Re: [OSM-talk] Google deletes map of Kurdistan - can we do better?
Hi, On 10.01.19 22:36, Andreas Vilén wrote: > However there > doesn't seem to be any map that covers the entire area. I don't know what you mean. Of course OSM covers the entire area? Bye Frederik -- 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] Editing road geometry Australia
On 2019-01-11 07:16, Petra Rajka - (p) wrote: Since January we started to work on road geometry in Canberra, Perth and Melbourne and we came across some intersections where roads (turn lanes) are mapped separately even where there is no physical divider or chevron markings. See below two cases where we would simplify the geometry: * -32.0914374, 116.0129206 Is seen no big problem in how the roads are layed out there. Coming from the motorway there is a clear divider where the offramp connects to the Albany Highway. I have more problems with the tags of the on- and offramp. They are mapped as motorway when they should be mapped as motorway_link. The two bridges in the on- and offramp are mapped as motorway_link. * -35.3409195, 149.1616891 Ways 77001149 and 77000891 should IMHO not be mapped like that but mapped with turn:lanes. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Editing road geometry Australia
Hi everyone, I'm Petra and I am part of the mapping team at Telenav. Since January we started to work on road geometry in Canberra, Perth and Melbourne and we came across some intersections where roads (turn lanes) are mapped separately even where there is no physical divider or chevron markings. See below two cases where we would simplify the geometry: * -32.0914374, 116.0129206 * -35.3409195, 149.1616891 What's your opinion about? What is the reason why turn lanes are mapped separately in these cases? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
Hi Guillaume, DWG, Thanks for the conclusion. I asked in a different email on this thread to post this on the OSMF web site, to have a permanent, immutable copy that we can refer to when it comes to enforcing / disputes. I am a confused about the statement 'not following the organised editing guidelines isn’t an offence per se'. I am trying to make a connection with what you said in the October 2018 board meeting: 'The DWG is going to enforce [the guidelines] just as it enforces anything else which comes from community consensus'[1]. If the guidelines are going to be enforced, could you add some clarity to the decision making process? Who decides when non-compliance becomes an offense and on what criteria? How serious of an offense, or how many, would it take to be banned? Martijn [1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-10-18#Guidelines_contain_prescriptive_statements -- Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 08:31, Guillaume Rischard wrote: > The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised > Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines > > I'm happy to answer any questions here. In the meanwhile, here's my > updated report. > > We at DWG are, first of all, thankful for all the constructive input we > have received, from the advisory board, the humanitarian mapping > initiatives and the mapping community. > > The organised editing guidelines took a lot of work to prepare. We > received and integrated a lot of feedback to reflect consensus and > existing good practice. > > We looked at what similar policies would exist, on OSM or in other > organisations. I believe that no other project, open or proprietary, > has faced this exact issue before. On OSM, contributors generally > understand the current policies on automated edits and imports. We > wrote the organised editing guidelines in a similar way, while adopting > a slightly softer approach – not following the organised editing > guidelines isn’t an offence per se. Elsewhere, Wikipedia has numerous > policies some vaguely similar, but the problems they face are quite > different, and their policies tend to be a lot more complex. > > Internally, we looked back at past problematic edits. We carefully > wrote the guidelines and defined the scope to prevent those problems > without creating loopholes or negative incentives like encouraging > salami tactics. They are not meant to apply to community activities > like mapping parties between friends or making a presentation on OSM at > a local club, but only to ‘sizeable, substantial’ activities. We wanted > something that doesn’t scare casual events off while letting us > regulate a geography class gone berserk or a misguided volunteer > mapathon. > > We also didn’t want to set hard limits in stone since they would have > to go back to the Board constantly if we need to refine exactly what > falls under the guidelines. > > Humanitarian activities deserve our fullest support. We therefore > adapted the guidelines for them, both implicitly, by requiring only a > best-effort approach, and explicitly, by exempting emergencies from the > two-week discussion period. Some humanitarian edits have been > problematic before, and the guidelines are easy to follow; a blanket > exemption would send the wrong signal. > > We saw the amount of corporate good will at SotM, the tensions in the > community, and the (dis)organised edits that mappers have referred to > us. It is good for everyone that those guidelines are now online on the > wiki. Good actors, existing and new, will be able to trust clear > expectations. The community will be confident that this is the > consensus that will be respected. Confused newcomers will get a > blueprint for a successful organised edit. > > We wrote guidelines that are easy to read and follow and provide > clarity on how good organised edits should run without having a > chilling effect on them. > > I’m glad that this project is now concluded, and am convinced that it > will be a good thing both for OSM and for the OSM community. > > Guillaume > ___ > 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] Google deletes map of Kurdistan - can we do better?
