[OSM-talk] No Changeset Comments from iD

[Clifford Snow]

Why do I see so many new mappers make edits without a commit comment? Is it
because iD doesn't prompt for a commit message? iD issue 1488 is open but
not acted upon. I wonder why. Is it because the developers don't think
commit comments are needed?

I'm wondering what the community thinks. Are commit comments needed?

Clifford
-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:38:40PM -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

> After reading your replies to the list about other topics, my view on
> the situation has evolved. It seems that you want to add highly
> specialized information into OSM, information which is well
> documented, but not easy to collect for an amateur mapper (someone who
> comes in off the street, who does not own specialized equipment, etc.)

well.. back to the subject. I was proposing a mailing list for outdoor
activities mapping and modelling of nature-related stuff.

Later I got carried away trying to explain how better understanding of 
natural phenomena and scientific models could improve OSM.

In some cases you may need specialized knowledge to contribute data but 
in most cases you only need that knowledge to develop a suitable data 
model to represent the obvious things in OSM.
Somehow I am convinced that once a standard model of vegetation layers would
be suitably adopted for OSM an amateur mapper would not find it harder to 
use than deciding which of the {landuse|landcover|natural}={forrest|wood}
to apply.

Also, is it really the specialised knowldge that is so complicated? I am
finding myself fighting with multipoligons and relations. Not long ago
I spent half an hour figuring out why some particular islands in a river 
weren't rendered.

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:41:06PM +, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> On 05/03/2014 20:30, Richard Z. wrote:
> >despite beeing sometimes tricky I still consider it pretty important to know
> >that a certain area is eg part of the tundra climate, permafrost or monsoon.
> 
> ...and as I said, five messages ago:
> 
> "The main OSM database only stores relatively permanent features.
> That's not to say that this information isn't useful and valuable,
> just that the main OSM database isn't the right place to store it."

what exactly is not "relatively permanent" about a permafrost region?
The permafrost has been there since the last ice age and maybe longer,
the very name says it.

Is the OSM database the right place to store bus routes that change
twice a year or whenever there is an accident blocking the particular
road? Opening hours of the shop next door which may change every day? 
All of that is in progress.

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Serge Wroclawski]

Richard,

After reading your replies to the list about other topics, my view on
the situation has evolved. It seems that you want to add highly
specialized information into OSM, information which is well
documented, but not easy to collect for an amateur mapper (someone who
comes in off the street, who does not own specialized equipment, etc.)

In my view, while this information may be extremely valuable, it is
likely not a good fit for the project generally. OSM is designed to be
a very general use database. It doesn't handle specialized data very
well because OSM is interested not just in ground truth, but in the
ability for virtually anyone to be able to contribute. If my
understanding is correct, then you might be better off with a separate
database, and not using OSM.

In addition, if the data changes frequently (I'd say more than once or
twice a year), then it's also not a good candidate for OSM. There are
exceptions to this rule, such as in the case of Haiti and the
placement of tent cities, but generally, OSM deals with generally
unchanging features.

- Serge

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 05/03/2014 20:30, Richard Z. wrote:

despite beeing sometimes tricky I still consider it pretty important to know
that a certain area is eg part of the tundra climate, permafrost or monsoon.


...and as I said, five messages ago:

"The main OSM database only stores relatively permanent features. That's 
not to say that this information isn't useful and valuable, just that 
the main OSM database isn't the right place to store it."


The people discussing this issue with you are not questioning the value 
of this information to you or any other person. They are just pointing 
out that the OpenStreetMap database is not the correct place to store 
this information, because we're trying to build a crowdsourced map of 
the world where you don't need to be a domain expert to be able to 
contribute.


