I will submit a talk about the recent Wiki Loves Maps hackathon and the hacks related to historical mapping. For your information, we intend to continue developing at least 3 different hacks started in the context of the hackathon:
- Historical street view, which will be a flow of historical imagery through a crowdsourcing environment (Ajapaik.ee) to geolocate the images and then joining them together in a continuous historical view (Mapillary), with link to/from Wikimedia Commons. - A map mashup with information from OHM/OSM, Wikidata and Wikipedia to verify and add information. - A historical Journey planner in OHM based on historical maps made available in Wikimedia Commons and other historical data. As a comment to Jerry's mail, I would also promote a more distinct source declaration, that could be added to any statement. The interfaces will also need to reflect these requirements: e.g. when tracing a map, the statements will inherit the map as a source and the date of the map. Because of using snapshot representations of the environment as a source, the start_date / end_date definitions will perhaps need to be complemented with some kind of as_of (date or source) statements. Susanna 2015-03-22 16:54 GMT+02:00 SK53 <[email protected]>: > Hi Tim, > > Good idea. > > I've been wondering a bit about what one might call the OHM technical > challenges (over & above standard OSM stuff). Aside from the obvious > time-slider side of things, there are a couple of others which might be > worth mentioning/including in a technical presentation, because they are > relevant to OSM but are more apparent with OHMs because of different > needs/use-cases : > > > - *Source/provenance stuff*. Most data added to OHM will require a > fair degree of research & is not standardly verifiable a la OSM, plus use > by digital humanities scholars pretty much mandates a high degree of > documentation of the data. I have therefore been thinking a bit about how > one might better support this need. A simple way would be to extend the > regular OSM schema by introducing a column called *metatags *on nodes, > ways, relations. This would behave exactly as the current tags column > except items placed in this data would be meta-data (obvious things like > source, attribution, fixme & notes tags in OSM). Effectively the current > tags column on the changeset table is only meaningful for metadata tags. I > dont know how far such a change would affect the overall API, but for > editors the one way of implementing might be to split the current advanced > tag entry panes into two. The other would be a toggle to flag individual > tags as meta or not. (The ODI OpenAddresses project has some interesting > ideas about handling provenance, but I dont know whether they fit readily > with primarily user-generated data, > - *Coastlines*. Currently coastline handling in the OSM renders is a > bit of a kludge. This becomes abundantly clear when one wants to handle > changes in coastlines (eg. Isle of Thanet in Roman times, Buenos Aires in > late 19th C and Hong Kong in late 20th C). > - *Map Data Scales*. OSM is broadly converging on accurate map detail > around 1 m, and technically can go to about 1 cm or less. OHM is quite > likely to contain data which is highly accurate (e.g., accurately surveyed > archaelogical data) and very general (continent-wide road networks), and > they may need to co-exist (Roman period). I imagine we will continue to > handle this at the tagging level, and therefore doesn't fall within the > ambit of a technical presentation. However, it may be in the future OSM may > want to consider a way of handling data at different scales as a way of > coping with the generalisation problem. > - *Historical Gazetteer.* Needs mentioning, if only to highlight that > retro-fitting temporality into a piece of software is usually hard, whereas > if designed in at the outset, the present is only a special case. > > Anyway if you dont use these notes, I will! > > Cheers, > > Jerry > > On 22 March 2015 at 14:26, Tim Waters <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Have submitted a talk about the technical side of OHM - and have said it >> could be bundled up with other OHM talks if necessary. >> >> On 22 March 2015 at 01:32, Rob H Warren <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I submitted one today about historical flood mapping using open street >>> map and newspapers. >>> >>> Richard, I added in the notes a request for an OHM session. We'll see >>> what happens. >>> >>> -rhw >>> >>> > On Mar 21, 2015, at 9:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> > >>> > Message: 3 >>> > Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:19:24 -0400 >>> > From: Richard Welty <[email protected]> >>> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> > Subject: Re: [OHM] SOTM US proposal deadline >>> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> >>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>> > >>> > On 3/20/15 5:01 PM, Jeff Meyer wrote: >>> >> Richard - thanks for the reminder! >>> >> >>> >> Has anyone submitted anything yet? >>> >> >>> > i submitted mine a couple of days ago. >>> > >>> > richard >>> > >>> > -- >>> > [email protected] >>> > Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting >>> > OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux >>> > Java - Web Applications - Search >>> > >>> > -------------- next part -------------- >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Historic mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Historic mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Historic mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic > >
_______________________________________________ Historic mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
