted 
node.  As I understand the way the bot judges taintedness, if you delete a 
tainted node, then insert a replacement node in the same location, the new node 
is also considered tainted even though it was added by someone who agreed to 
the new license terms, and even though that might be the correct location to 
mark the corner of a polygon.

-- 
John F. Eldredge --  j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 14 April 2012 03:30, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the 
> tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world. 
>  So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, 
> we have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly 
> been.
>

It also will remain tainted, only the bot will not know about it and
consider it untainted.  So it's a way to trick the bot and potentially
put the OSM Foundation under legal risk.

This is why the remapping effort before the bot run is finished, is a
Really Bad Idea.  It is both more time costly and it is provoking
users to cause incompatible IP to be preserved over the license
change, often unconsciously.  See all the ideas of using the
incompatible IP to create the new "compatible IP", such as using the
tainted coastlines data to remap small islands.  (RichardF said he
does not agree it's a bad idea, but he wouldn't explain which point he
disagrees with or why)

Cheers

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Paul Johnson]

On Apr 13, 2012 6:31 PM, "John F. Eldredge"  wrote:
> One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the
tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real
world.  So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be
tainted, we have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had
formerly been.

Not necessarily.  There are an infinite number of correct locations for
centerline nodes for ways.  Moving them slightly along the centerline will
resolve this.  Polygon corners are trickier, but not insurmountable, moving
the polygon a centimeter should do it...
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Richard Weait]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:30 PM, John F. Eldredge  wrote:
> One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the 
> tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world.

Probably not.  Every source we rely upon is wrong in one way or
another.  And differing sources never agree completely.  So you might
move a node in a way that agrees-less with aerial imagery.  Try
another zoom level; the imagery probably won't agree with itself at
z-1.  Or check a GPX track; it'll be different again.

> So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we 
> have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been.

Again, probably not.  If you really don't want to move a node, you can
delete it and create a new one.  Or contact the mapper and see if
they'll agree to CT/ODbL :-)

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[John F. Eldredge]

James Mast  wrote:

> 
> Well guys, as far as I know, as long as the non-CT user didn't add any
> tags to the node, all you have to do is move said node to a new
> coordinate and it should then be considered un-tainted.  That's what I
> was told and that's what happens on the OSM Inspector.  Plus, if
> you're using the License Change plugin in JOSM, you can see with that
> what nodes are considered "tainted" when you're cleaning a way. At
> least I don't have to worry about I-81 in TN getting axed.  I rebuild
> it from the ground up, and the only parts that could be considered
> tainted in any way are the ramps from I-40 or I-26 as I just retraced
> them and kept the nodes, but the nodes were all moved from their
> original locations. --James
>
One drawback to this new-coordinate technique is that, in some cases, the 
tainted nodes will have been in the proper locations to match the real world.  
So, in order to make the cleanup bot not consider the nodes to be tainted, we 
have to knowingly make the map data less accurate than it had formerly been.

-- 
John F. Eldredge --  j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[James Mast]

Well guys, as far as I know, as long as the non-CT user didn't add any tags to 
the node, all you have to do is move said node to a new coordinate and it 
should then be considered un-tainted.  That's what I was told and that's what 
happens on the OSM Inspector.  Plus, if you're using the License Change plugin 
in JOSM, you can see with that what nodes are considered "tainted" when you're 
cleaning a way. At least I don't have to worry about I-81 in TN getting axed.  
I rebuild it from the ground up, and the only parts that could be considered 
tainted in any way are the ramps from I-40 or I-26 as I just retraced them and 
kept the nodes, but the nodes were all moved from their original locations. 
--James   ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Toby Murray]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Clifford Snow  wrote:
>
> I've been working in Seattle.  An undecided (and probably long gone) mapper
> touched a large segment of the area.  Looking at CLEANMAP, Seattle looks
> much better after hours of work by many people.  However if every tainted
> point get deleted, the map will look like a mess.  For those that don't know
> Seattle, it is a city of hills.  So roads bend.  Deleting points means
> hundreds of ways straightened.  Ouch.
>
> This is not only difficult but a LOT of work!
>
> What I would suggest is that we get a snapshot of what the world will look
> like after the bot is done.  I wonder if Simon Poole would be interested in
> creating a version of CLEANMAP that would show the result of the bot
> deleting tainted points?