J.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:44:54PM +0100, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> >
> > oh yes. You can say the same about a forrest and almost anything in
> > the real world.
> 
> No, continuously changing properties exist for many features including 
> for example the transit from wood to grassland but climate zones in 
> addition have the problem of only being defined in the long term 
> average.  You will be able to determine the density of trees growing in 
> some area at any single point of time without much effort and can use 
> this as a basis to verifiably decide if this is a wood or not.  But you 
> will need to measure the temperature for many years to approximately 
> determine the long term average.  Precipitation is even trickier.

despite beeing sometimes tricky I still consider it pretty important to know
that a certain area is eg part of the tundra climate, permafrost or monsoon.

And when hiking on Kauai I would pretty sure want to have this information 
handy:
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/ecosystem_processes/tropical/restoration/lifezone/hawaii/Kauai.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-D7UQYrsMu24/UVuvQS7In1I/Pp4/TNzHyYeWlZw/s1600/kauai-smaller-map.gif

- everything from rain forrest to desert within few miles.

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 07:16:36AM -0500, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> How is this different from other tagging discussions?

tagging discussion is only the last step. Before it can happen we
need to have a pretty good model of what we want to map and then
decide how it could be mapped.

Most of us have a pretty good working model of a road and a house
in our head which make it easy to skip the modeling phase and
go to tagging discussion.

Apparently this is not so easy with vegetation, geology and other
natural phenomena which require considerable special knowledge to
select a suitable data model. 
Even in the relatively familiar case of vegetation our model to map 
it is highly unsatisfactory becuase it went to tagging discussion 
before researching a suitable model.

Our model of geology is limitted to mapping single_stones, bare_rocks 
and cliffs. Would it be possible to do this better? I have no idea,
it is something that should be discussed but is not a tagging
discussion.

Simple things like mapping corral reefs are still not available.
Would it be possible to map the Gulf stream or other currents?

Richard


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 05 March 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
>
> oh yes. You can say the same about a forrest and almost anything in
> the real world.

No, continuously changing properties exist for many features including 
for example the transit from wood to grassland but climate zones in 
addition have the problem of only being defined in the long term 
average.  You will be able to determine the density of trees growing in 
some area at any single point of time without much effort and can use 
this as a basis to verifiably decide if this is a wood or not.  But you 
will need to measure the temperature for many years to approximately 
determine the long term average.  Precipitation is even trickier.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:04:10PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-03-05 14:42 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
> 
> > As an example, we are having repeated discussions how to tag forrest but
> > did not even start thinking about a generic concept how to map vegetation
> > such as:
> >
> > climatic zones
> > vegetation zones
> > soil biology
> > vegetation layers
> >
> 
> 
> 
> most of these do not seem remotely suitable for the osm data model and the
> way we collect and store data. Climatic zones and vegetation zones are very
> big areas with fuzzy boundaries. We do not even manage to map huge areas
> with clear boundaries (e.g. look for the atlantic ocean in osm), how could
> we start to map those with fuzzy boundaries?

the zones may not be as huge as you would imagine. In some cases the zones are
just square miles or much smaller with very sharp boundaries as seen on Mauna 
Kea,
Haleakala, or some places on Kauai.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Koppen_World_Map_%28retouched_version%29.png

And if we have problems with the Atlantic Ocean we should fix them:)

> These also might be subject to
> generalization and interpretation to a degree that 2 scientists in the same
> field would draw the borders differently.

this could happen, the bigger problem I see is that in every country they would
apply the same rules slightly differently. 
But we have similar problems in most other domains and still try to map them. 
Just recall the discussion of highway=track classification.

> IMHO these could maybe produced
> out of osm data (together with other data like precipitation, temperature
> etc.) 

interesting idea. You would also need a very good elevation model and 
prevailing 
winds, soil properties and maybe some other details of course.
However I believe that a climatic zone is an empirical data set and trying to 
derive it from other information is like trying a 4 weeks weather forecast. It 
may
work in some areas but the result will be worse than using observed data.

Another point is, the climatic zones may be useful to predict vegetation
characterstics for large areas of the world where detailed vegetation
mapping is not available yet.

