Re: [OSM-talk] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster
On 01/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > This is now a formal proposal to mechanically remove: > > denotation=cluster > fixme=set␣better␣denotation > > > From 200,000+ nodes. See > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Bryce_C_Nesbitt I agree with deleting the fixme tag. Concering the deletion of the denotation tag, on the one hand I agree because + its meaning is not obvious, and it doesn't seem to play well with other denotation values + the same information can be obtained from a spatial query. however: - there are ~20K uses of denotation=cluster that aren't associated with the fixme, and therefore seemingly not done by the automated edit. Please either delete all denotation=cluster tags regardless of their origin, or explain why the cases are different. - The other most-common denotation values (urban and avenue) suffer from the same issues. It would seem that *if* cluster is to be deleted, urban and avenue ought to suffer the same fate. I'm saying all this without having read the old discussions on the topic; sorry if I'm beating a dead horse. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Your opinion about SOTM US
Hey all, I put together a 3 minute survey about the upcoming State of the Map US conference. The main thing I would like to know more about is the types of talks you would be interested in, or even specifically which people or organizations you would want to see a talk from. You can find the survey here: http://goo.gl/forms/YZpm2aPk2O If you don't want to fill out the survey, you can also send your opinion my way in an email. In any case, thanks in advance for taking the time. Remember, the Call for Papers will be open for another 3 weeks: http://stateofthemap.us/talk/ Thanks again, -- Martijn van Exel skype: mvexel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-de] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster
2015-03-01 22:04 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > and since nobody is maintaining the denotation tag. I do use the denotation tag for trees which I add manually. The "cluster" value is not in the set of values I typically use, still I can imagine people using it to determine importance of trees for rendering. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-de] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster
On 02/03/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I can imagine people using it to determine importance of trees for rendering. Out of curiosity, how would you render denotation=cluster differently than other denotations ? Automatically create a forest polygon around them ? Render them narrower than "normal" trees ? Why ? I can see the interest in rendering landmark and natural_monument more prominently, but the usecase for cluster is much harder to define (and if it exists, a spatial query would probably still be better ?). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-de] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster
2015-03-02 18:41 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > Out of curiosity, how would you render denotation=cluster differently > than other denotations ? Automatically create a forest polygon around > them ? Render them narrower than "normal" trees ? Why ? I can see the > interest in rendering landmark and natural_monument more prominently, > but the usecase for cluster is much harder to define (and if it > exists, a spatial query would probably still be better ?). > the intention of the mapper who introduced it (by performing a database query and storing the results in the osm db, something you shouldn't do, we all agree) was to omit those trees in his renderings. He was interested in "special" trees and was asuming that trees close to other trees were less "special" (something I don't agree with per se, but in practice might have worked back then, because the mappers mapping "special trees" were typically mapping only those special trees, hence there was less probability of other trees _mapped_ nearby, even if there were actual trees in the real world). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Your opinion about SOTM US
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Hey all, [ ... ] > The main thing I would like to know more about is the types of > talks you would be interested in, or even specifically which people or > organizations you would want to see a talk from. Easy! Same as I always ask / hope for. :-) 1) I want to see deeply technical / specialized presentations specific to OpenStreetMap. Talks that wouldn't be suitable at non-OpenStreetMap conferences. So, talks on optimizing a rendering stack, a la SotM-EU. Or on tagging scheme alternatives, such as SotM-Girona. 2) Given the audience at DC, I'd say you'll need a beginners track. So many people I met there had no understanding of how to do a foot survey, and no understanding of why that is the most valuable and interesting data in the OpenStreetMap database. So, yeah. Some really fundamental basics. Why and how to survey. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-de] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster
On 02/03/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > He was interested in > "special" trees and was asuming that trees close to other trees were less > "special" (something I don't agree with per se, but in practice might have > worked back then, because the mappers mapping "special trees" were > typically mapping only those special trees, hence there was less > probability of other trees _mapped_ nearby, even if there were actual trees > in the real world). Ok, that's a reasonable intent. But not a reasonable method, because the heuristic is flawed, because "storing the result of an osm query in osm data" is bad practice, and because a list of "normal" trees is insanely harder to maintain than a list of "special" trees. So there's not much to redeem the tag AFAICS. I'm happy to see it deleted from objects, surely starting with that one import and then double-checking the other changesets. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-de] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster
Yes, that tag sounds like it should be removed. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On March 2, 2015 2:55:29 PM moltonel 3x Combo wrote: On 02/03/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > He was interested in > "special" trees and was asuming that trees close to other trees were less > "special" (something I don't agree with per se, but in practice might have > worked back then, because the mappers mapping "special trees" were > typically mapping only those special trees, hence there was less > probability of other trees _mapped_ nearby, even if there were actual trees > in the real world). Ok, that's a reasonable intent. But not a reasonable method, because the heuristic is flawed, because "storing the result of an osm query in osm data" is bad practice, and because a list of "normal" trees is insanely harder to maintain than a list of "special" trees. So there's not much to redeem the tag AFAICS. I'm happy to see it deleted from objects, surely starting with that one import and then double-checking the other changesets. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Your opinion about SOTM US
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > > 2) Given the audience at DC, I'd say you'll need a beginners track. > So many people I met there had no understanding of how to do a foot > survey, and no understanding of why that is the most valuable and > interesting data in the OpenStreetMap database. So, yeah. Some > really fundamental basics. Why and how to survey. And a real hands on session... flashmob micromap something nearby. Flashmob audit some other area nearby for errors/updates. Send people on a race with different mobile tools performing similar mapping tasks. Step away from the air photo and map the world from the ground! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Your opinion about SOTM US
Hey Richard - thanks for your feedback, let me see.. As for 1) we are planning a Workshop / Deep Dive track parallel to the hack day on Monday, very similar to what was going on at SotM EU last June. I really enjoyed being able to go back and forth from the hack room to the workshops, and judging from the audience a lot of people did, so that is something I would really like to copy :) By the way, I am looking for someone who can take the lead in organizing that track, perhaps that would be up your alley? (Or anyone else reading this?) Other than that, I would VERY MUCH like to have a track set aside for advanced mapping topics - which can be survey techniques (I really liked zverik's talk on car mapping for example), tagging, or advanced editor use, plugin development perhaps? It all depends on who actually submits talks on these topics, so please submit! On the other hand, your point 2) about people with no OSM background - we did a mapping 101 in DC led by Mele, http://openstreetmap.us/2014/04/intro-osm-workshop/ but I think you're thinking more about getting out and about. I don't know how good the immediate surroundings of the UN building are for that, but perhaps we can do an excursion on Monday in parallel with the hack day? Again, I would need for someone to step up and lead this, but perhaps someone from the local NYC community can do this. Or if you're thinking a talk, I think you would probably the perfect person to give it :) Martijn On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > Hey all, > [ ... ] > > The main thing I would like to know more about is the types of > > talks you would be interested in, or even specifically which people or > > organizations you would want to see a talk from. > > Easy! Same as I always ask / hope for. :-) > > 1) I want to see deeply technical / specialized presentations specific > to OpenStreetMap. Talks that wouldn't be suitable at > non-OpenStreetMap conferences. So, talks on optimizing a rendering > stack, a la SotM-EU. Or on tagging scheme alternatives, such as > SotM-Girona. > > 2) Given the audience at DC, I'd say you'll need a beginners track. > So many people I met there had no understanding of how to do a foot > survey, and no understanding of why that is the most valuable and > interesting data in the OpenStreetMap database. So, yeah. Some > really fundamental basics. Why and how to survey. > -- Martijn van Exel skype: mvexel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] spammy "survey" questions.
