Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: > Except when it reports you are in a different neighborhood than you > actually are. > A point feature does not imply a radius. A governmental defined neighborhood boundary is totally mappable at the right admin level, and you would not need point features in such a case. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] mappy hour link
Thank you Richard! That was fun. We had a good turnout today. I hope to see you all in a couple of weeks. Martijn On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > this should be it: > > https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/event/cnsbqt4rtjjcekl2hcgc53josj0 > > -- > rwe...@averillpark.net > Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting > OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux > Java - Web Applications - Search > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- Martijn van Exel President, US Chapter OpenStreetMap http://openstreetmap.us/ http://osm.org/ skype: mvexel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] mappy hour link
this should be it: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/event/cnsbqt4rtjjcekl2hcgc53josj0 -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > The nice thing about mapping a "neighborhood name" as a point feature is: > > a) It helps people locate the neighborhood > b) it completely sidesteps the question of the exact, possibly fuzzy, > boundaries. > > For 10% of the hassle you map 90% of the benefit. Except when it reports you are in a different neighborhood than you actually are. When neighborhoods are not clearly defined then yes, a point is the "best" choice. But when neighborhoods have defined boundaries then they should be added. Just going up the admin level to city level, points work until it says you are in a different city. We can not "see" city boundaries but OSM has thousands of city boundaries. The simple solution is if the neighborhood boundaries are clearly defined they belong in OSM as polygons. If neighborhood boundaries are not clearly defined then they should be represented by points. For the supporters of no admin boundaries in OSM, build the case on the mailing lists instead of just saying "there is a growing support" for no boundaries. In some parts of the US there is a growing support that climate change is a hoax. That doesn't make it true. Build a case for removing admin boundaries (and please include landuse.) Ideally in the future we can have a fuzzy boundary. But until then I think what I proposed is an acceptable solution. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
I agree 100% with Bryce. - Serge On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > The nice thing about mapping a "neighborhood name" as a point feature is: > > a) It helps people locate the neighborhood > b) it completely sidesteps the question of the exact, possibly fuzzy, > boundaries. > > For 10% of the hassle you map 90% of the benefit. > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > 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
Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
The nice thing about mapping a "neighborhood name" as a point feature is: a) It helps people locate the neighborhood b) it completely sidesteps the question of the exact, possibly fuzzy, boundaries. For 10% of the hassle you map 90% of the benefit. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Greg Morgan wrote: > > 1. Every time this boundary debate or accuracy debate comes up, I image that > I am supposed to have $20,000 of GPS equipment[1]; post process the data so > that it is accurate; before I dare put the data in OSM. I agree with you that things which you can't verfiy without thousands of dollars of equipment doesn't belong in a generalized dataset like OSM. > 3. It is my belief and experience that the "ground observable rule" is > something that only applies to Europe or older metropolitan areas. Then you're going to have problems with all of OSM, since we use that rule to handle virtually any dispute. > I am curios what river or wash I just drove > over. It is not posted. I had to go to the US government sites to find the > information because it is useful in OSM. It's entirely possible that the names the locals use for that river differ from the government dataset, in which case, OSM would prefer you use the local name as the primary name, and not the official one. Ground observable in this case is "Local knowledge". Of course that requires consensus, but this is why we have so many tags related to names > 6. The "ground observable rule" is trying to take over the more important > rule: "Mappers with local knowledge of their area add valuable data that > commercial mapping companies cannot always afford to add to the map." This is based on a misunderstanding of your understanding of what the ground observable rule is. A person who lives in an area and can talk about it will actually trump most other sources, including signage, but that requires that we get lots of people involved and working in a diplomatic way. > 7. The "ground observable rule" is a barrier to new mappers. I helped a new > mapper at a Editathon add taco stands. She did everything wrong. I did say > no you cannot add that node. We have not gone and surveyed that node exists. > I let her add the node with abbreviated street names and all. She was so > exited to add here research data to OSM. Why not help her ensure that her data be in OSM by being a teaching resource? Also, what does sign names have to do with ground surveying? > 8. The "ground observable rule" is a barrier to new mappers. Most of the new > mappers I know started mapping by signing up and adding data. Adding data they surveyed or adding data they got from another source? > 9. Taking Serge's example of neighborhood boundaries to the logical > conclusion, nothing should be put in OSM because an edit war __could__ > ensue. This is quite the stawman argument you've build in my name, but it's not my argument. OSM has a long history of encouraging surveyed data. > 11. The "ground observable rule" fails to acknowledge that not every feature > is observable but still is useful to OSM. I had to talk the rent-a-cops out > of arresting me for taking pictures around Chase Field [8]. I could not see > around the building or under the 7th street bridge via satellite imagery. In > this post 911 world, the "ground observable rule" is an unrealistic > requirement. I've never encountered a problem with law enforcement officials when mapping, so I can't speak to your experience. > 12.I am passionate about what I do with OSM and the out reach that I do. I > am game to survey and map my city, county, and state. It feels like this > "growing number of people" believes that every mapper has to map just like > Steve Coast did ten years ago. Congratulations Serge! It is my growing > belief that your "growing number of people" has stymied growth in new and > different valuable ways of mapping data. I failed to map for months because > it sounded like I had to have a GPS five years ago before I could map. Last year (or was it the year before) at SOTM US, there was discussed with Ian Dees leading the discussion about using municipal data in a separate dataset, and yet I don't see you being as viscous against him. Whether it's deliberate or not, please stop misquoting me to further your arguments. - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mappy Hour tomorrow (monday) night
here is an event link which i hope works ok: https://plus.google.com/b/113331273824393211883/events/cnsbqt4rtjjcekl2hcgc53josj0?authkey=COK7xau86urZ6gE i may need to send invitations to people on a case by case basis; if you have a g+ account but can't get access, send me an email and i'll try to sort it out. note that i teach class at UAlbany from 5:30pm to 7:05pm, so i will be ignoring all messages until about 7:40pm, but that gives me nearly an hour to sort things out after i get home. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mappy Hour tomorrow (monday) night
OK On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 3/23/15 8:32 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I may need access to the US chapter page to do it without screwing over > who's gonna be running it from recording. > > i think only Martijn can add managers. i'll try wrestling with > event interface again in a little bit. > > richard > > -- rwe...@averillpark.net > Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting > OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux > Java - Web Applications - Search > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mappy Hour tomorrow (monday) night
On 3/23/15 8:32 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > I may need access to the US chapter page to do it without screwing > over who's gonna be running it from recording. > i think only Martijn can add managers. i'll try wrestling with event interface again in a little bit. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mappy Hour tomorrow (monday) night
I may need access to the US chapter page to do it without screwing over who's gonna be running it from recording. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 3/23/15 4:14 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Should I make the G+ event for it or will that trip things up? > > i was a little mystified by the current G+ interface so i didn't do so. > if you can figure it out, more power to you. > > richard > > -- rwe...@averillpark.net > Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting > OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux > Java - Web Applications - Search > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mappy Hour tomorrow (monday) night
On 3/23/15 4:14 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Should I make the G+ event for it or will that trip things up? > i was a little mystified by the current G+ interface so i didn't do so. if you can figure it out, more power to you. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
Greg Morgan wrote: > 2. To quote Richard Fairhurst, "Seriously, OSM in the [England] s still > way beyond broken. You can open it at any random location and the map > is just __fictional__. Here are two random examples "bing;OS StreetView" > [2] "shape is approximate. Needs proper survey as mostly built after > current BING imagery date" [3] I have no idea, at all, what point you are trying to make, but I would appreciate it if you didn't make it by deliberately misquoting me. Thank you. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Retagging-hamlets-in-the-US-tp5837186p5838190.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mappy Hour tomorrow (monday) night
Should I make the G+ event for it or will that trip things up? On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > in the traditional 8:30pm ET slot - Martijn is traveling so i get > to pick the time. > > i'll post a link here when i have it. > > richard > > -- > rwe...@averillpark.net > Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting > OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux > Java - Web Applications - Search > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > 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
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Your opinion about SOTM US
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Alex Barth wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Greg Morgan
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for another TIGER tool. I used it to look at some areas and made
>> changes. The map reminds me of another map that MapBox produced several
>> years ago using a slider tool.
