Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
Hey all -- how about going easier here and helping each other. Rather than condemnation over a relatively minor decision of which platform to use for a survey. I think suggestion for another platform is easy enough to consider and remedy. OSMF has used limesurvey in the past, it can be looked at here. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:56:22 AM EDT, Sören Reinecke wrote: I am impressed that some of you always choose the path to complain about things going against their own world view rather to provide useful suggestion / realistic alternatives or even better getting involved in the implementation as developers do. Google or Microsoft are unfortunately the choice of many non-technical users because it is what they know, feel comfortable with and is most of the time easy to use. Only few OSS projects come near their level (the good ones like Linux). So please stop complaining about when someone does not share your ideologic attitude. And wanting to use OSS only is a ideology. In this case privacy is not even a concern. So please stop polluting email threads with unnecessary replies. For myself I can say that I don't like the giants too but I use what the most know and what is an established standard like POSIX or GDrive. I even administrate a Google Workspace subscription althought I do not like it because Google Workspace has way too limited administration options and a questionable permission system in GDrive. The argumentation of "restricted internet access" is a weak one in an online project like OpenStreetMap. Maybe I get a warning for saying this. But I got banned from tagging already because I brought up an important topic three times prior warning not to do that so nothing to loose here :) Sören Apr 28, 2023 16:27:41 Andy Townsend : > On 28/04/2023 14:57, Marc_marc wrote: >> part of the active opendata community >> does not wish to ally a closeddata based enterprise > > It's actually worse than that. > > OpenStreetMap has mappers all around the world. Some of those places don't > have the virtually unrestricted Internet access that people in the west may > be accustomed to, and I wouldn't assume that a website of a major American > company (Google) is available in all those places. Previously the Board and > other OSMF working groups have taken care to ensure that everyone can > contribute to surveys like this. Of all people, I'd have expected the > Communication Working Group to be aware of this potential issue and to have > taken steps to ensure that it wasn't one. > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > (writing in a personal capacity rather than as a member of the DWG) > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] consultation on list moderation
Hello talk I'm writing on behalf of the OSMF Board to solicit feedback on moderation of the talk and osmf-talk mailing lists since May 2022. In May 2022, the OSMF Board approved moderation on the osmf-talk and talk mailing lists. And we set a timeline of 8 months for a consultation with the lists, to inform a further vote on continuing moderation.https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2022-05#Vote_on_main_motion:_approval_of_moderators_for_talk_and_osmf-talk_mailing_lists_and_text_as_provided_by_Mikel_-_Approved Please share viewpoints here, or if you prefer directly with bo...@osmfoundation.org. We will consult over the next two weeks until February 23, and then discuss at the next Board meeting on that date. Thanks-Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions
Thanks Mateusz, I agree. Points can easily be made without such garbage. Unfortunately Frederik has a habit of using rhetoric that evokes violence against women. I’m not saying that he or anyone here personally holds biased views about women. But the effect is the same, it degrades our entire community. And we wonder why there are no women running for the board. Mikel On Thursday, December 3, 2020, 4:45 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: Dec 3, 2020, 00:44 by frede...@remote.org: People have thought the same about Donald Trump - yeah, this whole I think that form of this is very unfortunate and references to Trump and genitalia could be dropped without losing anything. This really have not added anything useful and this insults were problematic. Especially as the same could be expressed without comparing such actions to rape (implied rape?). ___ 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] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?
Hi, I’m not actually a active moderator on this list, but I was asked to step in by several people, and I think it’s appropriate. I think this discussion can stay substantive without veering off topic into geopolitics (we have the whole rest of the internet for that), and using profanity and taunting nicknames (even if mild). Mikel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Can you recommend good introduction to JOSM for 100% osm newbie?