> if you'd analyzed the occurence of certain species (the tags for
> mapping single plants are there, you only have to use them, currently these
> are the numbers:
> 319 553
> *species* 
> 125 867
> *species*:de 
> 81 881
> *species*:it 
> 
> 131 887* taxon* 

I think that really underscores the need for a mailing list for such subjects
because I had never the idea that this tags exist.
 
> Tags regarding soil biology are also very hard to verify on the ground by
> the general mapper. They require specialized knowledge and maybe also a
> laboratory to do analysis and similar. 

frequently people searching mushrooms will have very good knowledge 
of this subject. I don't hope to get a perfect map of soil biology
anytime soon but having a framework for it prepared should not hurt.

> Even if collecting the data wasn't
> an issue (say it would be possibile to import "perfect" data), still it
> won't integrate or fit well with the datamodel (this is more statistical
> data than actual hard facts, and drawing the border is almost impossible).

I find it always hard to decide where to draw borders of forrests because they 
are fuzzy and unfortunately many lakes and rivers have shores which are 
changing 
very quickly over time which is an even bigger problem.

> Your last point, vegetation layers, might be a little bit different. IMHO
> this could be done, and partly it already is (see the landcover-key)

yes, landcover is a step in the right direction but IMHO nowhere close
to a satisfactory mapping of vegetation and ground properties.
Mapping for example the Sonoran desert would require yet another approach,
it is essential to specify the properties of the partially exposed ground 
as well as the vegetation.

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:59:17PM +0100, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 March 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> > > >climatic zones
> > > >vegetation zones
> > > >soil biology
> > > >vegetation layers
> > >
> > > Are any of these things verifiable?
> >
> > of course. Tons of literature about it.
> 
> That is not what verifiability is about.  Climate and Vegetation 
> characteristics are generally continuously changing properties and the 
> specific zone limits defined by some convention are not usually 
> verifiable in the field.  In case of climate zones you would for 
> example need long term measurements at a certain place to determine if 
> it belongs to a certain climate zone and even if you have that you 
> cannot say anything about the climate of other locations - hence you 
> cannot draw a boundary in a verifiable way.
> 
> I explained this in case of deserts (probably the most prominent attempt 
> to map something like this in OSM) some time ago in 
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:natural%3Ddesert

oh yes. You can say the same about a forrest and almost anything in the 
real world.
When does a forrest have dense enough trees to be called a forrest and how tall 
should a tree be to be called a tree instead of bush? Is an Iowa tall grass 
prairie 
a kind of grasland?

Despite your opinion some areas are known as deserts while others are
known as lakes, rivers, grasland and forrest.

And of course there are well known and widely accepted climatic zones 
characterisations
such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-03-05 16:22 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :

> More often people change the wiki any way they like because they don't
> find a suitable forum to ask. Even more often people just invent tags
> without any documentation or discussion.
>



Yes, these edits happen, but I doubt it is because there is not a suitable
mailing list (in the end "tagging" is suitable for all tagging questions),
IMHO this happens because the editor believes that he already knows "the
truth", and because he thinks discussion is too bothering.

I am not per se against a new mailing list (would surely subscribe to it
;-) ), but I doubt it would solve the above mentioned problems.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 05 March 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> > >climatic zones
> > >vegetation zones
> > >soil biology
> > >vegetation layers
> >
> > Are any of these things verifiable?
>
> of course. Tons of literature about it.

That is not what verifiability is about.  Climate and Vegetation 
characteristics are generally continuously changing properties and the 
specific zone limits defined by some convention are not usually 
verifiable in the field.  In case of climate zones you would for 
example need long term measurements at a certain place to determine if 
it belongs to a certain climate zone and even if you have that you 
cannot say anything about the climate of other locations - hence you 
cannot draw a boundary in a verifiable way.

I explained this in case of deserts (probably the most prominent attempt 
to map something like this in OSM) some time ago in 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:natural%3Ddesert

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 01:52:50PM +, Dave F. wrote:
> IMO that should be amalgamated back into the general lists.
> Occasionally tagging procedures get changed after brief discussions
> between very small select groups metaphorically huddled together in
> the corner of a room, that turn out to be non beneficial to OSM.
> It's a similar reason why I believe IRC isn't helpful.

