Re: [OSM-talk] Looking for "primary language" map
On 04/10/2017 07:35 PM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: Does anyone know of an open source language map - basically a set of geoshapes with the corresponding language code? Country boundaries are not needed - e.g. Canada and USA would be English with the exception of French for Montreal area. This is needed to guesstimate what language the "name" tag is in. Does not have to be very precise (10-20 MB is more than enough) Have you considered using wikidata for this? For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/61549 (Québec) has the tag wikidata=Q176, and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q176 has an entry "official language". I'd expect that the OSM-Wikidata mapping is good enough on the level of countries/large regions to make this work; if not, it's a good opportunity to improve it. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users
On 01/04/2017 03:03 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: I've yet to hear of any evidence that OSM is being used at all. I'm sure someone from our web team might be able to locate Niantic IPs if we really drilled down and it happened recently enough that we would still have the logs before logrotate got 'em. But, IMO, that seems rather far to go for something for which there is basically only wild conjecture to back so far. http://pokemongohub.net/pokemon-go-spawn-points-modeled-open-street-map-data/ Is this the kind of evidence you're looking for? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=residential_link
Oops, this was supposed to go to tagging... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] highway=residential_link
A question recently came up as to whether highway=residential_link is a meaningful tag or whether uses of it should be changed to some other value (like highway=residential or highway=service). This tag has no description in the wiki, though it is analogous to the other highway=*_link types described on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link . There are only 23 current uses of the tag, but many others were recently removed. By going through (by hand) the recent edits of an editor who removed them, I've come up with a list of 58 more objects that used it [1]. If anyone knows of a programmatic way of finding objects that previously used a tag, I'd be interested to know it. Of those 81 current and recent uses that I worked with, * They occurred in North America (36), South America (30), Europe (11), and Australia (4) * 35 were added in 2015, 38 were added in 2014, and the remaining 8 were added in 2010-2013 * I count 33 unique users that added the tag * 19 of the uses had a value for name="*", 62 did not have a name * Of the 36 North American uses, I personally think highway=residential_link makes sense on 16 of them, while 12 should be a higher highway=*_link and 8 should not be a _link at all. highway=residential_link is not currently rendered in openstreetmap-carto, and a request for adding it in February 2015 was declined (https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1280), due to low usage and being undocumented. That bug mentions that it is supported in various routing apps, and it WAS supported in the HOT map style until that support was removed recently. So the question is, should uses of highway=residential_link be edited away, should they be left as-is (unless a different highway type is clearly better), or should the tag be approved and documented? --Andrew [1] Objects that previously used highway=residential_link. This list was generated by hand, and might have some mistakes. Also, not all of these necessarily should have used the tag. 275610032, 275610033, 275610026, 275610025, 275355353, 269193467, 268796394, 262798921, 262715792, 262287021, 259433293, 259433291, 259136210, 256321591, 256321612, 256256231, 82529183, 256250694, 256250692, 255858772, 255734560, 255734548, 255734547, 255734546, 255285030, 255282915, 255282916, 242373220, 240563513, 238260570, 237128774, 222995985, 318225690, 219160095, 200773019, 191613798, 183497432, 174739362, 174739436, 173790274, 152304285, 95348547, 87908508, 87908510, 87908507, 83285340, 54356292, 54356293, 45812108, 45812107, 39722340, 35248433, 148015236, 35242001, 35121698, 35121488, 18820600, 6086632, 6107802, On 11/09/2015 01:39 AM, GerdP wrote: I think this should really be discussed in the tagging list. I only know a discussion in Germany which came to the conclusion that tags like unclassified_link, residential_link and service_link make not much sense: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=26083 The wiki doesn't mention those _link types as well, and my understanding is that only major roads have a link (if link in english means what we call "Abfahrt/ Auffahrt" in Germany, I would describe it as a lane that allows to decrease/increase speed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags
On 11/09/2015 01:39 AM, GerdP wrote: Andrew Guertin wrote As a negative example, they seem to have deemed the tag highway=residential_link bad, and replaced it with either highway=service or highway=residential. (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/18820600/history, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262798921/history). I think this should really be discussed in the tagging list. I only know a discussion in Germany which came to the conclusion that tags like unclassified_link, residential_link and service_link make not much sense: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=26083 The wiki doesn't mention those _link types as well, and my understanding is that only major roads have a link (if link in english means what we call "Abfahrt/ Auffahrt" in Germany, I would describe it as a lane that allows to decrease/increase speed. I agree the tagging list is the place to discuss this, I'll follow up there. Andrew Guertin wrote An in-between example: on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38089492/history, highway=stepping_stones was replaced with highway=path. While this helps consumers use the data, it loses information that should have been kept (perhaps with surface=* or something similar). I've asked for a comment from the original mapper now. I agree that a surface tag might be missing, I just recognized this a case of a wrongly mapped ford, so I changed the tag to path and added a ford=stepping_stones to the node which connects the highway with the waterway. Ah! I missed that you added the ford tag. I no longer have any objection to this. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags
On 11/06/2015 05:01 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: Previously there were quite a lot of changeset discussion comments from GerdP asking about odd values: http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions (scroll down a bit) Ah! That's very good to see! So perhaps I've overreacted a bit. I now see the problem as GerdP does a lot of good work and does typically communicate, but this time didn't discuss before deciding the undocumented tags residential_link and unclassified_link should be removed, which is a decision that really should be made by the community. So hopefully we can get that discussion happening and get the tags put back (if that's the decision). --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags
Hi, The user GerdP seems to be going around editing things with unusual highway=* tags, apparently in an attempt to standardize them. In my opinion, some of these changes are positive and some are negative, but the negatives outweigh the positives. As a positive example, GerdP seems to have searched for highway=trunk on a node, and removed the tag. (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1245912029/history) As a negative example, they seem to have deemed the tag highway=residential_link bad, and replaced it with either highway=service or highway=residential. (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/18820600/history, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262798921/history). An in-between example: on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38089492/history, highway=stepping_stones was replaced with highway=path. While this helps consumers use the data, it loses information that should have been kept (perhaps with surface=* or something similar). Does anyone know if this was discussed anywhere? I've contacted GerdP with a changeset comment at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35109232 but there hasn't (yet) been much time for a response. Also note that this isn't a single changeset but rather something GerdP does regularly, so many changesets over many days. --Andrew P.S.: We should have something like a clean...@osm.org mailing list so that these kinds of things have a place to be discussed, because there are a lot of positives to be had... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes
On 10/14/2015 05:21 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote: I've been guilty of mistakenly joining state boundaries to the Ohio River's thalweg in the past, and by now I've had to correct those boundaries on several occasions. It's unfortunate that few mappers are aware of these complexities. The full situation is spelled out in a wiki page: I'd suggest also tagging the ways involved in these boundaries with note= to provide another way for overzealous editors to catch themselves. Although given the effort involved I'd probably do this only on ways there's reason to edit anyway. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes
On 10/14/2015 03:49 AM, Badita Florin wrote: Our task is to delete all the existing admin_level=6 boundaries and start fresh Since this doesn't seem to have been discussed either here or on the imports list before*, how confident are you that the new data is better than the current data in OSM? * I looked at the thread "Mexico's Administrative Divisions Import Project 1" --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes
On 10/14/2015 03:49 AM, Badita Florin wrote: This way is a highway and at the same time is part of the relation of a boundary. This seems invalid since it merges two types of features on the same way instead of keeping a logical separation between two different things. Is this a valid way? What if the highway is modified ? since the highway is not a legal boundary and just happens to overlap the real boundary, so if the highway is changed for any reason, it will modify the boundary along with it. So what's the valid thing to do here? Duplicate the way to save the highway way and keep a way for the boundary separated?, I won't get in to the best way to accomplish this technically, but I suggest you remove the existing boundary information in whatever way works for you while leaving non-boundary information intact, and then upload your new information keeping it separate from any other (non-boundary) objects. As other people have discussed, it can be very hard (requiring legal research or even court decisions) to know whether a boundary IS a certain feature and will change if the feature changes or merely currently follows a feature and will stay put if the feature changes. Uploading the boundaries as separate objects is not wrong and provides the vast majority of the value. If anyone is motivated to do the legal research and connect things when appropriate, they can do that later. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] open question about boundaries sharing nodes with ways or nodes
On 10/14/2015 04:05 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 14-10-15 09:49, Badita Florin wrote: Our task is to delete all the existing admin_level=6 boundaries and start fresh, but this seems much more things needs to happen before you do this. Don't delete the existing boundaries, update them to match the new reality using the ReplaceGeometry feature in JOSM for example. When the data for shared nodes is available, it will disconnect the other ways from the boundary way being replaced leaving the other ways as they were. I disagree with this suggestion, and I think the original plan of deleting the existing ways or tags and uploading new ones is better. Reasons: 1) The value of using Replace Geometry is very low for this case. The reason for doing so would be to make life easier for anyone who wants to know what OSM previously thought the boundaries are. Very few people will want to know that, especially since it won't provide any context for understanding the new, imported data. And for those few that ever will, the tools still exist and work fine. 2) Replace Geometry won't work well. To provide a meaningful consistency of history, there needs to be a roughly one-to-one correspondence between new objects and old. To explain this with an example: Imagine the county boundaries are currently mapped, with one way between each pair of counties, and a relation for each county collecting the appropriate ways. Now add detail, mapping out the boundaries for each town. Each county relation is now formed by a larger number of smaller ways which are the town boundaries. What should happen to the original ways that were used for county boundaries? They don't correspond to anything in the new scheme, so there's nothing for Replace Geometry to do that makes sense. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] README tag with editor support
On 06/11/2015 01:27 PM, Richard Welty wrote: so i have two things in mind here: 1) formalize the README tag as a way to caution future mappers 2) request editor support, when someone goes to change a README tagged entity, it would be nice if editors would popup a dialog saying something along the lines of I propose a different solution I propose that instead of marking the OSM objects, we provide a way of marking the imagery itself. This would work similar to the imagery offset database that some editors already support[1]. A user would draw a polygon on the imagery, showing where it was out of date. This would be uploaded to the server along with an identifier of what imagery was in question and a user-provided note. When another user viewed imagery in that area, it would be marked perhaps by shading, coloring, or even hiding the area within the polygon. A sufficiently advanced version could even detect when the imagery changed and a listing was obsolete. There are of course pluses and minuses to each way, but if the imagery is what's wrong, I think the imagery should be marked, and I also think this lends itself to more features and better workflows. --Andrew [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Imagery_Offset_Database ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 05/27/2015 05:13 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: We are a database of geodata [...] Would it not be better to record the wikidata link for London, and then (perhaps in co-operation with people at Wikidata) provide means for people doing map rendering to join OSM data with a separately-loaded translation table from Wikidata? Would this be restricted to just names? I can imagine a world where no information about businesses is stored in OSM. OSM has a geometry and a wikidata link. Wikidata says what kind of business it is, what its name is, what its contact info it, what its opening hours are, etc. That would be a very different world from the one we live in. In lieu of listing them all out, I will just say I can see many benefits to living in that world, and many benefits to what we have now. Is that a goal of this integration? I've been thinking about this for a while, so I have a lot of questions based on the answer... --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 05/29/2015 08:18 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 13:14 +0200, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: And as it happens, Абергавенни comes from Abergavenny rather than Y Fenni, showing that some discernment was applied. Not sure I understand that statement, transliterating Y Fenni is equally valid in my view. Russian speakers have been calling that city Абергавенни for over 150 years. If someone transliterated Y Fenni and said that was the Russian name for the city, they would be wrong. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 05/27/2015 05:13 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Not only well-known tourist magnets carry foreign names; some dedicated language mappers have gone over and beyond the call of duty and added, for example, name:ru tags even to small villages: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/name%3Aru#map (This is a matter currently under investigation by Data Working Group and it is relatively certain that not all 582,653 name:ru tags will remain.) Considering the existence of the former Soviet Union, and especially that there are areas of Ukraine where both Russian and Ukrainian are spoken and most roads, places, etc have names (and thus tags) in both languages, this number of 582,653 name:ru tags is hard to interpret. My skill with overpass-turbo isn't the best, but I was able to relatively easily limit a search to a bounding box around North and South America. Within that box, a search returned 2648 nodes and 909 ways with name:ru (relations timed out). Considering "in 2007 Russian was the primary language spoken in the homes of over 850,000 individuals living in the United States"[1], 3500 features with Russian names across all of North and South America seems very low, and there's lots of opportunity for more data to be added. --Andrew [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language#Geographic_distribution ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 05/28/2015 03:43 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: *Especially* if their reasoning was that this makes it nicer for them to run a tank through these places in their own-language war simulation with their buddies. If the data is valid, it doesn't matter what the use case is. I'm HAPPY knowing that people are using the data I contribute in all sorts of ways and contributing back so I can use theirs. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 05/28/2015 12:37 PM, SomeoneElse wrote: There is a fundamental difference between "an actual name for a place" and "a translation of one of those names" I DO agree with this statement[1]. However, I think that the point at which a word stops being a transliteration and starts being a native word is much sooner than you seem to. I'm not a linguist, but if I had to pin down when I think a word becomes part of a language, I'd say whenever the person using it doesn't think they're code-switching.[2] It's clear that in many cases, the people writing "Абергавенни" don't consider themselves to ever be switching out of Russian. To me, that makes Абергавенни an actual name for the place. >> The town with the English name Abergavenny also has a >> Russian name Абергавенни, which is in use by locals, and has been >> established for hundreds of years. > > No, it does not. Abergavenny / Y Fenni has actual names that people > from there use to describe the place (and appears on signs) in two > languages; "Абергавенни" is merely a translation of one of them. It's > not verifiable on the ground. The question of actual names versus transliterations is addressed above, but with respect to "on the ground", I assert that if you asked a local who spoke Russian the question "What is the Russian-language name for this town?", they would reply "Абергавенни". Assuming that assertion is correct, is "on the ground" satisfied? Do you think the assertion is incorrect? --Andrew [1] I think the word "translation is wrong here. Translation takes something in one language and expresses the same meaning in another language. Transliteration takes something in one language and expresses the same sounds in another language. [2] Obviously there's a separate barrier for something to be generally accepted rather than just one person's made up word. That barrier is pretty low in the case of a place name, where most people would make up the same new word anyway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can wikidata links help fight name inflation?
On 05/28/2015 07:07 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: On 28/05/2015 10:30, Komяpa wrote: Hello, I'd like to share my story. We're making a new Global Map for World of Tanks game. Game is translated into many languages, of which Russian and English are most significant. Now we're in open beta, you can look at the map at https://ru.wargaming.net/globalmap/ To release the map, we need the whole map in Russian, and in English. For closed beta, we chose to enable a small subset of a map, 80 provinces, for which I manually added the translations: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30451655 This changeset got reverted by SomeoneElse: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30706979 Now we can't use OSM to render the map directly. Sure you can. You just need to combine OSM data with some other data (such as a list that you've previously created). The problem (described in some detail on my changeset above) is that the fact that somewhere like Abergavenny has two names (or three, if you count the old Latin name). Both "Abergavenny" and "Y Fenni" are verifiable on the ground, by looking at the "Welcome to..." sign on the roads in. "Абергавенни" does not appear on that sign. A quick internet search shows plenty of results for Абергавенни, including Wikipedia, hotel booking sites, and Harry Potter websites, and by looking at Google's book results, you can see that it's been in use since at least the 1800s. And with just a few minutes' look, I found someone from the next city over using the name[1]. I understand this was just an example, but it seems to show the opposite of what you wanted. The town with the English name Abergavenny also has a Russian name Абергавенни, which is in use by locals, and has been established for hundreds of years. Ethnologue (http://www.ethnologue.com/world) says that there are > 7000 languages in the world. Taginfo (http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=name) says that there are > 45,000,000 names in OSM. It's a perfectly reasonable request for someone to ask "can I have a map that shows place names displayed in my language / alphabet". It's not a reasonable request to ask OSM to store up to 7,000 variants against 45,000,000 names, when most of those objects simply do not have names in those languages. While your exact words here aren't wrong, I think you're severely underestimating what objects have names in what languages. Russia and the UK are major world powers that have had a lot of interaction as both allies and enemies, economically, militarily, and culturally, and there are tens to hundreds of thousands of people who were born in Russia living in the UK[2]. It would be pretty absurd to for place names NOT to exist, and as shown above the evidence shows that they do exist and are in use. For that reason I think the revert was wrong, and the edit should be allowed to be re-performed. --Andrew [1] http://kuking.net/my/viewtopic.php?t=12946 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_the_United_Kingdom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] a, b and c.tile.openstreetmap.org refer to the same server?
On 05/17/2015 11:09 AM, Jochen Topf wrote: (Modern browsers probably don't have this limitation any more, sombody should probably check whether we need the a/b/c stuff any more.) I gave this a quick check, Firefox's was last changed in 2008: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d57879bc8021 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423377 A quick read through of the bug showed that other browsers were increasing their limits at around the same time. That means that the changes should have propagated to nearly all users by now. Whether the new limits are sufficiently high for OSM I haven't investigated enough to answer. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] High load on the rendering servers?
For the past few days, lots of things I've changed haven't had their tiles re-rendered, and I noticed that the servers are reporting very high load and lots of dropped tiles: http://munin.openstreetmap.org/renderd-week.html Based on my (completely uneducated) reading of the graphs there, it looks like something is filling the Priority Request Queue and keeping it full, and there's very little time for anything else. (It looks like the Request Queue and the Low Priority Request Queue are also being kept full). Anyone know what's causing this? --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed changes to landcover labelling in openstreetmap-carto
I like the looks of this in the Adirondacks. For some reason, Vanderwhacker Mountain is not having its label rendered at zoom 14: http://tile.paulnorman.ca/demo/landcover-labels.html#14.00/43.8912/-74.0996 The same thing happens for Mud Lake Mountain at zooms 14 and 15: http://tile.paulnorman.ca/demo/landcover-labels.html#15.00/43.3512/-74.4178 I'm not sure why this is, because there's nothing near it and other mountains in the area don't have the problem. It's probably an artifact of Labels Sometimes Do Weird Things, but maybe worth looking at. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Adding Wikidata tags to 70k items automatically
On 08/27/2014 12:47 PM, Edward Betts wrote: I'd like to annotate these 70k objects in OSM with a Wikidata tag automatically. I like the sound of this. Personally, I think it adds value, and having looked at the code your matching criteria sound good. There are a couple of things it would make me happy to see before you go through with this: 1: Elsewhere in this thread it was mentioned that there are 22000 wikidata ids in OSM currently. Are there any objects which currently have a wikidata id that your code would assign a different id to? Similarly, are there any instances where your code would assign a wikidata id to something and a different object in OSM already has that wikidata id? I assume your plan is to not modify these, but I'm more concerned with seeing how well your code matches what's already in OSM as a verification tool. 2: You mention elsewhere in this thread that the maximum distance difference between the wikidata location and the osm object is 400 meters. How was this number arrived at? Could you make a list of matches including and sorted by the distance difference for people to look at? I think it's worth it for interested people to be able to independently verify at what distance the accuracy declines and what a good cutoff is. It might be good to also include in that list what type of feature something is. If you're comparing using centroids, more leniency might be in order for, e.g., a large lake than a small building. To be honest, I still support this import even without these verification tools, but it would make me very happy to see them. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-GB] Fwd: Adding links to Wikidata (and Wikipedia?)
On 06/17/2014 04:10 PM, Rob Nickerson wrote: [...] My understanding is that the script would look for objects in wikidata that have a location (lat/longitude) and some wikidata tags that help us to identify the object (e.g. that it's a church and it's name is "St Nicolas's"). The script would then look for a similar object in OSM assessed according to the lat/longitude in OSM and other OSM tags (name=St Nicolas's, and amenity=place_of_worship). It would then flag the match for a human to check, or if accepted, automatically add the wikidata tag if the level of certainty matches some threshold. [...] - What are the risks of introducing bad data and how can we reduce/eliminate this? I don't think this should ever be done without a human check, because there are often several related objects with similar names near each other. To continue your example, there could be "St Nicolas's", "St Nicolas's Church Gardens", and "St Nicolas's Gift Shop" all near each other. Which one should the wikipedia page "St Nicolas's Church" match? Now what if only the gardens exist in OSM because someone imported gardens in the area but no one has mapped the church yet? In my opinion, the risks of doing this automatically are just too high. I'd be very happy to see a tool to do it *with* human checks, though. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits
On 06/11/2014 04:03 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: irc will only work when that is an established communication channel in that country. So please, do not make that a requirement. E.g. in Belgium the best way to contact other mappers is the mailing list. I'll understand that this makes it more difficult for non-Belgians to fix the tagging here. Oh, I'd never expect IRC specifically to be a requirement. I used IRC to show that (in my opinion) for a low-risk change, "discussion" can even include even include methods that are quick, informal, ephemeral, and even that don't reach the entire community. Something similar would be face-to-face discussion if you had other OSMers present. For a low-risk edit, the real value doesn't lie in having someone else confirm that the edit is correct. The real value lies in having someone else confirm that *the edit is actually low-risk*. If you run something quickly past a few people, one of them can say "That's probably right but I'm not 100% certain, can you post it to the mailing list first?" and that's where I think the maximum value lies in staying out of people's way but still being able to catch things like the beer_garden/biergarten change in advance. Should I contact other people when I correct my own tags ? Or when I did a resurvey of the area and saw that it was really a restaurant and not a restuarant ? Why aren't we imposing the same requirements for people that just trace from aerial images? In all these cases, you're editing with some amount of knowledge beyond what's already in OSM. When I posted my thoughts, I specifically applied them to only the cases where people edit with NO knowledge beyond what's already in OSM. So I would not apply these requirements to any of your cases here. Editing OSM without any outside knowledge can have value (cleanups are good!), but it's inherently risky and that, in my opinion, is why extra requirements are needed. What if such a person connect two roads while in reality they are not connected ? Or when 2 intersecting buildings are separated ? Does (s)he risks to have his/her changesets reverted or eventually get blocked as well ? I'll agree with Jochem that people that are "gardeners' (to use wikipedia terminology -- people that try to fix existing tags) have to follow much more rules and risk more severe punishment than "tracers". It seems like the latter can't do anything wrong, unless it's pure vandalism. Can anybody tell me why a surveyor or tracer is free to keep adding restuarants without punishment, but a gardener should follow a long procedure to fix that ? "Gardening" carries the risk that, when done incorrectly, it's not just the map that's impacted negatively, but the community as well. When people see their work improved upon that's great, but when their work is discarded or even worse edited to something that's wrong, that hurts. Surveying doesn't carry that risk at all. Tracing *can* carry that risk. It's much less frequent, but it's there. We don't have any specific policy that I'm aware of for dealing with it, but we DO have warnings all over the place that when you're tracing without local knowledge, the data that's already in OSM might be better than what you can get from your imagery. As far as I've seen, the community experience has been that having these warnings and dealing with problems case-by-case is sufficient. Imports--using an external data source without sufficient local knowledge--have very similar risk to gardening. We do have extensive policy for them. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits
I've just read through http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy and this thread, and here's my thoughts on the matter. It is possible to improve OSM using only the data already within OSM--with no external knowledge, survey, or other data sources. Typo fixing and other similar activities do provide benefit. When you make an edit using no external knowledge, you must always discuss it first. In my opinion, not doing so--even for an edit that turns out to be correct!--is a detriment to the community, because it is both risky and antisocial. I don't however agree with the policy's requirement of specific forms of discussion. I think that the discussion required should be proportional to the change being made. For example, if you notice that three instances of "amenity=restuarant" were added this week, I think an appropriate form of discussion would be to hop on IRC, say you're fixing them, wait until someone says "yay" or 2 minutes has passed, and do it. But as the risk goes up--either lower certainty or higher impact--the required discussion should too, from IRC to a quick note on a mailing list to long mailing list threads with wiki documentation and detailed notes about methods and tools. Similarly, in minor cases I don't agree with the policy's requirement for documentation. If someone wants to merge the 10 copies of "amenity=watering place" into the 1647 copies of "amenity=watering_place", I don't think there will be any negative impacts on consumers. But if consumers will be affected then documentation should be a requirement. I think there should be guidelines for how to document, and the community should decide (in the required discussion!) which steps of the guidelines should be followed in a specific case. The existing requirements for execution look good to me. When someone doesn't follow the policy, what should be done? In my opinion, everyone SHOULD follow the policy, but if they don't the community should be lenient, either doing nothing or giving gentle reminders that the policy exists--until the person causes a problem with their edits. At that point, the community should start holding the person to a higher standard and insisting they follow the policy. If someone who has caused problems before continues to not follow the policy, then the community should bring the issue to the DWG. That's my thougts, --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] MapQuest Open tiles not updating?
On 03/11/2014 05:12 PM, James Mast wrote: See this tweet I got back from them asking the same question: https://twitter.com/MapQuestTech/status/436876342861512704 -James Thanks, that explains it. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] MapQuest Open tiles not updating?
It looks like the MapQuest Open tiles haven't updated since the beginning of February. I narrowed the last update down to sometime between https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20325021 (Feb 1, 10 PM) and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20340010 (Feb 2, 7 PM) Does anyone know what's going on with it? --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Bitcoin Spam
On 12/03/2013 09:55 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> However, in the case at hand, it seems that the interest is not to >> improve OSM but instead we're just a vehicle for people to show up on >> the "coinmap", a business directory for bitcoin-accepting businesses. > > I don't think we should worry about people's motivations. What's the > problem here? That there are business POIs in OSM that are missing tags. It > doesn't sound all that different to me from any other data quality problem. > Either we fix the missing tags (if possible), or delete them as junk. And > if the business in question doesn't deserve a mention in OSM (eg, a mail > order place with no shop front), again, just delete it. > > No? > > Steve There seem to be people already interested in improving the data quality of these new POIs. For example, I noticed this user in my area http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Dafmaster/history -- new as of late last month, with ~100 edits adding addresses, phone numbers, websites, yelp links, and other tags as appropriate. I've seen other users doing quality control too--some new, some with thousands of OSM edits over 5+ years. And many of the nodes seem to be originally contributed by long-time mappers, and well-tagged to begin with. --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Public, no-cost, general-purpose tile servers
Hi, My university is converting our campus map to use OSM, and I was asked to look in to our options for tiles. Without going down the custom tile route, it seems like most of the publicly available tiles are for special purposes (biking, public transport, etc), and the only general road map style tiles I've found are the "Standard" tiles and MapQuest Open. Are there any I'm missing? Thanks, --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence redaction ready to begin
On 07/09/2012 04:46 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Where data has been redacted, any attempt to access it from the API > or the site's 'browse' pages will return a response to that effect. What methods will still exist to get redacted data? * Old planet files (or other old copies of data) * Full history file? * Anything else? Just curious, --Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
On 10/07/2011 11:40 AM, Andy Robinson wrote: > I'm going to suggest the latter, three nodes as follows: [...] Any solution should probably apply to relations as well as nodes (or instead of nodes, if I had my way). See also http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/131585141 with a creation date of 2011-09-28. (Was this deleted and recreated? Wikipedia appears to have a screenshot of it, but their image is from February...) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] data reconciliation tools
On 07/20/2011 12:54 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > Color-coded map of ODbL status > http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/ Is this using old data? I've spent the last few months cleaning up road centerlines, names, etc. in my area, and the overlay looks like it doesn't have some changes from May 1, but it does from March 12. Also, what's the meaning of the "accepted or declined" etc. colors? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] shortened names
On 07/06/2011 11:35 PM, Robin Paulson wrote: > is there any consensus on shortening of parts of names? > e.g.: > street/st > saint/st > avenue/ave > point/pt > mount/mt > > i was under the impression consensus was to type the full word, then > renderers would shorten where necessary? apparently some mappers > disagree though http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name#Abbreviation_.28don.27t_do_it.29 I remember also seeing a list of common abbreviations, for help in decoding ones you don't know. One thing it pointed out is that some words have the same abbreviation, e.g. Saint and Street both abbreviate to St. This makes it harder to programatically un-abbreviate than to programatically abbreviate. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Some tiles not rendering?
On 04/14/2011 11:29 AM, Svavar Kjarrval wrote: > Why is the queue not enhanced to avoid instances where tile-rendering > queries are rejected due to a full queue? I have no knowledge about the specifics of this server, but I can speak generically: Requests are coming in faster than the server can process them. This means that some requests have to be dropped, no matter what*. Once you know that, the length of the queue doesn't matter much. The advantage of a shorter queue is that it reduces latency. Since each request has to wait for everything in front of it to be processed, the fewer things in front of the one you care about, the faster it'll happen. The advantage of a longer queue is that it can smooth out any variations in request speed. If sometimes requests come in faster than the server can process, and sometimes they come in slower, then requests can build up in the fast times and the server can catch up when they slow. This is apparently what happens to OSM between 00:00 and 06:00 on the graph. By lengthening the queue, it would be possible to make the server be constantly busy during that period as well. However, it would come at the expense of increased latency, and depending on how many requests are being dropped, filling in that period of lesser activity might not make much of a difference. * Technically, you could let the queue will grow indefinitely and time to process any given request will approach infinity. That's not a good idea though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Movement of Japan coastline
I've read news reports (e.g. [1]) that the entire country of Japan has moved about 2.4 meters (8 feet) because of the recent earthquake. Is this something that we want to deal with on a large-scale basis? If so, should it be done soon, before people start mapping from updated imagery and mix old and new positions? Or is 2.4 meters not enough to worry about? Unfortunately the articles I've found have been very lacking in details, such as moved relative to what? In what direction? [1] http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-12/world/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth_1_tsunami-usgs-geophysicist-quake?_s=PM:WORLD ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
I have a few buildings that are not simply at ground level, and I can't find how to map them on the wiki. First off, a skywalk between two buildings. Nothing fancy, although it does go over a road. Second, an underground building. Connects to other buildings that are at ground level and have basements. Third, a building with a courtyard, and a basement that also extends below the basement. Fourth a building that has been built into a cliff. At the top of the cliff, on top of the building, are roads and sidewalks and things. Fifth, a building on a hill, with entrances variously on the third, second, and first floor. One of the second floor entrances leads out onto a "green roof", which has grass planted on it and connects to the ground, but reaches out farther than the hill would naturally. Are there accepted ways to enter any of these buildings? If there's not an accepted way, any thoughts on what I should do? Thanks, Andrew ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Questions about importing data for University of Vermont campus
The University of Vermont web team is working on updating our online campus map, and right now an OpenLayers/OpenStreetMap-based solution is looking like the option we'll probably choose. We have a few questions about importing data and keeping it up to date. First, some background. The University keeps quite a bit of very detailed geospatial and other data about the campus, as you might expect. However, this data is spread around various departments, databases and non-database files, and formats. By far the largest problem for the web team working on our new map is collecting this data and getting access to it in such a way that we can keep it up to date. Any technological implementation issues, in whatever framework we decide to use, are comparatively minor. However, assuming we have the data issues worked out, we do need an implementation. Our most likely choice for this (mostly at my urging) is OpenLayers with an OpenStreetMap base layer. To do this, we need to get the data into the OpenStreetMap database. The major questions, then, are: For an initial import, what's the best way to accomplish it for various pieces of data? We have (at least) very high quality building outline, sidewalk, and road data. Currently in the OSM db is incomplete and somewhat low quality building and sidewalk data for the campus. The road data is pretty good, but probably not as good as we have. For an initial import, can we blow away the buildings and sidewalks and replace them with our own? Can we blow away the roads and replace them with our own? Some other datasets might have similar questions (parking lots, e.g.). Also, how would such an import be done, technically (for a set of >200 buildings, plus other data). (Link to UVM in OSM: http://osm.org/go/Zd_6Cl9d--) How can we keep this data up to date? Would any sort of automated process be acceptable, considering that our data would be both authoritative and accurate? Or would we have to watch for when our data changed and make changes to OSM manually? How can we watch for changes other users make to the data? I've found http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OWL_%28OpenStreetMap_Watch_List%29 and the rss feeds you can get from there. Is that the best way? What are our options in the case someone adds valid data that we don't want displayed on our base map tiles? For example, suppose someone adds every single emergency phone (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dphone) on campus to OSM (there are a lot), but we'd prefer to have that data in an overlay on our map so it can be turned on and off. Would we be forced to render our own tiles? All of this is still dependent on confirmation we can release the data, and, in fact, on the data itself (which we're still waiting on access to). Having the answers to these questions ahead of time will help make sure the OpenStreetMap implementation is the one we use. Thanks, Andrew Guertin University of Vermont Web Team ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