>> Useful features:
>> * Timely updates. The old slider map was never updated and lost value
>> after a couple of edits. Oh! I see that my edits showed up. The problem
>> is how do you remove the yellow TIGER data?
>>
>
> Yea. this is on my far-out backlog. A live (or daily) updated TIGER
> diff map, ideally at first showing only major roads.
>
>
>> * iD, Potlach, JOSM, remote control features.
>>
>
> What do you mean by that?
>
Often I will go to the OSM site to look around. If I see something
interesting, then I will use the edit menu option to started editing the
area in JOSM.. I am not sure what your plans are with the tool. If the
tool only has a web browser interface like the current version, then having
an "edit in" drop down feature would be really useful. Since there are few
major visual clues in this great low contrast map, I find it hard locate
the same area in JOSM when I switch from web browser to JOSM.
Perhaps I am experiencing beta blues? I found the secret hand shake to use
the map in JOSM as a tracing layer: tms[21]:https://{switch:a,b,c}.
tiles.mapbox.com/v4/lxbarth.647bc246/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.png?access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibHhiYXJ0aCIsImEiOiJFVXdYcUlvIn0.bbaHTEWlnAwGgyVwJngMdQ
If this is your ultimate design, then I am sure my "edit in" drop down
feature request would be puzzling.
Yup. We're cautious and trust the TIGER data only where it coincides w/
> imagery and there we trace off the imagery and don't just take the TIGER
> data. Sometimes you run into situations where you just don't know whether
> TIGER's right or the imagery (a lot of imagery is pretty old on Bing) - in
> these cases we just don't touch the data, maybe drop a note.
>
> There are also many places where TIGER is just flat out behind - an
> opportunity for community and government to work more closely together.
>
I spent some quality time editing with the map on Friday and Saturday.
There were some great improvements that I made in OSM while using your
Better than OSM map. In practice, I had Bing, MapBox Satellite, Tiger
2012, Tiger 2014, and your Better than OSM as background imagery. Between
ITOWorld Tiger Fixup [1], Better than OSM, and Battle Grid, Better than
OSM comes in second place to the ITOWorld map. Both ITOWorld and your map
provide me more precision than Battle Grid. That's just my way of working
and preferences.
1. Better than OSM made me reexamine areas that I thought were mostly
complete. One of the issues I have with ITOWorld and Battle Grid is that
the colors can obscure single roads that have not been reviewed. I found
that Better than OSM threw all those issues in my face in the area that I
was editing. The same yellow at all zoom levels is also a plus. Not sizing
the line width between the highway=* tags is also a plus. The simple
styling made me see all issues clearly.
2. I needed the other two TIGER maps to add missing names for some roads.
The yellow contrast is great and keeps the map simple but is missing the
names.
3. I concur about TIGER being behind. Some of the yellow lines where
"stray" roads that had not been cleaned up in the TIGER data. The "stray"
lines really did not point to where TIGER was better than OSM.
4. Since some of these "stray" roads do not touch other OSM roads, I don't
know how you would "turn off" the yellow TIGER line once OSM had been fixed
or that TIGER data had been determined to be a false positive. If feels
like you would have to have a tiger:reviewed="yes" interface or something
like what Keepright uses to turn off the "stray" roads in Better than OSM
map. Perhaps some sort of attribute can be kept in the "flagging" data.
You could then pass the information on to the government as you note in the
community and government working closer with each other comment.