Might be a touch out of date, but useful guide to JOSM https://labs.mapbox.com/mapping/ * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, September 24, 2020, 03:20:01 AM EDT, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2020-09-24 08:50, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: > I looked at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM and > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Guide and > https://learnosm.org/en/josm/ > > but I am not fully happy about any of them (a bit too much at one for > someone new) > > Why not iD: they want to edit and fix hiking relations, what AFAIK is > not well supported in iD Well, I only know the very basics in iD (and also Potlatch2). I even have problems putting a node because it always wants to continue to a way and I don't know how to stop this (believe in Potlatch2). So every editor has a learning curve, even the ones that are supposed to be the easy ones like iD or Potlatch2. Because I've been using JOSM for years, I know how to use most if not all of the functions and I shun away from iD or Potlatch2 just because I've never familiarized myself with them (I don't see the need because they lack the features of JOSM). I don't see what is "much" about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Guide. 2 steps to start the program (if you have Java installed) and the basic functions are explained step by step. Relations are always a more advanced topic, but I can't imagine that with a few days of fiddling around you don't get the hang of it. Regards, Maarten ___ 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] Examples of good paid mapping?
Most companies are doing well, and get along well, we just only hear about the problems. So it’s probably not this or that company to highlight, but particular mapping projects that illustrate well how it’s done. Mikel On Friday, September 11, 2020, 3:54 PM, Michał Brzozowski <http://www.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi all,Do we have any examples of companies that do paid mapping (preferably at scale) and do it right?Maybe leading by example will help other mapping teams get along better with local OSM communities? Michał ___ 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] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
More seriously the line “all interests of the OSM community” was one we talked a lot about on the board when writing this message, and had several versions, and indeed we touched on how to best designate what was needed in composition of the panel. I think it’s not possible to put together a specific formula, but think we should expand this section to touch on the kinds of things we would hope to see in the composition of the board. That certainly would be experience and expertise with OSM community and software development and mapping. I don’t think anyone is impartial on anything but we’d want people who are recognized as open minded. We haven’t talked at all about transparency of selection and deliberations. I’m not sure it’s wise to be completely open in the work of disputes, but certainly having deliberations well minutes and explained makes sense. Mikel On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:42 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: It was a joke more aimed at Rory and a continuation of the similar discussion we’ve had on the board. And yes I agree very much with the sentiment that we don’t want OSM to be dominated by companies. or any single point of view for that matter. I’ve come to not like that quote because I don’t believe it’s often the case. And I think that there’s a lot of decisions which are favorable to all involved in osm, whether giant company or a single mapper. The dichotomy is not that pronounced if you look closely. Mikel On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:31 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Re: "Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?" This sarcastic comment is not a fair response to Christoph's concerns. While we hope that no one involved currently in OpenStreetMap would purposefully turn the community over to corporations, it is certainly possible to imagine this to happen little by little, if the community is eroded slowly, lacking safeguards and clear goals. If the people who become leaders of the OpenStreetMap community have all of their experience and ideals based in the corporate tech sector, it will be unsurprising if they are naturally inclined to make decisions which are favorable to the interests of Facebook, Apple or Amazon, whether or not they benefit the OpenStreetMap community. As a famous American reformer (Upton Sinclair) often said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." – Joseph Eisenberg On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:08 PM Mikel Maron wrote: Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this? On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Rory McCann wrote: The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of corporate employees? What would you suggest for appointing & transparency? On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote: >> >> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software >> dispute resolution panel: >> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu >> te-resolution-panel/ > > I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it > does not control itself... > > For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected > entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in > composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members > themselves. See also: > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy > > Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from > the fact that it is not composed of political appointees. > > Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to > reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the > panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping > and tagging in OSM or in other words: The competence to assess > evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters > in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion. Neither is > impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate > data users. > > Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public > (indeed important, woul
Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
