[OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

Hey guys came across a really weird way. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/104974280 Not sure exactly what it is supposed to represent? Is it showing where bing has high quality imagery? And secondly can I remove it! ___ talk mailing list talk@ope

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

It doesn't look like this is an isolated example, there are over a hundred of these http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/boundary=imagery#overview On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:35 PM, ingalls wrote: > Hey guys came across a really weird way. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/104974280 >

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

I'd first asked the person that created the polygon before deleting. BTW - We don't have complete hi-res coverage from Bing. While many areas it may not matter, I've mapped in areas where better imagery would have been very helpful. Maybe we need to explore other avenues to obtain imagery in neede

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

This seems silly and useless. The imagery is subject to change and the way will become obsolete. I don't see a point in mapping this, and I'm okay with deleting these ways. But I'd rather hear from someone with more experience before anything happens. On Mar 31, 2013 10:39 AM, "ingalls" wrote: >

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

People use this geometry and get offended if you delete it. There is this page , but vectors can be useful for some scenarios. I think a separate database would be the best solution. Janko ___ talk mai

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On 2013-03-31 17:57, Clay Smalley wrote: This seems silly and useless. The imagery is subject to change and the way will become obsolete. I don't see a point in mapping this, and I'm okay with deleting these ways. But I'd rather hear from someone with more experience before anything happens. It

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:35 PM, ingalls wrote: > Hey guys came across a really weird way. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/104974280 > > Not sure exactly what it is supposed to represent? Is it showing where > bing has high quality imagery? And secondly can I remove it! > In my comm

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:57:41AM -0500, Clay Smalley wrote: > This seems silly and useless. The imagery is subject to change and the way > will become obsolete. I don't see a point in mapping this, and I'm okay > with deleting these ways. But I'd rather hear from someone with more > experience be

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 07:01:19PM +0200, Maarten Deen wrote: > It is a common and often-used method to indicate regions that have > high-resolution Bing imagery in an area where the rest is only > low-resolution. > I would not delete them. They serve a purpose. If you have a better > working sugge

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

I'm with everyone who is against adding this to the database although I agree that a mass edit is not the way to get rid of these. I'll go through them and contact the individual owners and see about getting as many as possible removed. If they don't respond after a reasonable time (a month or two)

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On 2013-03-31 19:22, Florian Lohoff wrote: On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 07:01:19PM +0200, Maarten Deen wrote: It is a common and often-used method to indicate regions that have high-resolution Bing imagery in an area where the rest is only low-resolution. I would not delete them. They serve a purpose

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

Am 31/mar/2013 um 20:56 schrieb ingalls : > I'll check if they actually represent areas of high-res imagery, if they > don't, I'll remove them. If they still represent areas of high res imagery > I'll grandfather them until they become outdated. > > Sound reasonable to everyone? +1 cheer

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

26 91 54, Skype/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta -Original Message- From: ingalls Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:56:16 To: Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.or

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

Florian Lohoff writes: As they were wrong and nobody cared i deleted them. A better way of dealing with updated data in OSM is usually to fix and not to delete data. Had you considered mailing the users who created the original data before removing their work? In contrast to eg. underground

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On 2013-04-01 04:57, Clay Smalley wrote: This seems silly and useless. The imagery is subject to change and the way will become obsolete. I dont see a point in mapping this, and Im all data in the database is subject to change and will become obsolete, there is nothing unusual in that happeni

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Stephan Knauss wrote: > > A better way of dealing with updated data in OSM is usually to fix and not > to delete data. > Mapping aerial imagery boundaries into OSM has always been controversial. And today, we have an alternative solution with this josm plugin : htt

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

2013/4/1 Stephan Knauss > Florian Lohoff writes: > >> As they were wrong and nobody cared i deleted them. >> > A better way of dealing with updated data in OSM is usually to fix and not > to delete data. Had you considered mailing the users who created the > original data before removing their wo

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

Pieren writes: Mapping aerial imagery boundaries into OSM has always been controversial. And today, we have an alternative solution with this josm plugin : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Imagery-XML-Bounds Looks interesting, but who does maintain it for Bing? This is imagery o

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

Martin Koppenhoefer writes: Btw.: how many boundaries shall we tolerate? How much of your mapping shall I tolerate? It's always the same answer. Pay respect to other mappers. If the data is of use to other mappers, respect it. Even if you would not map it this way. I personally thing that mapp

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

Hello everyone, In response to everyone's concerns, as stated in my action plan above, the owner of each way was contacted to ask if removal was ok. As I stated in the pm I sent that, I will only delete the way if they say that I am good to do so or if they do not respond and based on their edits

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

> > De : Martin Koppenhoefer >À : Stephan Knauss >Cc : osm >Envoyé le : Lundi 1 avril 2013 6h20 >Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary? > > > > >2013/4/1 Stephan Knauss > >Florian Lohoff writes: >> >>As they were wrong and nobody car

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

2013/4/1 Stephan Knauss > Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > >> Btw.: how many boundaries shall we tolerate? >> > How much of your mapping shall I tolerate? It's always the same answer. > Pay respect to other mappers. If the data is of use to other mappers, > respect it. Even if you would not map it t

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Stephan Knauss wrote: > How much of your mapping shall I tolerate? It's always the same answer. > Pay respect to other mappers. If the data is of use to other mappers, > respect it. Even if you would not map it this way. > I personally thing that mapping of undergro

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

I'd like to reaffirm the following statement: > +1, that's what I wrote. I thought the only question we're still discussing is how to deal with outdated outlines (better keep/ignore them when outdated so maybe someone can update them, or simply delete them). As I've said several times, I am looki

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > So storing a few hundred extra ways in the database had been the easiest >> and most practical solution. The way do no harm to anybody. So just keep >> them for a while until all functionality has been migrated to different >> tools. >>

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 03:56:16PM -0300, ingalls wrote: > I'm with everyone who is against adding this to the database although I > agree that a mass edit is not the way to get rid of these. I'll go through I didnt "mass-edit". I came past 2-3 boundarys which were all broken for a long time. So

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 11:37:59AM +0200, Stephan Knauss wrote: > Florian Lohoff writes: > > >As they were wrong and nobody cared i deleted them. > A better way of dealing with updated data in OSM is usually to fix > and not to delete data. Had you considered mailing the users who > created the or

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Pieren wrote: > It's not only for outdated outlines. As said, it is not a map feature, it's > just for some comfort during edition (would consider the same for mapping > party cakes). What was the "easiest and most pratical solution" can be > tolerated if it is temp

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

We had a deployment of OSM Tasking Manager, and it gives you a possibility to make a task with boundaries taken from a OSM way. We used one of this imagery boundaries. It could be used for aligning imagery offset, for analysis of data frequency based on imagery availability, etc. I think this bou

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > I think this boundaries can be useful, but should be in some other database. Are there any other appropriate databases? That is, something with the same form (an OSM database) for stuff related to the OSM project, but not containing actual O

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

>would some kind of "meta" OSM database be appropriate? +1 on this, I guess the challenge would be finding resources to host it. On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > I think this boundaries can be useful, but should b

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

Creating another instance of the OSM database and server is a very good idea. I would propose we make the purpose of this database to allow people post ANY geo data that is NOT part of the base map. It would be an open database for general GIS data. Some examples of random things people could do w

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

That idea seems good to me: reasonably simple - not a new database for each usecase, but giving place to all that potentially useful data that is seen as unworthy for the main database. Some categories (category=sport/birds/metadata/...) would likely have to be created to allow filtering only some

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

Yes, we would need tagging conventions like this so users can identify the data that is of interest to them. And relations would be useful to group geometry that goes together, such as the features associated with a particular bird migration study. On the technical side, I suppose access to the d

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Dave Sutter wrote: > Creating another instance of the OSM database and server is a very > good idea. I would propose we make the purpose of this database to > allow people post ANY geo data that is NOT part of the base map. It > would be an open database for general

Re: [OSM-talk] Imagery Boundary?

Am 09/apr/2013 um 16:17 schrieb Steve Bennett : > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Dave Sutter wrote: >> Creating another instance of the OSM database and server is a very >> good idea. I would propose we make the purpose of this database to >> allow people post ANY geo data that is NOT part o