Re: [OSM-talk] iD as default editor

[Yuri Astrakhan]

check your OSM settings. AFAIK, iD is the default editor.

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 2:10 AM Sören Reinecke via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> so far I know currently Postlatch is the default editor on osm.org .
> Since it needs Flash to run and most users do not have Flash anymore,
> clicking on the "Edit" button leads to almost blank page. Without knowing
> that you need to change Postlatch to iD in settings, you're lost as newbie.
> This is not very beginner friendly
>
> Are they any plans to make iD the default editor or is iD already the
> default editor?
>
> Cheers
>
> Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] iD as default editor

[Sören Reinecke via talk]

Hello,

so far I know currently Postlatch is the default editor on osm.org . Since it 
needs Flash to run and most users do not have Flash anymore, clicking on the 
"Edit" button leads to almost blank page. Without knowing that you need to 
change Postlatch to iD in settings, you're lost as newbie. This is not very 
beginner friendly

Are they any plans to make iD the default editor or is iD already the default 
editor?

Cheers

Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram



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

Re: [OSM-talk] water runs backwards.

[Wayne Emerson, Jr. via talk]

In the iD editor you can press V to reVerse the direction of any line. 
You can also press the question mark button, and then click "Keyboard 
Shortcuts" to see more useful commands, spread across the 3 tabs at the top.

In JOSM you can press R to Reverse a line's direction.

On 12/22/2019 9:00 PM, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote:
coming across bad mapping, if you draw a water feature ditch, or 
stream, from the bottom of the map
up, you get arrows showing the flow going the wrong way and there is 
no way to fix it like a one way road,

and we are talking about miles long segments.

___
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] water runs backwards.

[Warin]

In JOSM there is a tool to reverse a way. Useful not only on incorrect water 
ways but also cliff lines.

On 23/12/19 13:06, stevea wrote:


To be clear, it isn't necessarily from "bottom to top," rather, simply know and 
practice that the direction of a way tagged waterway should be in the direction of the 
water's flow.

I continue to clean these up, even locally to me and hiding under my nose for 
ten years.  They are easy to miss, simply fix as you see them, please.

SteveA


On Dec 22, 2019, at 6:00 PM, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk  
wrote:
coming across bad mapping, if you draw a water feature ditch, or stream, from 
the bottom of the map
up, you get arrows showing the flow going the wrong way and there is no way to 
fix it like a one way road,
and we are talking about miles long segments.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] water runs backwards.

[stevea]

To be clear, it isn't necessarily from "bottom to top," rather, simply know and 
practice that the direction of a way tagged waterway should be in the direction 
of the water's flow.

I continue to clean these up, even locally to me and hiding under my nose for 
ten years.  They are easy to miss, simply fix as you see them, please.

SteveA

> On Dec 22, 2019, at 6:00 PM, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk 
>  wrote:
> coming across bad mapping, if you draw a water feature ditch, or stream, from 
> the bottom of the map
> up, you get arrows showing the flow going the wrong way and there is no way 
> to fix it like a one way road,
> and we are talking about miles long segments.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] water runs backwards.

[80hnhtv4agou--- via talk]

coming across bad mapping, if you draw a water feature ditch, or stream, from 
the bottom of the map
 
up, you get arrows showing the flow going the wrong way and there is no way to 
fix it like a one way road,
 
and we are talking about miles long segments.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[stevea]

I respect that, for as far as it goes.  This particular issue is specifically 
called "no code" and for that simple reason alone does not resonate well in 
many minds as "good intersection with GitHub."  Besides, who says a contract 
(license) with GitHub intersects well with OSM and its open-data / open-tools 
philosophy, again?  You?  For this case?  Masses of the silent?

I hear your preference, I doubt it is "masses" either way.  There might be 
significant numbers, though there are significant numbers of wiki authors and 
contributors and have been for the entirety of OSM.  Wiki is not only a 
well-established channel, it may be one of the better or even best ones.  
GitHub?  Mmmm, no, and while it does have its place, it is not as a direct 
substitution for any particular notification or documentation system (these are 
different, true).  As for the wiki "isn't the easiest" OK, thank you for your 
opinion, but I continue to call it "easy."  Very low bar of entry (especially 
as one is already an OSM volunteer), unlike GitHub which requires a separate 
contract (essentially, of adhesion).  I don't have a secret-sauce walkie-talkie 
like you do (and you won't have all of mine, is the point), but we all have 
wiki access built into OSM.

You might be tempted to say "OK, Boomer" and I'd be rightly miffed, but I'd 
prefer to reduce rancor and simply observe, yet again, "yes, both."  Only, not 
a lot of people naturally gravitate to a "non code issue" as GitHub as their 
first go-to, the contradictory nature of that seems clear to me and many.

The wiki, maybe yes, maybe no, (there is wiki, there are others) but yes should 
neither surprise nor annoy, nor does it.

SteveA

> On Dec 22, 2019, at 3:43 PM, Mario Frasca  wrote:
> one voice from the silent mass: I prefer github for such issues.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Mario Frasca]

one voice from the silent mass: I prefer github for such issues.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[stevea]

I wouldn't be so quick to dis our wiki, Guillaume.  Personally, I find it a 
relatively-easy-entry system for plastic, live documentation of a project and 
its data, process and people.  It serves this purpose well even for 
less-than-tech-friendly folk and has for the life of our project.  Wikis can be 
encyclopedic in their scope, yes.  However, building long-term (many years) 
projects out of them is a proven-many-times case.  Wikis accommodate 
fast-moving and slow and steady growth alike.  Color-coded tables often provide 
at-a-glance status.  It isn't hard to copy-and-paste and build things out of 
things, with other people building things, too, meet-ya-in-the-wiki.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Guillaume Rischard]

You’re right, the wiki isn’t the easiest place to update and reference to.

I have created https://github.com/grischard/osm-lacking-attribution 
 to register each case as 
an issue. These can be discussed, referenced, searched by label, and hopefully 
closed.

So if you can identify anything where the attribution isn’t correct, please 
post it as an issue there.

Guillaume

> On 20 Dec 2019, at 15:25, Leroy Olivier  wrote:
> 
> Hello, 
> 
> Even if sometimes I fail to follow the topic (due to my poor english) I found 
> that it is an interesting one. I don't have a good idea of what should be 
> done but I slightly disagree with @Numo on this point : 
> 
> @Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i 
> added Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to 
> add companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for 
> years without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
> acknowledge.
> 
> Maybe the wiki is not the better solution but having a way to illustrate the 
> "attribution problem" and keep track of it feel important to me. I don't 
> think  this will solve all the problems but at one point we will need a way 
> to accumulate knowledge and produce some kind of visualization/quantification 
> either to negotiate (or try)  or broadcast it. The wiki is a good beginning 
> how can we improve it ? 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Le ven. 20 déc. 2019 à 14:41, Nuno Caldeira  > a écrit :
> @Rihards Thanks. I will try to do that documentation over the holidays.
> 
> @Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i 
> added Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to 
> add companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for 
> years without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
> acknowledge. 
> 
> As an xmas bonus, here's another Facebook company (via Mapbox), Snapchat that 
> is using OSM without attribution requirements (funnily there's plenty of 
> space for a reasonable and visible calculated mapbox logo and text). They 
> probably don't know, nor that they have been asked to comply over a year ago, 
> nor have agreed with the license in every aspect of it when stated using OSM 
> data, nor read Mapbox TOS, or Mapbox been informed on these repeated 
> offenders, nor read the multiples reports in mailing lists, nor that they had 
> a employee that ran for OSMF board.
> 
> https://map.snapchat.com/ 
> Let's continue to be hypocrites and pretend nothing is going on for over a 
> year with these two companies that are corporate members of OSMF and should 
> be the first ones to give examples. Enough with excuses. 
> 
> 
> 
> Happy holidays.
> 
> 
> 
> Às 09:34 de 20/12/2019, Rihards escreveu:
>> On 20.12.19 09:42, Nuno Caldeira wrote:
>>> hi Pierre,
>>> 
>>> I have tried that route multiple times in twitter, they will ignore. as
>>> they ignore emails (even if you CC le...@osmfoundation.org 
>>> 
>>>  ), the 
>>> license, the mailing list.
>>> if you can read the attribution clearly here let me
>>> know https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1207927051669397504?s=19 
>>> 
>>> this is not manipulated or cropped, straight out of the app. 
>> Nuno, thank you for documenting the attribution concerns.
>> 
>> It is understandable that repeated problems are frustrating. We as OSM
>> contributors see so many of them, and by the hundredth case we perceive
>> them as repeat offenders.
>> I try to remind myself that absolute majority do not do this on purpose,
>> and that my perception should not connect a new case to all the previous
>> ones. It is harder than it might sound :)
>> 
>> Without diving into specifics of each case, it still seems important to
>> have clear documentation on major cases.
>> Have you had a chance to put together a dedicated wiki page about Facebook?
>> It has been repeated in email threads many times, but if a student came
>> around and wanted to put together a research about attribution,
>> copyright and whatnot - would they have an easy time getting a complete
>> picture of Facebook attitude towards OSM attribution?
>> 
>> It would be crucial for that page to be neutral and avoid accusations,
>> even when Occam's razor seems huge and shiny - pure facts would fit
>> there best.
>> 
>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 00:14 Pierre Béland, >> 
>>>  > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Nuno,
>>> 
>>> How can we react positively suggesting to take care obout OSM
>>> attribution ? This is an international media and we can benefit by
>>> having a bit of fun.
>>> 
>>> Plus this

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Phil Wyatt]

Thanks Nuno,

 

I have added them to the list and also sent them an explanatory email 
requesting an update.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Nuno Caldeira  
Sent: Monday, 23 December 2019 9:44 AM
To: Phil Wyatt ; 'Martin Koppenhoefer' 

Cc: 'Pierre Béland' ; 'OSMF Talk' 
; 'OpenStreetMap talk mailing list' 

Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

 

obviously not. their reasonable calculated attribution must be the same as 
requested on ODbL, but seems theirs and their logo (like in Strava app) is 
reasonable calculated than OpenStreetMap.

On 22/12/2019 22:35, Phil Wyatt wrote:

Are you suggesting that is OK or not OK Nuno?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Nuno Caldeira   
 
Sent: Monday, 23 December 2019 8:41 AM
To: Martin Koppenhoefer   

Cc: Pierre Béland   ; OSMF Talk  
 ; 
OpenStreetMap talk mailing list   

Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

 

Sadly the board won't do anything. By the way came across this, new way of a 
fixed reasonable calculated Mapbox attribution when you click SHOW/HIDE LEGEND. 
https://www.natureindex.com/collaboration-maps/melbourne

 

On 21/12/2019 20:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 
 
sent from a phone
 

On 20. Dec 2019, at 14:41, Nuno Caldeira   
 wrote:
 
@Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i added 
Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to add 
companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for years 
without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
acknowledge.

 
 
I disagree on this. Yes, it’s just a wikipage, but at least it documents 
abusers and our attempts to notify them about their abuse and ask them to 
respect the license. There are some insistent refusers but generally people do 
add attribution when pointed to attribution issues. 
When companies refuse to respect the license or repeatedly ignore communication 
attempts it should be duty of the board to look into it.
 
Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Nuno Caldeira]

obviously not. their reasonable calculated attribution must be the same 
as requested on ODbL, but seems theirs and their logo (like in Strava 
app) is reasonable calculated than OpenStreetMap.


On 22/12/2019 22:35, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Are you suggesting that is OK or not OK Nuno?

Cheers - Phil

*From:*Nuno Caldeira 
*Sent:* Monday, 23 December 2019 8:41 AM
*To:* Martin Koppenhoefer 
*Cc:* Pierre Béland ; OSMF Talk 
; OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 


*Subject:* Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Sadly the board won't do anything. By the way came across this, new 
way of a fixed reasonable calculated Mapbox attribution when you click 
SHOW/HIDE LEGEND. https://www.natureindex.com/collaboration-maps/melbourne


On 21/12/2019 20:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

sent from a phone

On 20. Dec 2019, at 14:41, Nuno Caldeira  
  wrote:

@Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. 
i added Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to 
add companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for years 
without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
acknowledge.

I disagree on this. Yes, it’s just a wikipage, but at least it documents 
abusers and our attempts to notify them about their abuse and ask them to 
respect the license. There are some insistent refusers but generally people do 
add attribution when pointed to attribution issues.

When companies refuse to respect the license or repeatedly ignore 
communication attempts it should be duty of the board to look into it.

Cheers Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Phil Wyatt]

Are you suggesting that is OK or not OK Nuno?

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Nuno Caldeira  
Sent: Monday, 23 December 2019 8:41 AM
To: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Cc: Pierre Béland ; OSMF Talk ; 
OpenStreetMap talk mailing list 
Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

 

Sadly the board won't do anything. By the way came across this, new way of a 
fixed reasonable calculated Mapbox attribution when you click SHOW/HIDE LEGEND. 
https://www.natureindex.com/collaboration-maps/melbourne

 

On 21/12/2019 20:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 
 
sent from a phone
 

On 20. Dec 2019, at 14:41, Nuno Caldeira   
 wrote:
 
@Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i added 
Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to add 
companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for years 
without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
acknowledge.

 
 
I disagree on this. Yes, it’s just a wikipage, but at least it documents 
abusers and our attempts to notify them about their abuse and ask them to 
respect the license. There are some insistent refusers but generally people do 
add attribution when pointed to attribution issues. 
When companies refuse to respect the license or repeatedly ignore communication 
attempts it should be duty of the board to look into it.
 
Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Nuno Caldeira]

Sadly the board won't do anything. By the way came across this, new way 
of a fixed reasonable calculated Mapbox attribution when you click 
SHOW/HIDE LEGEND. https://www.natureindex.com/collaboration-maps/melbourne



On 21/12/2019 20:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 20. Dec 2019, at 14:41, Nuno Caldeira  wrote:

@Phil Wyatt don't get me wrong, but adding something there is useless. i added 
Facebook there over one year ago. They don't have shame, no point to add 
companies there, when there's sites and companies that been there for years 
without real consequence. It's just a wiki page that most won't ever 
acknowledge.


I disagree on this. Yes, it’s just a wikipage, but at least it documents 
abusers and our attempts to notify them about their abuse and ask them to 
respect the license. There are some insistent refusers but generally people do 
add attribution when pointed to attribution issues.
When companies refuse to respect the license or repeatedly ignore communication 
attempts it should be duty of the board to look into it.

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

[OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #491 2019-12-10-2019-12-16

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 491,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of 
things happening in the openstreetmap world:

 http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/12659/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] User manual for the Overpass API

[Roland Olbricht]

Hello,

for the Overpass API, a user manual is now accessible at
https://dev.overpass-api.de/overpass-doc/en/

Key features:
- It is a guided tour (and neither a full reference nor an example
library, which both are useful but separate resources)
- Focus on long term stable functionality
- Intended to be easily translated, 2 translations already available

The user manual aims to fulfill the desire for a more comprehensive
documentation. I hope that more mappers get empowered to user features
beyond simple key=value and bounding boxes. For this reason, alternativa
language versions in German and French are offered as well.

Although the user manual is still in the process of being written,
the essential chapters "Preface", "Spatial Data Selection", and "Find
Objects" are populated. The other chapters and the missing section in
these chapters will follow in the coming months.

For the languages:

More translations are highly welcome, and localizations of the examples
as well. You can either do a pull request on
https://github.com/drolbr/overpass-doc
or send them by other means. There has been a tool integrated to track
updates paragraph by paragraph
https://github.com/drolbr/overpass-doc/blob/master/helper_scripts/blame_recursively.sh
such that keeping the translation up to date should much easier than in
the wiki.

German, English, and French are simply the languages that I'm able to
communicate in and by no other means special.

Relating to other existing documentation:

The manual collects long-term valid information and is not even intended
to store short-term information. Short term information will continue to
go into the wiki.

A much larger legacy is help.openstreetmap.org . Others and me have
provided beside helpful information a lot of workarounds that are now
much too complicated. Even worse, there are then-truthful answer about
absent features that have been implemented in the meanstime. That source
lacks a mechanism to hide or delete outdated answers, and is in this
regard damaged beyond repair.

An example library would still be very helpful. There are several
examples on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_API_by_Example
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Advanced_examples
and in their translations (not synchronized), but much more probably
exist elsewhere and not easy to find.

Some older documentation pages on https://overpass-api.de/ will be
decomissioned once I have found the time to rewrite updated versions of
them for the manual.

Viele Grüße,

Roland

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

Re: [OSM-talk] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych ? names of international objects

[Martin Constantino–Bodin]

I'd suggest using the 6 main United Nations languages for the "name=*"
tag of Oceans and Continents: Arabic, Chinese, English, French,
Russian and Spanish.


That would be very nice, actually. Although a bit redundant, as this 
information is already present in the six “name:UN:” tags.



But there is no perfect solution, and as mentioned, most database
users will want to pick a localized name of the form "name:=" so
these tags should be added.


I’m sorry, but I still have issues understanding why it would be so 
harmless… just to remove the “name” tag (in the case where there is no 
main local language). No information would be lost as all the 
“name:” (and its variants) would be still there. It would be up to 
the renderrer to have to make a choice. It looks much less ad hoc to me: 
OSM is before all the database, not its renderrers. (Again, amongst 
OSM’s principles, I believe that there is a “semantic first, not 
renderring” one.) I would understand if there would have been some 
well-used renderrers that assume a “name” tag for large objects, but it 
doesn’t seem to be the case from this discussion.


Adding a “name” tag to a place with no local name seems artificial, and 
as you have seen, raises quite a lot of tensions because it implicitly 
imposes the assumption that there should be one main language… and this 
assumption seems so far away from the principles of OSM. As Oleksiy 
Muzalyev said it very nicely: “Translation is becoming the true 
international language”.



By the way, I’ve seen quite unusual changesets related to this issue. 
I’m linking some here, as I think that it illustrates the issues of the 
discussion in a more concrete matter:


There is an edit war here: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/424311641/history Basically, there 
are some people insisting that the “name” tag of the Maldives be in 
English instead of the local name “ދިވެހިރާއްޖެ”. This is very strange 
to me: in this case there is a clear local language, but some people 
still insist in having it in English. English is locally recognised, but 
it is not the official language. I’m sorry, but it’s difficult not to 
see that as English imperialism: people wanting to impose English 
locally without any reason. I furthermore notice that changeset relative 
to Esperanto are prompt to trigger ban policies, but English-related not 
that much: there seems to be an asymmetry here which doesn’t feel like 
the values of OSM.


Speaking of which, some reverts are done in the name of “Esperanto 
vandalism” while the situation is more complex than this. For instance, 
this revert: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/77883111 The 
initial changeset didn’t updated “name” tags from English to Esperanto, 
it just removed them, and added localised notes “:eo”. These 
additional tags has been removed because of the revert. I fully 
understand that one shouldn’t remove the “name” tag until we have set up 
this discussion here, but with such as revert description, it seems as 
if the main issue of the original commit was to add localised tags Oo 
Please don’t use such changeset description unless the original 
changeset really did just update a bunch of “name” tags to Esperanto for 
no apparent reason.



Anyway, as Pierre Béland yesterday evening said it very well: let’s be 
positive, the new year is coming ☺


Cheers,
Martin.


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