It was a joke more aimed at Rory and a continuation of the similar discussion we’ve had on the board. And yes I agree very much with the sentiment that we don’t want OSM to be dominated by companies. or any single point of view for that matter. I’ve come to not like that quote because I don’t believe it’s often the case. And I think that there’s a lot of decisions which are favorable to all involved in osm, whether giant company or a single mapper. The dichotomy is not that pronounced if you look closely. Mikel On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:31 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Re: "Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?" This sarcastic comment is not a fair response to Christoph's concerns. While we hope that no one involved currently in OpenStreetMap would purposefully turn the community over to corporations, it is certainly possible to imagine this to happen little by little, if the community is eroded slowly, lacking safeguards and clear goals. If the people who become leaders of the OpenStreetMap community have all of their experience and ideals based in the corporate tech sector, it will be unsurprising if they are naturally inclined to make decisions which are favorable to the interests of Facebook, Apple or Amazon, whether or not they benefit the OpenStreetMap community. As a famous American reformer (Upton Sinclair) often said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." – Joseph Eisenberg On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:08 PM Mikel Maron wrote: Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this? On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Rory McCann wrote: The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of corporate employees? What would you suggest for appointing & transparency? On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote: >> >> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software >> dispute resolution panel: >> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu >> te-resolution-panel/ > > I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it > does not control itself... > > For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected > entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in > composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members > themselves. See also: > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy > > Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from > the fact that it is not composed of political appointees. > > Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to > reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the > panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping > and tagging in OSM or in other words: The competence to assess > evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters > in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion. Neither is > impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate > data users. > > Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public > (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function > otherwise). I guess that means both the nominations and selection of > panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel > on cases is going to happen behind closed doors. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this? On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Rory McCann wrote: The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of corporate employees? What would you suggest for appointing & transparency? On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote: >> >> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software >> dispute resolution panel: >> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu >> te-resolution-panel/ > > I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it > does not control itself... > > For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected > entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in > composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members > themselves. See also: > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy > > Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from > the fact that it is not composed of political appointees. > > Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to > reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the > panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping > and tagging in OSM or in other words: The competence to assess > evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters > in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion. Neither is > impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate > data users. > > Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public > (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function > otherwise). I guess that means both the nominations and selection of > panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel > on cases is going to happen behind closed doors. > ___ 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] Funding of iD Development and Maintenance
Hello The OSMF board is working to make OSM's core software and infrastructure more stable and sustainable by supporting paid roles for priority needs, such as the Senior Site Reliability role (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-July/006973.html), and the pilot to fund "OSM Infrastructure" projects (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-August/006987.html). As part of this focus, we want to organise coordinated funding to support continued maintenance and development of the iD editor, as iD's strong continuous development over the past several years has served the OSM community well. Quincy Morgan is iD's maintainer and lead developer. Unfortunately, full-time support of his work recently ended. He'd very much like to continue, and the OSMF Board wants to see that happen. He has written up this proposal (https://github.com/quincylvania/quincylvania.com/blob/main/resources/Morgan%20iD%20work%20proposal%207_27.pdf) with his ideal plans for iD over the next year, along with notes about how he'll organise, grow the developer base, communicate, and set priorities, and make iD better. The final priorities for the year will be made in consultation with the community. To help fund this project, as well as the SSRE role, we're looking at earmarked donations from companies, chapters and organisations. Administratively, we believe this is easier than other methods of pooled funding, as the OSMF is already in most companies' procurement systems, and it would limit paperwork to one contract for