Well that's the thing... there is no actual data about what things
will look like because the code is still being worked on:
https://github.com/zerebubuth/openstreetmap-license-change

The tools we have now are an approximation. Cleanmap/badmap only shows
renderable objects. So you only see the status of ways, not their
individual constituent nodes. OSMI is probably as close an estimate as
we have right now. However just because an object is tainted doesn't
mean it will always disappear. It might just revert to an older
version. So nodes might move or lose tags. So yes, it's kind of messy
:(

Toby

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Clifford Snow]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Toby Murray  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:27 AM, stevea 
> wrote:
> >> I don't know who's doing that work in Columbia on the Interstates, but
> >> they are doing it wrong unfortunately.  While the ways aren't "tainted"
> >> anymore, all of the nodes are still.  Meaning that once the bot gets
> >> unleashed, the highways will still get "fucked-up".  It seems that they
> are
> >> just starting a new way and connecting each old node to the new way
> without
> >> at least moving the old node, which means if Lar created the node and
> nobody
> >> has moved it since, it still will get deleted and mess up the highway
> >> alignment.
> >
> >
> > Doh!  In my haste to "untaint ways," it is entirely possible this is
> exactly
> > what I am doing, too.  I'm using a rapid editing technique which does
> > untaint ways, but which after reading your comment, it appears I am
> leaving
> > points still tainted.  OSM Inspector is helpful in seeing the "error of
> my
> > ways" (uh, of error of the POINTS) and I fear that I am not the only one
> > making this mistake.  Thank you for calling this to our attention.
> >
> > This makes what is "simply tedious" border on the realm of "utterly
> > overwhelming."
> >
> > EVERY SINGLE POINT?  Ugh!  (Why does so much have to be difficult?)
>
> I've been working in Seattle.  An undecided (and probably long gone)
mapper touched a large segment of the area.  Looking at CLEANMAP, Seattle
looks much better after hours of work by many people.  However if every
tainted point get deleted, the map will look like a mess.  For those that
don't know Seattle, it is a city of hills.  So roads bend.  Deleting points
means hundreds of ways straightened.  Ouch.

This is not only difficult but a LOT of work!

What I would suggest is that we get a snapshot of what the world will look
like after the bot is done.  I wonder if Simon Poole would be interested in
creating a version of CLEANMAP that would show the result of the bot
deleting tainted points?

Clifford
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Martijn van Exel]

Agreed. I am spending some cozy times with I65 in Alabama, next on my list
is US 78. Better late than never. Cleaning up lots of bridge trouble too
(missing grade separations).

For those interested, I identified ~12000 points of highway Trouble for the
US (here is the blog post ->
https://oegeo.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/detecting-highway-trouble-in-openstreetmap/direct
link to the OSM XML file ->
http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/highwaytrouble/candidates-us.osm ). I
find that I clean up much of these Trouble items while remapping, but if
you want to help clean up the interstate and US highway network after that,
this may be a good start.

Martijn

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:36 PM, stevea  wrote:

> Hey, us, vaguely northamerican OSMers:  nice work so far!
>
> I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days of
> re-mapping.  If you are an editing maniac (like me in the last few days)
> you have discovered that BADMAP lag makes you move onto another region.  I
> have chased myself over much of San Diego and patched up the old home town.
>  Its freeways now emerge as navigable.  The Bay Area shapes up nicely.
>  Greater Southern California shows vast improvement, and yet there is still
> so much more to do.
>
> We are so many people, loving what we do so hard.
>
> Just a pat on the back and bit of cheer-leading.  Now get back to work!
>  (Oops, I mean the fun of OSM).
>
> SteveA
> California
>
> __**_
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
martijn van exel
geospatial omnivore
1109 1st ave #2
salt lake city, ut 84103
801-550-5815
http://oegeo.wordpress.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Toby Murray]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:27 AM, stevea  wrote:
>> I don't know who's doing that work in Columbia on the Interstates, but
>> they are doing it wrong unfortunately.  While the ways aren't "tainted"
>> anymore, all of the nodes are still.  Meaning that once the bot gets
>> unleashed, the highways will still get "fucked-up".  It seems that they are
>> just starting a new way and connecting each old node to the new way without
>> at least moving the old node, which means if Lar created the node and nobody
>> has moved it since, it still will get deleted and mess up the highway
>> alignment.
>
>
> Doh!  In my haste to "untaint ways," it is entirely possible this is exactly
> what I am doing, too.  I'm using a rapid editing technique which does
> untaint ways, but which after reading your comment, it appears I am leaving
> points still tainted.  OSM Inspector is helpful in seeing the "error of my
> ways" (uh, of error of the POINTS) and I fear that I am not the only one
> making this mistake.  Thank you for calling this to our attention.
>
> This makes what is "simply tedious" border on the realm of "utterly
> overwhelming."
>
> EVERY SINGLE POINT?  Ugh!  (Why does so much have to be difficult?)