I'm no fan researchers sending messages to OpenStreetMap users via the messaging system. I consider them an intrusion. And I've complained about them here, before. There is another one making the rounds. Seems like there are more of these every time I turn around. I'd like to recommend that you "hack" any such attempts to survey the membership, unless the survey is organized by the OpenStreetMap Foundation. Hack them so that the "researcher" is loaded with bad data and so that future "researchers" are dis-incentivized from abusing the community. So how do we best hack research? You could ignore the survey and surveyor. Report them to DWG. They are spamming, after all. And we hate spammers. Report them to their university research ethics office. I earlier suggested that we retag their university as a day care or kindergarten. Or public toilet. But that would be wrong. Don't hack OpenStreetMap; hack the survey. Take the survey and give nonsense data. Be sure to use a proxy or TOR so they don't even get meta-data. Remove any identifying data if they provide a tracking link to the survey. Give a nonsense user name if they ask for it, some fictional character like like Dr. Liz or JohnSmith. Reply to all geographic related questions with "Null Island" or the equivalent in your national mapping scheme. Answer all quantity related questions with prime numbers. To be clear, there is great opportunity for OpenStreetMap to learn about itself through research. But that will have to be done in coordination with the Foundation and under our terms. This nonsense of some half-baked, clueless, noob[1], collecting data that they then keep secret, or monetize via one of their corporate overlords, just doesn't fly. Publishing results in a closed journal, just doesn't fly. They don't have to demonstrate the ignorance that they demonstrate. They could be following Muki's excellent code of engagement[2] but no. They never do. But hey, if you like pointless surveys, go ahead and answer them. If you like effective surveys, then go out and do a foot survey in your neighbourhood and improve OpenStreetMap data. See what I did there? "Survey", get it? :-) Best regards and happy mapping, Richard [1] full of good intentions, I'm sure. [2] https://povesham.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/observing-from-afar-or-joining-the-action-osm-and-giscience-research/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] spammy "survey" questions.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > I'm no fan researchers sending messages to OpenStreetMap users via the > messaging system. I consider them an intrusion. And I've complained > about them here, before. There is another one making the rounds. > Seems like there are more of these every time I turn around. > > I'd like to recommend that you "hack" any such attempts to survey the > membership, unless the survey is organized by the OpenStreetMap > Foundation. Hack them so that the "researcher" is loaded with bad > data and so that future "researchers" are dis-incentivized from > abusing the community. > Richard, I agree with you that we only want "officially supported" surveys. But I do not think we should hack the results. Instead of giving useless data, ask that the author first gain support from the community. We don't really want to alienate survey authors but instead turn them into good community members. Let's create a wiki page, much like for imports, with guidelines for conducting surveys. We could do this by responding to the survey request asking the author to follow community guidelines and asking that people not respond to the survey. Surveys can be a useful tool for improvement. I really hate to see OSM being considered hostile towards research. We should encourage research that will help us build better tools, understand our community better, and help us spread OSM. 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] spammy "survey" questions.
Hi, 2015-03-03 0:38 GMT+01:00 Richard Weait : > I'm no fan researchers sending messages to OpenStreetMap users via the > messaging system. I consider them an intrusion. And I've complained > about them here, before. There is another one making the rounds. > Seems like there are more of these every time I turn around. [...] > You could ignore the survey and surveyor. > Report them to DWG. They are spamming, after all. And we hate spammers. > Report them to their university research ethics office. > I earlier suggested that we retag their university as a day care or > kindergarten. Or public toilet. But that would be wrong. Don't hack > OpenStreetMap; hack the survey. I believe that if you consider this surveys to be "spam" you should do, IMHO, one of the following: 1) ignore it 2) report them as spam to the OSM Foundation 3) contact the author to say you consider this action to be spam I don't see how giving fake answers is going to help, but maybe it is just me or maybe you were just kidding. > To be clear, there is great opportunity for OpenStreetMap to learn > about itself through research. But that will have to be done in > coordination with the Foundation and under our terms. Out of curiosity, does the OSM Foundation have a policy in this respect? If no, I think it is a little to much to ask people to respect in advance a policy with does not exist yet. The Foundation has all the mean to adopt a clear policy with the consensus of the community and make it part of some "Terms of Use" of the OSM messaging system. For comparison, the Wikimedia Foundation has a Research portal on Meta wiki[1] and, for example, they can also provide access to non-public data (e.g. server logs) for research purposes but there are requirements[2] as for example the pubblication of results with an Open Access license. In short, don't wait for people to come up with a solution. propose a solution! There are examples available so it is not even that difficult. Cristian [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Access_to_non-public_data ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] spammy "survey" questions.
It's fun to be flippant amongst ourselves, where our sense of sarcasm is precisely tuned. But this screed isn't the message we should send to the outside world, to a person wondering what's up with the OpenStreetMap community. Surveys can be annoying. Maybe we want to have a protocol for them, instead of implicitly allowing them as we currently do. Let's figure that out instead of joking about ruining some PhD candidate's research. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Cristian Consonni wrote: > Hi, > > 2015-03-03 0:38 GMT+01:00 Richard Weait : > > I'm no fan researchers sending messages to OpenStreetMap users via the > > messaging system. I consider them an intrusion. And I've complained > > about them here, before. There is another one making the rounds. > > Seems like there are more of these every time I turn around. > > [...] > > > You could ignore the survey and surveyor. > > Report them to DWG. They are spamming, after all. And we hate spammers. > > Report them to their university research ethics office. > > I earlier suggested that we retag their university as a day care or > > kindergarten. Or public toilet. But that would be wrong. Don't hack > > OpenStreetMap; hack the survey. > > I believe that if you consider this surveys to be "spam" you should > do, IMHO, one of the following: > 1) ignore it > 2) report them as spam to the OSM Foundation > 3) contact the author to say you consider this action to be spam > > I don't see how giving fake answers is going to help, but maybe it is > just me or maybe you were just kidding. > > > To be clear, there is great opportunity for OpenStreetMap to learn > > about itself through research. But that will have to be done in > > coordination with the Foundation and under our terms. > > Out of curiosity, does the OSM Foundation have a policy in this respect? > If no, I think it is a little to much to ask people to respect in > advance a policy with does not exist yet. > The Foundation has all the mean to adopt a clear policy with the > consensus of the community and make it part of some "Terms of Use" of > the OSM messaging system. > > For comparison, the Wikimedia Foundation has a Research portal on Meta > wiki[1] and, for example, they can also provide access to non-public > data (e.g. server logs) for research purposes but there are > requirements[2] as for example the pubblication of results with an > Open Access license. > > In short, don't wait for people to come up with a solution. propose a > solution! There are examples available so it is not even that > difficult. > > Cristian > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Index > [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Access_to_non-public_data > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] spammy "survey" questions.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Tom MacWright wrote: > > Surveys can be annoying. Maybe we want to have a protocol for them, > instead of implicitly allowing them as we currently do > Let's figure that out instead of joking about ruining some PhD candidate's > research. > +1 for process *and* a limit (e.g. 6 per year). An osm community process could also help improve the survey questions: often the ones out the gate have horrid flaws. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] spammy "survey" questions.
Hi, On 03/03/15 07:43, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > +1 for process /and/ a limit (e.g. 6 per year). > > An osm community process could also help improve the survey questions: > often the ones out the gate have horrid flaws. Yes, too often researchers are unwilling to engage with their "subject" directly, preferring to watch from the outside - some might even believe that academic rigour requires it. I remember that Pascal Neis who has produced an interesting body of (Open Access) OSM research once told me that his impartialness as a researcher was occasioanlly questioned due to his personal involvement with OSM. I agree that some well defined process which might include an oversight rule for the OSMF would be good. Muki's code which Richard Weait has linked to is excellent (requiring, among other things, that the researcher does some mapping, discusses his findings with the community to avoid mistakes in interpretation, and publishes their work in Open Access journals). Bye Frederik PS: Researcher who triggered this particular thread has been politely asked to stop by DWG, and has since apologised and stopped. -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] spammy "survey" questions.
Hi, What if we ask not only to publish as open access the resulting work but also to give back to the community all raw material? We can create a section of the wiki to support researchers with a list of all old publications and surveys. Once they got involved in OSM we can unlock all previous surveys. I mean all answers and questions. Researchers can then reuse, improve them for their personal research objectives or update the older ones but they will not ask the same basic questions again and again. Bye Gianfranco Gianfranco Gliozzo: PhD student Twitter: @ggliozzo Mobile UK :+4407427182059 Mobile IT :+393479094594 Extreme Citizen Science (ExCiteS) research group Chorley Institute, Pearson Building University College London (UCL) Gower St. London WC1E 6BT On 3 March 2015 at 07:31, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 03/03/15 07:43, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > +1 for process /and/ a limit (e.g. 6 per year). > > > > An osm community process could also help improve the survey questions: > > often the ones out the gate have horrid flaws. > > Yes, too often researchers are unwilling to engage with their "subject" > directly, preferring to watch from the outside - some might even believe > that academic rigour requires it. I remember that Pascal Neis who has > produced an interesting body of (Open Access) OSM research once told me > that his impartialness as a researcher was occasioanlly questioned due > to his personal involvement with OSM. > > I agree that some well defined process which might include an oversight > rule for the OSMF would be good. Muki's code which Richard Weait has > linked to is excellent (requiring, among other things, that the > researcher does some mapping, discusses his findings with the community > to avoid mistakes in interpretation, and publishes their work in Open > Access journals). > > Bye > Frederik > > PS: Researcher who triggered this particular thread has been politely > asked to stop by DWG, and has since apologised and stopped. > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