5. I found that painting OSM highways white without bridges or tunnels an
issue. I went to these areas thinking that the there was a problem because
there were yellow lines in the area too. I found the bridge and moved on.
There may be some other data to add to the white OSM layer but I am not
sure what that would be right now.
Thanks for the tool. I am not sure how long it will be available but I did
find it useful for a number editing tasks.
Regards,
Greg
[1] http://www.itoworld.com/map/162?lon=-112.09148&lat=33.53444&zoom=11
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
Greg, > 3. It is my belief and experience that the "ground observable rule" is > something that only applies to Europe or older metropolitan areas. I think there's a misunderstanding here. Of course even in European metropolitan areas there will *not* be a sign bearing the name of every stream that you drive across! That doesn't keep Europeans from mapping the stream (the fact that there *is* one is at least observable), or naming it according to common knowledge or whatever the locals will tell you the name is. We usually draw the line when it is about features that cannot be seen on the ground; these should be in OSM only in exceptional cases (for example we do map administrative boundaries and post code areas even if they're invisible; the discussion about how much of a railway must still be there to map it as "abandoned" is going on elsewhere; the mapping of airways is strongly discouraged; some people map long-distance radio links but that is not likely to catch on). Your remark that OSM is different from the "old GIS world" with ESRI and $20k GPS receivers is correct, however it is not a suitable basis for reasoning (following the same logical path as you did, I could say "they use computers; we are different, so we should not use computers"). The "ground observable rule" kicks in most strongly when there's a dispute. If one mapper happily maps an invisible boundary and another mapper pops up and maps it differently, and they later apply to someone to mediate in their conflict, that third person will ask whether there is any proof for each mapper's version, and if there isn't any because both just map from hearsay, then the feature will have to be tagged as "disputed" or removed altogether. > 9. Taking Serge's example of neighborhood boundaries to the logical > conclusion, nothing should be put in OSM because an edit war __could__ > ensue. Again, you've misunderstood Serge; because as long as we stick to observable things, the edit war can be resolved by fact-checking. This is what Serge hinted at when he talked about Alice and Bob. Crucially he also mentioned that there's a high risk that if we allow un-substantiated mapping of neighbourhoods, this might be at the expense of the underprivileged who seldom participate in OSM. For some, it might make a very big difference whether their address resolves to neighbourhood A or neighbourhood B if they live just on the border. As long as we're talking facts there's not much that can go wrong - an able-bodied, college-educated caucasian male can trace a stream through the slums from Bing without being in much danger of unwittingly applying prejudice. The same is not true for the same able-bodied, college-educated caucasian male drawing the boundary of the neighbourhood they are unlikely to ever set foot in. There's actually quite a few things apart from neighbourhoods that are not defined. For example here in Germany, if a village can advertise themselves as being "in the Black Forest", that's a plus, tourism-wise. But the Black Forest is not a forest where you simply check the treeline; it's a large region with not-really-well-defined boundaries. There's places where 99% of interviewees would says "clearly that's in the Black Forest", and places where 99% would say clearly not, but a grey band in between. The kind of area that is labelled with a curved, wide-spaced font on old-school maps. OSM doesn't have a good mechanism to record these; OSM only accepts precise geometries, not fuzzy ones. > 7. The "ground observable rule" is a barrier to new mappers. I helped a > new mapper at a Editathon add taco stands. She did everything wrong. I > did say no you cannot add that node. We have not gone and surveyed that > node exists. I let her add the node with abbreviated street names and > all. She was so exited to add here research data to OSM. There's absolutely no problem with adding Taco stands from memory as they are observABLE (even if not observED) and if someone else starts a fuss about the Taco stands, we can just go there and check. People add data from memory all the time, and if it's wrong, it get fixed. But that's not the point when discussing neighbourhood boundaries. > I failed to > map for months because it sounded like I had to have a GPS five years > ago before I could map. I think you're consistently misunderstanding the difference between observable and observed. 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
