Re: [OSM-talk] iD news: v1.9.6 released

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 18 giu 2016, alle ore 03:44, Minh Nguyen 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> I see no problem with the semantics in
> .


if you wanted, you could see problems also there: it is at the same time: 
"abandoned village, town or city, usually one which contains substantial 
visible remains" and is a subclass of "abandoned village", shouldn't it be the 
opposite, abandoned village a subclass of ghost towns?

abandoned village is covered (?) by the German article "Wüstung" which is a 
word for an abandoned settlement or deserted site (de:Wirtschaftsfläche, i.e. 
it is much broader in scope): 
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q350895
the languages af and nl seem to be similar to the German version.

This is a maze, with significant differences between Wikipedia articles in 
different languages alone, and in comparison with wikidata, and the attached 
semantics in wikidata. Almost any time you look at an wikidata item there are 
issues and content level contradictions. Yes, most of this is to be found in WP 
as well, but the difference is that an article is not machine readable, and a 
human will more likely know how to interpret the information.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] iD news: v1.9.6 released

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 18 giu 2016, alle ore 03:44, Minh Nguyen 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> I'm familiar with our guidelines on automatic edits, but I find it a stretch
> to apply them here. iD is essentially inserting an alternative, more stable
> representation of a title the mapper specifically chose. This is no more
> automatic than an editor silently deleting TIGER tags upon touching a node,
> filling in the `source` tag of a changeset based on the imagery layers used,
> or stripping spaces after semicolons in tags.


I think wikidata objects are somehow more serious than Wikipedia articles, 
because the latter require interpretation with a grain of salt, while wikidata 
appears to be mathematically precise descriptions of things and the 
relationship between them. This difference is way bigger than spaces or not 
after semicolons, or the removal of meaningless or redundant tags (tiger), as 
we have seen there are substantial differences on a semantic level.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

[Marco Boeringa]

Martin,

I have now added a type=building relation to group the Pantheon's Simple 
3D features in a logical way. It is this relation: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6325840.


I added the "outline" role to the multipolygon representing the 
building's footprint, and added the "part" role to all building:part 
features in the relation. This is how a properly formed Simple 3D 
building should be tagged.


As you can see now on the OpenStreetMap website, whatever part you 
click, you can now navigate "upwards" to the parent type=building 
relation, to see which features are all parts of the building, and then 
move "downwards" to the feature with the "outline" role to get to the 
actual building tags. I hope you agree that navigating the buildings 
individual parts, and finding the actual feature that carries the 
buildings tags (which should always be the closed way or multipolygon 
with the outline role), is now fare easier.


I still wish though that the main OpenStreetMap website's interface 
would stop showing the senseless individual nodes or ways links first 
when you select a feature, and put relation links on top instead. This 
would make it even more obvious that there is a parent building relation 
present. Now, you sometimes need to scroll down considerably, to get to 
the relation links. In my opinion, the hierarchy of nodes/ways/relations 
should be reversed in the display on the website. I have never 
understood the choice for the current display / order, it is just not 
logical for navigation.


Marco

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

[OSM-talk] Released MapContrib 0.8.0

[Frédéric Rodrigo]

Hello,

I am pleased to announce the release of version 0.8.0 of MapContrib : 
https://github.com/MapContrib/MapContrib


MapContrib is a web thematic editor to OpenStreetMap. It is simple, 
universal (works on all devices) and mobile (go test it in the street!)


From a user perspective, this release brings among others:

- A homepage with search engine and a list of the themes put ahead to 
the arrival of visitors

- The fact of not having to click twice to create a theme ^^
- Add the plugin MarkerCluster, it use to group markers when they are 
too many in the same area
- Being able to choose the geocoder when theme created: Nominatim or 
Photon (default)

- Free edit of tags
- Tags filter on submission
- Various fixes and improvements

The next version will bring, among other things, a cache system to not 
longer run to many overpass queries.


You can now test / use / share the tool with


http://www.mapcontrib.xyz


Note: I'm not the author, I just forward the news.

Frédéric.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Released MapContrib 0.8.0

[Simone Cortesi]

I really like it.

It would really be nice to be able to do thematic mapping with this tool.
i.e. being able to add OSM nodes for missing items of that theme.

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Frédéric Rodrigo
 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am pleased to announce the release of version 0.8.0 of MapContrib :
> https://github.com/MapContrib/MapContrib
>
> MapContrib is a web thematic editor to OpenStreetMap. It is simple,
> universal (works on all devices) and mobile (go test it in the street!)
>
> From a user perspective, this release brings among others:
>
> - A homepage with search engine and a list of the themes put ahead to the
> arrival of visitors
> - The fact of not having to click twice to create a theme ^^
> - Add the plugin MarkerCluster, it use to group markers when they are too
> many in the same area
> - Being able to choose the geocoder when theme created: Nominatim or Photon
> (default)
> - Free edit of tags
> - Tags filter on submission
> - Various fixes and improvements
>
> The next version will bring, among other things, a cache system to not
> longer run to many overpass queries.
>
> You can now test / use / share the tool with
>
>
> http://www.mapcontrib.xyz
>
>
> Note: I'm not the author, I just forward the news.
>
> Frédéric.
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



-- 
-S

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

Re: [OSM-talk] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 18 giu 2016, alle ore 12:36, Marco Boeringa 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> I have now added a type=building relation to group the Pantheon's Simple 3D 
> features in a logical way ... I hope you agree that navigating the 
> buildings individual parts, and finding the actual feature that carries the 
> buildings tags (which should always be the closed way or multipolygon with 
> the outline role), is now fare easier.


yes, thank you, this is indeed a significant improvement and should be 
encouraged for all 3d mapping of buildings.

I'm undecided whether this approach should also be applied to non-building 
stuff like the Trajan's Column or the obelisk at St.Peter's Square. These 
aren't buildings (but as they are mapped as building parts, the situation isn't 
all that different). Either these parts should get different tags, or the same 
kind of logical grouping should be used?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

[Janko Mihelić]

I'm glad this topic is being discussed. Firstly, we have two incompatible
tagging schemes: 3D buildings and indoor tagging. Try to imagine a building
having these two sets of shapes and tags. It can't be done without entirely
new tools. Those tools would have nothing to do with maps.

I think the solution, at least for complicated buildings, is a new
database. Something like 3D Warehouse by Google[1]. There you could model
those buildings in a dedicated opensource tool, add textures to 3D models,
use photos for textures, and a lot of things you can't do in OSM. A
different database could have plans of buildings, and you could  draw
corridors, tables, doors and windows in the dedicated application. Then
link to those objects in OSM.

If Wikipedia has sister projects like Wikiquotes, Wikibooks, Wikivoyage,
why wouldn't we have something like this? Why do we have to cram everything
into OSM?

[1] - https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/

Janko

sub, 18. lip 2016. u 23:06 Martin Koppenhoefer 
napisao je:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Il giorno 18 giu 2016, alle ore 12:36, Marco Boeringa <
> ma...@boeringa.demon.nl> ha scritto:
> >
> > I have now added a type=building relation to group the Pantheon's Simple
> 3D features in a logical way ... I hope you agree that navigating the
> buildings individual parts, and finding the actual feature that carries the
> buildings tags (which should always be the closed way or multipolygon with
> the outline role), is now fare easier.
>
>
> yes, thank you, this is indeed a significant improvement and should be
> encouraged for all 3d mapping of buildings.
>
> I'm undecided whether this approach should also be applied to non-building
> stuff like the Trajan's Column or the obelisk at St.Peter's Square. These
> aren't buildings (but as they are mapped as building parts, the situation
> isn't all that different). Either these parts should get different tags, or
> the same kind of logical grouping should be used?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> 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] 3D somehow not compatible with our map and editing concepts / capabilities?

[Simon Poole]

Am 18.06.2016 um 23:26 schrieb Janko Mihelić:
> I'm glad this topic is being discussed. Firstly, we have two
> incompatible tagging schemes: 3D buildings and indoor tagging. Try to
> imagine a building having these two sets of shapes and tags.
The tagging schemes aren't incompatible (matter of fact we took care to
avoid tag name conflicts with S3DB in SIT), the truth of the matter is
that except for very simple buildings with simple room layouts the
constituent geometries of the real world objects that are being mapped
tend to have little to do with each other and for that reason can't be
reused (and that problem is not going to go away).

The topic of having an external 3D model facility is not new but hasn't
seem to resulted in anything concrete.

Simon






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk