Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Mark Wagner]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:31:14 +0200
Tomas Straupis  wrote:

> 2018-12-17, pr, 11:00 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė:
> > for admin boundaries there will often be at least 2 "true" document
> > sources: one for each party / side. They are also often observable,
> > at least punctually.  
> 
>   I wonder, of those saying that it is a peace of cake to map country
> boundaries by physically observing different things on the ground, how
> many of them have actually practically MAPPED at least a tiny bit of
> country borders (say 50km?). If so, maybe they can come forward and
> tell everybody where exactly and how exactly they did that.

The US-Canada border was already well-mapped by the time I got here,
but somehow, I doubt I'd have any trouble mapping it from aerial
imagery:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/US-Canada_border_at_Crawford_State_Park_20130629.jpg

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-12-17 23:16, Steve Doerr wrote:

> On 17/12/2018 09:41, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> One other thing: in the UK the boundaries of the area and the local 
>> authority running that area are two different things. A local authority can 
>> run a combination of adjacent admin areas; some admin areas are defined in 
>> law without there being a local authority; and some admin areas are legally 
>> shared between councils. What we have in the official sources (e.g. OS 
>> Boundary-Line) shows the geometry of the areas, but it tells you nothing 
>> about the authority/ies "running" that area.
> 
> Hi, Colin. I'm British and I have no idea what you're talking about here. 
> Could you quote some examples that I could relate to?

Sure Steve. 

The laws (often SIs) that create an "admin boundary" do exactly that -
they define the boundary. In the case of counties and districts, which
are created by primary legislation, it is defined that there must be a
council. One of the embryonic council's first jobs is to decide on a
name: are we called "X Borough Council" or "Borough of X" (assuming
borough status) or something else? 

Think of Civil Parishes. There are many examples of Joint (or Group)
Parish Councils which operate in N (>1) civil parishes as a single
entity. The underlying parishes are what is defined in law, in terms of
their boundaries, and the information that they share a council is not
part of the definition of their boundaries. In Swale district,
Sheldwich,  Badlesmere and Leaveland Civil Parishes share a parish
council.  

Not all defined Civil Parishes have a council. Some smaller (in terms of
population) parishes make do with a Parish Meeting, in which essentially
all the electors are "councillors". In Maidstone borough, the parish of
Frinsted has only a Parish Meeting. 

There are a few examples of so-called "Lands Common" which are areas of
land which officially belong to 2 or more Civil Parishes, and are
therefore governed by multiple Parish Councils. The land concerned is
usually sparsely populated, or unpopulated, and the councils find a way
of working together when required. These are located in Devon, Yorkshire
and County Durham. 

And of course, there are many "unparished areas" (often in urban areas)
which do not fall within the boundary of a Civil Parish at all (e.g.
Gravesend and Northfleet). 

Thinking bigger: The non-metropolitan county of Berkshire exists,
although it does not have a council (the entire land area is divided up
into Unitary Authorities). In theory this situation applies to e.g.
Rutland and Herefordshire as well, but in this case the entire county
has been "divided" into a single Unitary Authority (which also calls
itself "Herefordshire County Council" / "Rutland County Council") so it
is not so noticeable. 

Hence, looking at a single point and establishing which OSBL polygons
contain it, does not tell you which councils have some role for that
location. 

Does that help? 
Colin___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence for Sentinel Satellite images

[Paul Norman]

On 2018-12-17 11:13 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
My understanding was a benediction by the Legal Working Group can be 
taken as the highest "official" approval although I understand there 
is a small backlog of licenses awaiting.



The LWG has not historically looked at data licences. There have a been 
a couple cases like CC BY 4.0 where there have been external reasons for 
them to get involved, but they have been the exception, not the rule.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Steve Doerr]

On 17/12/2018 09:41, Colin Smale wrote:
One other thing: in the UK the boundaries of the area and the local 
authority running that area are two different things. A local 
authority can run a combination of adjacent admin areas; some admin 
areas are defined in law without there being a local authority; and 
some admin areas are legally shared between councils. What we have in 
the official sources (e.g. OS Boundary-Line) shows the geometry of the 
areas, but it tells you nothing about the authority/ies "running" that 
area.



Hi, Colin. I'm British and I have no idea what you're talking about 
here. Could you quote some examples that I could relate to?



--

Steve


---
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

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence for Sentinel Satellite images

[John Whelan]

My understanding was a benediction by the Legal Working Group can be 
taken as the highest "official" approval although I understand there is 
a small backlog of licenses awaiting.


Different parts of the world spell licence or license differently by the 
way. The UK uses licence and the US uses license.


Cheerio John

Christoph Hormann wrote on 2018-12-17 2:03 PM:

On Monday 17 December 2018, Sérgio V. wrote:

So I should understand this as Copernicus Sentinel Data confirmed for
use in OSM, since it is officially in the list of data contributors.
(BTW, sorry for typo in title, "License")

There is no such thing as official approval or confirmation in OSM but
there is no reason to assume there to be any legal issues.



--
Sent from Postbox 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence for Sentinel Satellite images

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-12-17 19:40, Sérgio V. wrote:

> (BTW, sorry for typo in title, "License")

I see no typo in the title... Licence is the correct English spelling
:-)___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence for Sentinel Satellite images

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 17 December 2018, Sérgio V. wrote:
> So I should understand this as Copernicus Sentinel Data confirmed for
> use in OSM, since it is officially in the list of data contributors.
> (BTW, sorry for typo in title, "License")

There is no such thing as official approval or confirmation in OSM but 
there is no reason to assume there to be any legal issues.

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence for Sentinel Satellite images

[Sérgio V .]

>This has been discussed before, see:
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#EU_Copernicus_.28GMES.29_data
>...
>Christoph Hormann

Thanks Christoph,
So I should understand this as Copernicus Sentinel Data confirmed for use in 
OSM, since it is officially in the list of data contributors.
(BTW, sorry for typo in title, "License")


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sérgio - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/smaprs
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Licence for Sentinel Satellite images

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 17 December 2018, Sérgio V. wrote:
> Hi,
> please, could the OSM Data or License Working Group confirm if:

This has been discussed before, see:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#EU_Copernicus_.28GMES.29_data

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2016-January/thread.html#8353

Sentinel-2 data is being widely used by mappers meanwhile - in 
particular the Russian community is mapping a lot based on this.

Essentially for almost any armchair mapping activities recent optical 
open data imagery - either Sentinel-2 or Landsat - will provide you 
with additional information that is useful for improving the accuracy 
and reliability of mapping.

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

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

[OSM-talk] Licence for Sentinel Satellite images

[Sérgio V .]

Hi,
please, could the OSM Data or License Working Group confirm if:

it's ok to use Sentinel Satellite data 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sentinel-2) "as background for tracing or 
any other purpose for OSM"?

As it is refered in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sentinel-2#Usage
to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ff5722/Using_Sentinel-2_imagery
"Sentinel-2 satellite data is licenced suitably to be used as background for 
tracing or any other purpose for OSM"
that refers to:
https://sentinel.esa.int/documents/247904/690755/Sentinel_Data_Legal_Notice

If ok, would it be enough referencing it's use in the source of the changeset 
comment?
Like "source:image=Sentinel..."

It would be usefull for tracing updated landcover, large areas or large roads. 
It's almost daily updated.
Not usefull for small scale detailed mapping, since it's limited to 10m/px.

Thank you in advance,


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sérgio - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/smaprs
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-12-17 14:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 17. Dec 2018, at 13:31, Tomas Straupis  wrote:
>> 
>> Especially interesting and useful would be stories of how maritime
>> boundaries or boundaries with no considerable obstructions built have
>> been actually mapped by physical observation.
> 
> as these are claims you can't observe them, you have to rely on the baseline 
> that the claiming country provides/defines and extend it by the buffer that 
> is claimed.

Aren't these maritime boundaries deposited with the UN under UNCLOS[1]?
Once that has been done, I would expect that it would be THAT version
that is most definitive, and no longer the drafts etc. made by the
claiming country. 

[1] http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/index.htm___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Dec 2018, at 13:31, Tomas Straupis  wrote:
> 
> Especially interesting and useful would be stories of how maritime
> boundaries or boundaries with no considerable obstructions built have
> been actually mapped by physical observation.


as these are claims you can’t observe them, you have to rely on the baseline 
that the claiming country provides/defines and extend it by the buffer that is 
claimed.


Please notice there is a difference in saying mapping something is a piece of 
cake, and saying it is possible to punctually verify it on the ground. While it 
is probably not possible to survey all borders on all points, the opposite 
construct that it is never possible isn’t true either. 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Tomas Straupis]

2018-12-17, pr, 11:00 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė:
> for admin boundaries there will often be at least 2 "true" document
> sources: one for each party / side. They are also often observable,
> at least punctually.

  I wonder, of those saying that it is a peace of cake to map country
boundaries by physically observing different things on the ground, how
many of them have actually practically MAPPED at least a tiny bit of
country borders (say 50km?). If so, maybe they can come forward and
tell everybody where exactly and how exactly they did that.

  Especially interesting and useful would be stories of how maritime
boundaries or boundaries with no considerable obstructions built have
been actually mapped by physical observation.

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 17. Dez. 2018 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale <
colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:

> On 2018-12-17 09:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
> Am Sa., 15. Dez. 2018 um 16:09 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale <
> colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:
>
>> "without access to the same sources" ... what if there is only one source
>> of truth? With these non-observable items like admin boundaries that is
>> often the case.
>>
>
>
> for admin boundaries there will often be at least 2 "true" document
> sources: one for each party / side. They are also often observable, at
> least punctually.
>
>
> Looking at the UK position, I have to disagree with you here. Definitive
> admin boundaries are administered by a "higher level". The two parties to a
> common boundary do not have the authority to define the boundary
> unilaterally.
>


It will depend on the jurisdiction, agreed. I don't know how globally the
majority situation is, but having disputes of municipalities about their
common border is definitely not something completely unheard of, e.g. here
an example from Switzerland:
https://www.rr.be.ch/etc/designs/gr/media.cdwsbinary.RRDOKUMENTE.acq/cf8d94f08bbb4e268658792ba1068cbf-332/3/PDF/2018.RRGR.581-RRB_gescannt-DF-173681.pdf

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-12-17 09:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> Am Sa., 15. Dez. 2018 um 16:09 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale 
> : 
> 
>> "without access to the same sources" ... what if there is only one source of 
>> truth? With these non-observable items like admin boundaries that is often 
>> the case.
> 
> for admin boundaries there will often be at least 2 "true" document sources: 
> one for each party / side. They are also often observable, at least 
> punctually.

Looking at the UK position, I have to disagree with you here. Definitive
admin boundaries are administered by a "higher level". The two parties
to a common boundary do not have the authority to define the boundary
unilaterally. The "higher level" will tell them where there boundaries
are. Both parties refer to a single legal document (primary or secondary
legislation). So there is only one true source, but a variety of way of
getting there. You could ask each party for their understanding of where
the boundary is, but they don't own that information, they inherit it.
They should both point you at the same Statutory Instrument. 

There are legal processes for making changes to boundaries, which
sometimes have to be managed and/or reviewed by the LGBCE (Local
government boundary commission for England) or equivalent bodies in the
other nations. The result of the consulation process is a recommendation
to "change the law" which, on coming into force, becomes binding on the
parties named in the Statutory Instrument. 

One other thing: in the UK the boundaries of the area and the local
authority running that area are two different things. A local authority
can run a combination of adjacent admin areas; some admin areas are
defined in law without there being a local authority; and some admin
areas are legally shared between councils. What we have in the official
sources (e.g. OS Boundary-Line) shows the geometry of the areas, but it
tells you nothing about the authority/ies "running" that area.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:barrier=kerb

[Warin]

On 17/12/18 19:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



Am Fr., 14. Dez. 2018 um 17:09 Uhr schrieb Bryan Housel 
mailto:bhou...@gmail.com>>:


The arrows indicate the “down” direction alongside certain kinds
of ways.
For example, cliffs, coastlines, retaining walls, kerbs, guard
rails, embankments.




is this also highlighting steps directions?


The drafting standards for stairs have an arrow pointing up ... just to 
aid confusion, sorry.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Sa., 15. Dez. 2018 um 16:09 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale <
colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>:

> "without access to the same sources" ... what if there is only one source
> of truth? With these non-observable items like admin boundaries that is
> often the case.
>


for admin boundaries there will often be at least 2 "true" document
sources: one for each party / side. They are also often observable, at
least punctually.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:barrier=kerb

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 14. Dez. 2018 um 17:09 Uhr schrieb Bryan Housel :

> The arrows indicate the “down” direction alongside certain kinds of ways.
> For example, cliffs, coastlines, retaining walls, kerbs, guard rails,
> embankments.
>



is this also highlighting steps directions?

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