Hi!
The Turkish government has forced Google to delete a user made map of
Kurdistan. I read this in a Swedish news article here:
https://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/google-raderade-kurdistan-karta/ This is
the best English source I can find:
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/google-forced-to-delete-custom-made-map-of-kurdistan-amid-pressure-from-turkey/
They were forced to delete it for Turkish citizens but chose to delete it
completely anyway ("technical reasons"), but have since restored it for the
rest of the world:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?ie=UTF8&t=h&oe=UTF8&msa=0&mid=1umTU2XPOmzQ245YY40dF_NNTpVc&ll=36.21402763739052%2C39.249140445657076&z=9
This got me thinking: how does OSM display Kurdistan? It seems, we don't.
This relation covers the Iranian province of Kurdistan:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5392650 However there doesn't seem
to be any map that covers the entire area.
I realize that it might be hard to map this since the region has no
official border, right? I have no local knowledge at all, so I'm really
just rising the topic for discussion. Also, there's no way to know if the
Turkish government will crack down on OSMF if we do this.
Opinions?
Regards Andreas
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
Hi, Could you please put the version that was approved up at https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines ? As it is now, the text as approved is available at https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/1/13/Organised_editing_guidelines_version_20180908.pdf (I assume this is the same text), but since it is an official OSMF document now, it should really be discoverable under https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Policies_and_other_Documents. -- Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 13:35, Paul Norman wrote: > On 2019-01-10 10:19 a.m., Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Since it is on the OSM wiki and there is no statement indicating > > otherwise does this mean we can start improving the guidelines now?;-) > > > If you can edit them to be closer to the text approved by the OSMF board ;) > > We just discussed this internally, the reason we've got them on the > publicly editable wiki even though it's a policy is the number of links > to/from the page make it more useful on the this wiki instead of the > OSMF one. > > > ___ > 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] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
On Thursday 10 January 2019, Paul Norman wrote: > > We just discussed this internally, the reason we've got them on the > publicly editable wiki even though it's a policy is the number of > links to/from the page make it more useful on the this wiki instead > of the OSMF one. I have no objections to that but i think you should either indicate that the page with the guideline should not be edited by anyone except OSMF board or DWG or mention that this version is being worked on continuously by the community and the authoritive version is to be found elsewhere. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
On 2019-01-10 10:19 a.m., Christoph Hormann wrote: Since it is on the OSM wiki and there is no statement indicating otherwise does this mean we can start improving the guidelines now?;-) If you can edit them to be closer to the text approved by the OSMF board ;) We just discussed this internally, the reason we've got them on the publicly editable wiki even though it's a policy is the number of links to/from the page make it more useful on the this wiki instead of the OSMF one. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
On Thursday 10 January 2019, Guillaume Rischard wrote: > The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised > Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines Since it is on the OSM wiki and there is no statement indicating otherwise does this mean we can start improving the guidelines now? ;-) By the way the examples are good work, i like them much better than the guidelines themselves. > Internally, we looked back at past problematic edits. We carefully > wrote the guidelines and defined the scope to prevent those problems > without creating loopholes or negative incentives like encouraging > salami tactics. We will see - you know i have doubts about this and i am particularly on the lookout for the first case of "let me through, it's an emergency". -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
Jan 10, 2019, 4:26 PM by openstreet...@stereo.lu: > I believe that no other project, open or proprietary, has faced this exact > issue before. > AFAIK Wikipedia had (and has) exactly the same problem - ranging from well meaning people (that frequently caused problem) through low-paid people who wanted to do their job ASAP to blatant vandal-spammers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines I'm happy to answer any questions here. In the meanwhile, here's my updated report. We at DWG are, first of all, thankful for all the constructive input we have received, from the advisory board, the humanitarian mapping initiatives and the mapping community. The organised editing guidelines took a lot of work to prepare. We received and integrated a lot of feedback to reflect consensus and existing good practice. We looked at what similar policies would exist, on OSM or in other organisations. I believe that no other project, open or proprietary, has faced this exact issue before. On OSM, contributors generally understand the current policies on automated edits and imports. We wrote the organised editing guidelines in a similar way, while adopting a slightly softer approach – not following the organised editing guidelines isn’t an offence per se. Elsewhere, Wikipedia has numerous policies some vaguely similar, but the problems they face are quite different, and their policies tend to be a lot more complex. Internally, we looked back at past problematic edits. We carefully wrote the guidelines and defined the scope to prevent those problems without creating loopholes or negative incentives like encouraging salami tactics. They are not meant to apply to community activities like mapping parties between friends or making a presentation on OSM at a local club, but only to ‘sizeable, substantial’ activities. We wanted something that doesn’t scare casual events off while letting us regulate a geography class gone berserk or a misguided volunteer mapathon. We also didn’t want to set hard limits in stone since they would have to go back to the Board constantly if we need to refine exactly what falls under the guidelines. Humanitarian activities deserve our fullest support. We therefore adapted the guidelines for them, both implicitly, by requiring only a best-effort approach, and explicitly, by exempting emergencies from the two-week discussion period. Some humanitarian edits have been problematic before, and the guidelines are easy to follow; a blanket exemption would send the wrong signal. We saw the amount of corporate good will at SotM, the tensions in the community, and the (dis)organised edits that mappers have referred to us. It is good for everyone that those guidelines are now online on the wiki. Good actors, existing and new, will be able to trust clear expectations. The community will be confident that this is the consensus that will be respected. Confused newcomers will get a blueprint for a successful organised edit. We wrote guidelines that are easy to read and follow and provide clarity on how good organised edits should run without having a chilling effect on them. I’m glad that this project is now concluded, and am convinced that it will be a good thing both for OSM and for the OSM community. Guillaume ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Alexa Traffic Rank
Am 10.01.2019 um 12:11 schrieb Sérgio V.: > Ah ok, thank you for both tips. Fortunately I was not phished to > install anything from that site. > Anyway, even if it could be an aleatory coincidence, it seems there's > actually some decrease in editons in recent months, > according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats > Active new and old contributors per > year: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Active_contributors_year.png > mostly about new contributors. Nope, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/47356 > So guess the same might be fairly expected for general counting > of site visitors. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Sérgio - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/smaprs > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Alexa Traffic Rank
Ah ok, thank you for both tips. Fortunately I was not phished to install anything from that site. Anyway, even if it could be an aleatory coincidence, it seems there's actually some decrease in editons in recent months, according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats Active new and old contributors per year: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Active_contributors_year.png mostly about new contributors. So guess the same might be fairly expected for general counting of site visitors. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sérgio - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/smaprs ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Alexa Traffic Rank
Jan 9, 2019, 9:47 PM by svo...@hotmail.com: > According to > "> Alexa Traffic Rank": > "The rank [of > openstreetmap.org] > declined 517 positions versus the > previous 3 months". > Alexa rank is in large part measuring how many visitors of a given website were fooled into installing Alexa Toolbar spyware. Also, such fluctuation are useless without knowing how fragile the counter is - like city celebrating burglary rate lowered by 10% without noticing that it is increasing/decreasing randomly by this amount year to year anyway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