More often people change the wiki any way they like because they don't 
find a suitable forum to ask. Even more often people just invent tags
without any documentation or discussion.

I have read plenty of the other lists talking about how complicated 
it is to map pedestrian ways, memorial stones and Austrian street
addresses. Meanwhile we don't have a way to tag lava fields, lava flows,
hot springs, waterway=dam is a mess, I have just barely fixed waterfalls.

The world is just too complicated for one list and for someone mapping
the antarctic geology bus route mapping is not so interesting.

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 01:59:33PM +, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> On 05/03/2014 13:42, Richard Z. wrote:
> >climatic zones
> >vegetation zones
> >soil biology
> >vegetation layers
> 
> Are any of these things verifiable?

of course. Tons of literature about it.

> Are they relatively static or do they change with the 
> weather/season/year-to-year? 

Most of them are stable over centuries untill someone comes with a chainsaw.

Do not ask me too many details, I know enough that I would consider somesuch
framework as one of the better ways to map vegetation but not enough to make 
the proposal.

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-03-05 14:42 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :

> As an example, we are having repeated discussions how to tag forrest but
> did not even start thinking about a generic concept how to map vegetation
> such as:
>
> climatic zones
> vegetation zones
> soil biology
> vegetation layers
>



most of these do not seem remotely suitable for the osm data model and the
way we collect and store data. Climatic zones and vegetation zones are very
big areas with fuzzy boundaries. We do not even manage to map huge areas
with clear boundaries (e.g. look for the atlantic ocean in osm), how could
we start to map those with fuzzy boundaries? These also might be subject to
generalization and interpretation to a degree that 2 scientists in the same
field would draw the borders differently. IMHO these could maybe produced
out of osm data (together with other data like precipitation, temperature
etc.) if you'd analyzed the occurence of certain species (the tags for
mapping single plants are there, you only have to use them, currently these
are the numbers:
319 553
*species* 
125 867
*species*:de 
81 881
*species*:it 

131 887* taxon* 

Tags regarding soil biology are also very hard to verify on the ground by
the general mapper. They require specialized knowledge and maybe also a
laboratory to do analysis and similar. Even if collecting the data wasn't
an issue (say it would be possibile to import "perfect" data), still it
won't integrate or fit well with the datamodel (this is more statistical
data than actual hard facts, and drawing the border is almost impossible).

Your last point, vegetation layers, might be a little bit different. IMHO
this could be done, and partly it already is (see the landcover-key)

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Janko Mihelić]

2014-03-05 15:06 GMT+01:00 Pieren :

>
> The transit tagging schema is universally known as a success story ...
>

It will become a success when the first public transport router comes up.
Until then, there is basically no use for it.

Janko
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Pieren]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Dave F.  wrote:

>  IMO that should be amalgamated back into the general lists. Occasionally
> tagging procedures get changed after brief discussions between very small
> select groups metaphorically huddled together in the corner of a room, that
> turn out to be non beneficial to OSM. It's a similar reason why I believe
> IRC isn't helpful.
>

The transit tagging schema is universally known as a success story ...

Pieren,
just kidding of course
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 05/03/2014 13:42, Richard Z. wrote:

climatic zones
vegetation zones
soil biology
vegetation layers


Are any of these things verifiable? Are they relatively static or do 
they change with the weather/season/year-to-year? The main OSM database 
only stores relatively permanent features. That's not to say that this 
information isn't useful and valuable, just that the main OSM database 
isn't the right place to store it.


J.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Dave F.]

IMO that should be amalgamated back into the general lists. Occasionally 
tagging procedures get changed after brief discussions between very 
small select groups metaphorically huddled together in the corner of a 
room, that turn out to be non beneficial to OSM. It's a similar reason 
why I believe IRC isn't helpful.


Dave F.

On 05/03/2014 13:01, Janko Mihelic' wrote:



2014-03-05 13:30 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann >:



..there are currently no thematic mapping related lists at all
so it seems somewhat odd to separate specifically these subjects.


There is one, talk-transit. 







---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Richard Z.]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:44:39PM +, SomeoneElse wrote:

> >I want to propose a new mailing list. Currently we have serious gaps in
> >modeling vegetation zones, climatic zones, geology, oceanography and most
> >other natural phenomena.
> >
> >Also a mailing list for outdoor enthusiasts and outdoor sports does not
> >seem to exist.
> >
> 
> The "tagging" mailing list was created because the volume of
> esoteric tag discussion got too much for the main "talk" list. Maybe
> you need to create lots of geology or outdoor sports discussion
> first :)

the issue is that modeling geology, vegetation and similar aspects needs
considerable special knowledge. We might be lucky but we can not expect that
too many people with such special knowledge will listen on "tagging" or
"talk". Among outdoor oriented people it should be easier to find such
specialised knowledge.

As an example, we are having repeated discussions how to tag forrest but 
did not even start thinking about a generic concept how to map vegetation
such as:

climatic zones
vegetation zones
soil biology
vegetation layers

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_lf_k0700_0167e.pdf
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/personnel/krubal/rainforest/Edit560s6/www/whlayers.html

Without a similar framework our vegetation mapping will remain a patchwork.

Another example.. we are currently discussing hot springs but I do not have
enough knowledge in balneology or hydrogeology to be confident about defining
water characteristics.



Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Janko Mihelić]

2014-03-05 13:30 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann :

>
> ..there are currently no thematic mapping related lists at all
> so it seems somewhat odd to separate specifically these subjects.
>

There is one, 
talk-transit.

Janko
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[SomeoneElse]

Richard Z. wrote:

Hi,

I want to propose a new mailing list. Currently we have serious gaps in
modeling vegetation zones, climatic zones, geology, oceanography and most
other natural phenomena.

Also a mailing list for outdoor enthusiasts and outdoor sports does not
seem to exist.



The "tagging" mailing list was created because the volume of esoteric 
tag discussion got too much for the main "talk" list. Maybe you need to 
create lots of geology or outdoor sports discussion first :)


Cheers,

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 05 March 2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to propose a new mailing list. Currently we have serious gaps
> in modeling vegetation zones, climatic zones, geology, oceanography
> and most other natural phenomena.

Without wanting to discourage this in general - these are important 
subjects - there are currently no thematic mapping related lists at all 
so it seems somewhat odd to separate specifically these subjects.

In general most discussion on such subjects is currently in tagging - 
which is of course somewhat questionable because not all mapping 
related matters are about tags.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Serge Wroclawski]

How is this different from other tagging discussions?

- Serge

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Richard Z.  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to propose a new mailing list. Currently we have serious gaps in
> modeling vegetation zones, climatic zones, geology, oceanography and most
> other natural phenomena.
>
> Also a mailing list for outdoor enthusiasts and outdoor sports does not
> seem to exist.
>
> So for the beginning I would propose just one ml to cover those topics
> and maybe split it up later when there is demand to do so.
>
> I have emailed mich...@osmfoundation.org 
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mailing_list#Requests_for_New_Lists)
> but so far not got any response.
>
> Richard
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] new mailing list request - OSM outdoor/natural phenomena mapping

[Richard Z.]

Hi,

I want to propose a new mailing list. Currently we have serious gaps in
modeling vegetation zones, climatic zones, geology, oceanography and most
other natural phenomena.

Also a mailing list for outdoor enthusiasts and outdoor sports does not 
seem to exist.

So for the beginning I would propose just one ml to cover those topics
and maybe split it up later when there is demand to do so.

I have emailed mich...@osmfoundation.org 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mailing_list#Requests_for_New_Lists)
but so far not got any response.

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk