Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
On 19/08/15 01:36, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > Be carefull not to mix up database history and real-world history. > Database history keeps track of the mapping process, as geometry gets > refined, details get added, and blunders get reverted. World history > tracks what the world was like at a specific point in time. OHM has to > keep track of both, but OSM is (at least for now) only concerned about > db history. 98% of the history that we are looking to manage properly is currently existing in OSM. All that is needed is to add start dates to the bulk of the existing data. Personally I have no intention of managing THAT separately to the main OSM database. The SMALL amount of material that is a result of new development work invariably maps into currently existing objects. Insisting that this data is only available for rendering purposes in a second database is just wrong, and even worse, the 98% of the supporting data exists in OSM so why maintain a second copy of it. ALTHOUGH transferring material that for one user is a 'deletion' TO a backup copy on a second database is the alternative here but that is far more complex than simply tidying up object history IN OSM itself. YES development history of the data is different to the evolution of the objects on the ground, and in the FIRST instance it is those objects which are being mapped in OSM. And new material should have it's start_date and that is independent of when it was added to the map. THAT is why the history contained in the change log is different to the history of the evolution of an object on the ground! Overlaying the physical model of the world is additional material which like much of the secondary data is much better provided as overlays, and I count things like shop names, contact details and the movement of some military battle in that category so such material DOES need a clean ID in OSM which can access the current state of the secondary data. The history of changes to that are not a job for OSM although that may well be contained in the change log ... but mixed up with the 'editing' history. This part of the model does need fixing now since it IS broken and the longer we go on adding material without also maintaining it's physical history the more data is also being lost each day. Material such as 'abandoned railroads' is simply part of that evolution of physical data. The volume of data involved is much less than some of the third party data already swamping the database so what is the problem simply properly tracking stop_date in existing rendering and leaving the evolutionary data in tact with the current material? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
On 08/16/2015 03:11 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Also I have the impression that, contrary to what you're saying, at > least some proponents of abandoned railway mapping find it totally ok to > map an abandoned railway that "leads through" a modern day housing > development. For the record, I deleted an abandoned railway that leads through a new housing development, because it didn't make any sense to leave it there. Satellite images clearly show ground gradings indicating an abandoned railway. IIRC, it was also featured in century-old county atlases. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/42.4165/-88.5338 In a related note, Zink Road USED to continue east over camp creek, there's even an iron bridge to prove it, but there's no road there now. So, why should it be on the map? (It's not.) http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/42.2278/-90.1019 I'd love to see a site dedicated to historical mapping, but that's not the point of OSM. Although, OSM software could be used to implement it. cheers, glenn ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
For those that did not check on Mateusz Konieczny diary entries[1], postings to this mailing list and github discussions then the Proposed Great Colour Shift might come as a surprise if it is implemented. According to the github discussion there is an "overwhelming consensus" [2] on moving from current rainbow colour scheme for roads to a red-yellow only scheme. I am unsure of where this overwhelming consensus formed because I never saw it on this mailing list nor on talk-dev nor on announcements, I admit to be an infrequent IRC user but I didn't see this overwhelming consensus there and so far no one has been able to tell me where it formed or where I can find it. The design goal seems straight forward, to discontinue green and blue for roads and move to red and reddish. For this to happen the decision was made to shift current primary, secondary and tertiary colours "upwards" so primary is now the colour of secondary and secondary the colour of tertiary. Leaving tertiary white. Tertiary instead gets to be wider than residential and unclassified roads, but to be able to spot that you need to have it next to them to see which is the wider one. This one simple change of bleaching tertiary however is something I find to be a great hindrance to mapping efforts, particularly in rural areas where the roads are isolated and panning over the map, wether in iD or using default tiles. Currently it is easy to spot tertiary roads snaking through valleys and over vast desert plains, they are yellow and the non tertiary roads are white. Tertiary is significant there as it denotes the roads between the villages and towns that are often unpaved but still the most important, even the only, road. Lesser white colours imply the roads not being between larger settlements although they could lead to hamlets. The guidelines for mapping in Africa state thus. Removing the colour from tertiary makes all mapping that much harder to verify and quality check. Currently it is easy to see if a tertiary road is broken with a white unclassified bridge, not so in the proposed Great Colour Shift. Mateusz has been forthcoming with all changes and done sterling work in displaying different areas and how they will look. But he acknowledges that this change is not beneficial everywhere on the map and now has a disclaimer: "Among potential problems are that it is now harder to recognise road type of given road, especially in situation where there is no possibility to compare it with other road types. Such significant change will be confusing for current users of this style. UK color coding of roads is well known for many people, for them a new style - even assuming that it would be intuitive for them - will be less useful.)" The question really arises if this change is beneficial or not for the project. Many hours have gone into it and doing CartoCSS on all these zoom levels is not trivial. But this is a major shift on the front page of our website, a blow to those who use the default tiles through uMap or similarly and depend on the UK rainbow road style and makes life harder for mappers to visually confirm the type of road. Should this be a new, alternative style instead? [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586 [2] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1736#issuecomment-130592532 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
Glenn Powers writes: > For the record, I deleted an abandoned railway that leads through a new > housing development, because it didn't make any sense to leave it there. > > Satellite images clearly show ground gradings indicating an abandoned > railway. IIRC, it was also featured in century-old county atlases. I don't understand. You're saying that you could see the railroad on satellite imagery, and you deleted it rather than marking it as railway=dismantled?? I'm NOT in favor of incorrectly tagging railways. Not at all. If a section of it is dismantled, then by all means mark it as dismantled. Go ahead. Don't let me stop you from improving the map. But deleting it? That isn't improving the map data, it's destroying it. Why is that so hard for people to understand? You don't make the map better by deleting true things out of it. "I can see the railway at point A, I can see it at point B, I can't see it inbetween, I'm going to mark it as dismantled." THAT is perfectly fine. But deleting it? Whyever in the world would you do that? Seriously, folks, I don't understand the impulse to delete rather than tag correctly. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
moltonel 3x Combo writes: > The demolished: prefix only makes sense when there is something left > of the former feature, typically rubble (useful for example to alert > boattripers of the hazard). When there is nothing left in reality, > there should be nothing left in OSM. Question: should we tag the aqueduct underneath Sunrise Highway between Aqueduct Raceway and Freeport, NY? > Deleting an object is hardly different from editing it as far as > osm history is concerned. Except that deletion excises it from the database that you see when make an API call. In the case of dismantled railways, that is not accurate. There *is* a dismantled railway there, and you can tell because the railway was at point A and at point B, and you can still see it there, and so you should expect to see it in-between. Is that a difficult concept to understand? I can point to various unfinished railroads in NY where part was built (and is in OSM, because you can see it), and part was never built (which isn't in OSM, because it was never created). Contrast that with a dismantled railway, which *is* in OSM, marking the location where it was dismantled. I understand that most people don't give a crap about map feature X, Y, and Z. I get it, really I do. I look at things in OSM myself and wonder "why the hell did you map that?? Who cares??" And when it comes to railways, there's a lot of people who don't give a crap. Fine. Go ahead. Don't care. But I do. So don't delete the things that I (and other railfans) have added. Is that *really* too much to ask? Really?? From whence comes this impulse to destroy other people's work? Cuz it seems pretty anti-community, anti-mapper, and anti-OSM. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
moltonel 3x Combo writes: > To me the distinguishing criteria between disused and abandoned is > wether the rails are still present or not. Indeed. disused means the rails are still there. Abandoned means that the rails are gone. Dismantled (or some people use razed) is when a section of the railbad cannot be seen. Railways that were never there, placed by mistake, should be deleted. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
moltonel 3x Combo writes: > I do empathise with Russ being angered at his work being deleted > without discussion. Not any happier if it gets deleted after discussion either. I brought my data (I started mapping railways in 2004) to OSM because I thought that the community was friendly to abandoned railways. Really, decidedly unhappy if people are deleting data older than OSM. > But it's equally annoying and tiring to repeatedly encounter the > ludicrous kind of railway=abandoned, Then tag it as railway=dismantled. You won't find me defending incorrect tagging of anything. But you don't hear me being annoyed or tired by finding data that I dislike, do you? Perhaps we could all be less annoyed and tired by what other people map? -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
Frederik Ramm writes: > Also I have the impression that, contrary to what you're saying, at > least some proponents of abandoned railway mapping find it totally ok to > map an abandoned railway that "leads through" a modern day housing > development. "Abandoned"? No. Dismantled? Yes. Now, I must admit that I have added a lot of abandoned railways that really ought to be dismantled in places. At the time, it wasn't an issue. Definitely I can clean up my data, and I'm willing to do that. The trouble is that I'm being threatened with having my contributions deleted! DELETED! Why incentive do I have to correctly tag, when people are saying "Go ahead, I'm just going to delete it anyway and I'm going to encourage other people to do the same thing." And indeed, rather than doing that, I've been adding lakes and ponds and rivers and streams in NY. These have been multi-year projects for me. If, IF, I can get agreement from people that they won't delete dismantled railways, I will go through each and every railway=abandoned in NY and re-tag them as dismantled as needed. It will be a multi-year project, but I'm good for it. Here's a perfect example of how a railway should be mapped: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/42.92237423246795/-75.8534094581493 You've got a railway going through a "modern day housing development". The railway is a foot/bike path on the north side of the development, visible in the back yards going through the development, and on the south side of the development. It's been bulldozed, dismantled, razed where houses were built. Some people think the railway should be deleted. That makes a hash, a mishmash, a farrago, of the relation which is the railway. Rather than having a nice neat set of connected ways, you have a way here and a way there, everywhere a way, way. It's simply true, and makes OSM better, to say that the railway has, for those stretches, one 130 meters and another 300 meters, been dismantled. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
moltonel writes: > The existence of ohm is a strong aknowlegement that osm is only for > the present. Russ, you're an expert in old railroads, but think of > all the other old things you could be an expert of. If all the > niche experts When they show up, we can have a discussion. In the meantime, I'm here, and many other mappers map abandoned and dismantled railways, and we would like to NOT HAVE YOU FRICK WITH OUR STUFF. > In the meantime, please only map the present in osm. A dismantled railway has been dismantled in the present. You can go and look at it and verify that yes, indeed, it has been dismantled. And then you can go down the block and see where it hasn't been dismantled. It's simply ridiculous to expect OSM clients to have to go from one database to another and back within the course of a few hundred meters. Maybe, as you suggest, some day it won't be ridiculous. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
sent from a phone > Am 19.08.2015 um 20:06 schrieb Glenn Powers : > > For the record, I deleted an abandoned railway that leads through a new > housing development, because it didn't make any sense to leave it there. > > Satellite images clearly show ground gradings indicating an abandoned > railway. What was the situation on the ground? Were you able to take some photos? Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