I think I saw a little of this along a coastline last night as well.
In this case all nodes connecting coastline ways were clean and some
in the middle of the way were clean too. So I just selected a way, ran
the licesnse plugin against it, selected all dirty nodes and deleted
them. Then I used the improve way accuracy mode in JOSM (w) to retrace
any missing nodes to fit the geometry to bing imagery. Same technique
might be useful for interstates too.

Toby

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[stevea]

I don't know who's doing that work in Columbia on the Interstates, 
but they are doing it wrong unfortunately.  While the ways aren't 
"tainted" anymore, all of the nodes are still.  Meaning that once 
the bot gets unleashed, the highways will still get "fucked-up".  It 
seems that they are just starting a new way and connecting each old 
node to the new way without at least moving the old node, which 
means if Lar created the node and nobody has moved it since, it 
still will get deleted and mess up the highway alignment.


Doh!  In my haste to "untaint ways," it is entirely possible this is 
exactly what I am doing, too.  I'm using a rapid editing technique 
which does untaint ways, but which after reading your comment, it 
appears I am leaving points still tainted.  OSM Inspector is helpful 
in seeing the "error of my ways" (uh, of error of the POINTS) and I 
fear that I am not the only one making this mistake.  Thank you for 
calling this to our attention.


This makes what is "simply tedious" border on the realm of "utterly 
overwhelming."


EVERY SINGLE POINT?  Ugh!  (Why does so much have to be difficult?)

SteveA
California

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Mike N]

On 4/12/2012 11:13 PM, James Mast wrote:

   It seems that they are just starting a new way and connecting each
old node to the new way without at least moving the old node, which
means if Lar created the node and nobody has moved it since, it still
will get deleted and mess up the highway alignment.


My first plan of action after the removal bot is to revalidate all 
interstate geometry.   In my Interstate remapping, I didn't bother with 
all nodes to be removed, and I'll just go in and correct that later.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[James Mast]

> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:56:49 -0500
> From: toby.mur...@gmail.com
> To: stevea...@softworkers.com
> CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.
> 
> I have noticed several people's remapping efforts in my live edit
> viewer. Over towards the east, I see long stretches of interstate
> around Columbia, SC have vanished from badmap.
I don't know who's doing that work in Columbia on the Interstates, but they are 
doing it wrong unfortunately.  While the ways aren't "tainted" anymore, all of 
the nodes are still.  Meaning that once the bot gets unleashed, the highways 
will still get "fucked-up".  It seems that they are just starting a new way and 
connecting each old node to the new way without at least moving the old node, 
which means if Lar created the node and nobody has moved it since, it still 
will get deleted and mess up the highway alignment. -- James
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[Toby Murray]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:36 PM, stevea  wrote:
> Hey, us, vaguely northamerican OSMers:  nice work so far!
>
> I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days of
> re-mapping.  If you are an editing maniac (like me in the last few days) you
> have discovered that BADMAP lag makes you move onto another region.  I have
> chased myself over much of San Diego and patched up the old home town.  Its
> freeways now emerge as navigable.  The Bay Area shapes up nicely.  Greater
> Southern California shows vast improvement, and yet there is still so much
> more to do.
>
> We are so many people, loving what we do so hard.
>
> Just a pat on the back and bit of cheer-leading.  Now get back to work!
>  (Oops, I mean the fun of OSM).

+1

I have noticed several people's remapping efforts in my live edit
viewer. Over towards the east, I see long stretches of interstate
around Columbia, SC have vanished from badmap.

Thanks to Paul's efforts on highlighting coastline problems, that is
mostly clean now. There is still a bit of work to do in Washington.
The Pacific coastline should be clean now (I reimported most of it
from NHD) but some bays and Puget Sound in particular are still
problematic.

It's kind of disconcerting not actually knowing when the license bot
will be set loose. Before April 1 I was going all out. Now I have
relaxed a little but am still doing a few edits each night. We'll get
there eventually. Whether or not it happens before or after the bot
does its work remains to be seen :)

Toby

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Excellent progress, u.s.

[stevea]

Hey, us, vaguely northamerican OSMers:  nice work so far!

I see excellent progress in California during the recent eight days 
of re-mapping.  If you are an editing maniac (like me in the last few 
days) you have discovered that BADMAP lag makes you move onto another 
region.  I have chased myself over much of San Diego and patched up 
the old home town.  Its freeways now emerge as navigable.  The Bay 
Area shapes up nicely.  Greater Southern California shows vast 
improvement, and yet there is still so much more to do.


We are so many people, loving what we do so hard.

Just a pat on the back and bit of cheer-leading.  Now get back to 
work!  (Oops, I mean the fun of OSM).


SteveA
California

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us