iD. Initial contract would be for 1 year, and that's what the OSMF would look to raise now. With the OSMF holding the contract, the Board would take a key accountability role, reviewing work done on the contract and assessing progress on the plans Quincy develops for the project. Additionally, the OSMF is working in cooperation with Quincy to establish a formal appeal process (https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/06/08/toward-resolution-of-controversies-related-to-id/) for the relatively rare community issues iD cannot resolve itself. The OSMF would not see its role as a traditional "boss", instructing iD to focus on this or that feature. We would not be prescriptive about priorities. This does not mean work in a vacuum. Our expectation is that Quincy, in addition to following our hiring framework's principles for transparent service to the community, would regularly convene stakeholders from the community to share their priorities and feedback. Quincy would assess all priorities holistically as he decides on a workable plan for the project. Over the course of the year, we'll evaluate and learn from how the arrangement is working for all, as we look towards year 2 and beyond. For future years, we are looking at developing an overall plan for long-term support for all parts of the OSMF infrastructure. We want to be able to offer similar support to other OSM editors. Our early focus on iD is to ensure continued development. We want to find out what you, the OSM community, think. Do you have any feedback? If you know of an organisation that might want to fund this, please feel free to ask them to contact the OSMF Board. -Mikel, for the OSMF Board * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Planned revert of added surface and tracktype tags without local knowledge in various countries
A wide scale revert without assessing closely the quality and particulars in specific countries is not a good idea. Just an opinion that a method is flawed is not enough to demonstrate that such a wide scale revert is justified. Much more detailed analysis is needed before it should even be considered, and even then recommend that discussions should be opened up with local mapping communities in each place. It’s just not soemthing to do lightly. Additionally, there may have been subsequent edits that would be lost in a revert. I think if you look at your local area and determine that the mapping was not accurate in a large number of samples, you’d be justified reverting in that place. But you should still look carefully and make sure other good work is not undone in the process. Mikel On Saturday, July 18, 2020, 6:53 AM, Michael Reichert wrote: Hi, while reviewing changes in my local area, I discovered that user Modest7 has been adding tracktype=* tags to lots of highway=track at various locations. I asked him what sources he used apart from the satellite imagery mentioned in the imagery_used=* tag of his changesets. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896 for a discussion with him. I do not believe that one can add reliable tracktype=* information from satellite imagery without having some ground truth knowledge in order to know how to interpret the imagery in that region. Adding estimated tracktype=* does not help OSM on the long term. People how rely on the information (e.g. some wanting to drive or cycle on that track) are disappointed about this low-quality OSM data. Mappers who decide where to map assume these roads to be mapped properly. IMHO, adding fixme=resurvey tracktype will not improve it. Data consumers usually do not use tags like fixme=* In the case of imports (another type of mass editing), we say that an import must not add fixme=* to cover shortcomings of the data to be imported because they usually do not get fixed in a reasonable time. Therefore, I plan to revert these changes. Modest7 does not seem to realise that estimating tracktype from satellite imagery is not doing a service to OSM. I am currently preparing a revert of all additions of surface=* and tracktype=* by him he uploaded since 1 January 2020 [1]. The revert will only edit tags, geometry will stay unchanged. I revert changes on surface as well because that's not very different to tracktype except that it applies to other types of roads as well. The countries which will be affected are: Germany Denmark Turkey United States Poland Ukraine Morocco Czech Republic Lithuania Sweden Norway eSwatini A changeset discussion with him can be found at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87236896 Best regards Michael [1] This date is not fixed yet. ___ 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] Could/should editors detect/disallow huge changeset bboxes?
> Yes please - I am using Osmcha to look at changesets around me and i have a high number of changesets which span half Europe and thus intersect with the area i am looking at. Side note to this discussion — in OSMCha you can filter out these wide spanning changesets with “Bbox size bound” filter. If a changeset is larger than the bbox filter area multiplied by this value, it’s filtered out. That doesn’t help if features in large changesets are actually in your area of interest. Would definitely be better if these unintentional large changesets were reduced at the source. Mikel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
> Who owns the iD project now? What's happened after "nearly all of the > original authors left Mapbox", has the project ownership been transferred > from Mapbox to OSMF, or perhaps to current maintainers? Does Mapbox still > retain the ownership rights to the project (even if they don't currently care > about them)? Ownership is a nebulous concept here. The original repo was hosted by RichardF under https://github.com/systemed/, and now is at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD. Mapbox employees contributed under open source licensing terms, and have certainly been keenly involved in setting the initial project concept and direction. That was all done with a lot of intention within the OSM community. Launch blog from that time https://blog.mapbox.com/new-map-editor-launches-on-openstreetmap-org-13956033d0c9. And John Firebaugh's talk at OSM US 2014 is a great perspective on Mapbox's approach (and what it takes to do software development in OSM) https://2014.stateofthemap.us/session/implementing-change-in-openstreetmap/ Mapbox continued to support the development of iD with developer time, but not with a posture of setting direction as a company. The desire for Mapbox was and continues to be that iD continues to serve its purpose to provide a great mapping experience in OSM. So Mapbox never "owned" iD, and it's unclear if you can assign that concept. If you had to say who owns it, then it is OpenStreetMap, and that yes OSMF has the responsibility to make sure it has a healthy development and community environment. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Tuesday, June 9, 2020, 12:06:21 PM EDT, wrote: On 09/06/2020 16:00, Simon Poole wrote: > Nearly all of the original authors left Mapbox a long time ago, nobody > working on it today is an "original author". The grant that Mapbox > received at the time was clearly instrumental in allowing them to start > growing the company to its current size, so while we are obviously > thankful for the support that Mapbox has provided over the years, it was > clearly a win-win situation. Who owns the iD project now? What's happened after "nearly all of the original authors left Mapbox", has the project ownership been transferred from Mapbox to OSMF, or perhaps to current maintainers? Does Mapbox still retain the ownership rights to the project (even if they don't currently care about them)? The code license is very permissive so there is always an option of starting a new project based on it (forking). But the license and ownership of the project are not the same thing. > Many would have argued that the OSMF should have received the half a > million dollars and contracted the work out, maybe to Mapbox, but in > any case just because what actually happened was slightly different, > doesn't mean that the OSMF and the OSM community gave whoever happens to > be working on iD the licence to control the projects destiny forever. Not saying that this shouldn't be the case, but clearly it wasn't, at least initially. And if it isn't ours we can't simply take it, even if we really, really want it. From my point of view - I am happy with the current project governance. It works well for iD, it works well for the OSM community. Controversies are all around minor issues and contributions - basically saying that the maintainers are doing their job. Ndrw ___ 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] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
Hey I have some other things to say on this thread, but quickly this point is based on incorrect assumptions > But if push comes to shove, and someone needs to decide how something is done, do we want US tech firms to decide what the official OSM editor does, or do we want the OSMF to decide what the official OSM editor does? False dichotomy. The choice here is not between Silicon Valley and OSMF. Decisions on iD are not made by US tech firms. I say this as an employee of one of those firms who has observed this first hand. The decisions on iD are made by the developers, working within the OSM community. As it should be. What’s needed is the availability of more structure to come to software decision in those rare situations when ad hoc community is not enough. Yes iD is the focus currently, but it’s not the only place our community needs more software support. Mikel On Tuesday, June 9, 2020, 7:55 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 2020-06-09 12:32, nd...@redhazel.co.uk wrote: > To me, OSMF wants the control of a project it hasn't developed but > turned out too successful to ignore, The iD editor has been originally built by Mapbox funded by a grant from the Knight Foundation with the aim of being a good editor for OSM. That was before any of the people currently driving iD development came on board. Had it been "some GIS editing software that might or might not be used for OSM one day", it is very unlikely that this grant would ever have been given. iD was never a project that would have been viable without the OSMF's blessing (as in "if you get this editor to work then we'll put it on our web site"). > and to add insult to injury you are > asking the author to keep working on it by committing patches he > disagrees with. As far as I am aware, both former and current iD lead developers are doing their work within a full time IT job, not in their spare time. Their employer - US tech firms in both cases - asks them to spend time on iD because their employer wants to help OSM improve. Most employment situations bring it with them that you have to do something you disagree with now and then. We do not know what instructions the paid iD developers receive from their employers but it is obvious that they *could* receive instructions. Now, of course as long as everything purrs along smoothly, good software is created for a happy user base by happy developers and nobody interferes, that's all dandy. But if push comes to shove, and someone needs to decide how something is done, do we want US tech firms to decide what the official OSM editor does, or do we want the OSMF to decide what the official OSM editor does? > - It's deeply unethical. OSMF should foster the development of the OSM > ecosystem, not harass people working on it. How does this fit OSMF own > charter and CoC? I think you have a very warped view of the whole topic. Given that I haven't seen you on these lists before I must assume that you haven't followed any of the history, background, and past discussions about the matter. You're of course entitled to your point of view but your point of view doesn't really do much for the discussion when it is, obviously, based on the mistaken assumption that iD is a third-party hobby project that OSMF now wants to nefariously take control of because it has proven successful. 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] mspray stealth organized mapping
Before everyone jumps to revert undelete block etc I’ve gotten in touch with the teams at Akros and am helping to work out what’s happening here and resolve. More soon. Mikel On Friday, May 22, 2020, 10:33 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: Are you sure that in 72427535 buildings were just moved? buildings and college that used to be mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-12.94547/28.64318 It is gone thanks to https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=72427535 BTW how one may undelete delete buildings? Straight revert will delete new ones, what may be not needed. Use reverter plugin in JOSM, copy buildings to a new layer, delete reverter layer, save? Is there some script that I can run with "revert deletions only in changeset XYZ"? May 22, 2020, 15:47 by talk@openstreetmap.org: Le vendredi 22 mai 2020 07 h 29 min 19 s UTC−4, Frederik Ramm a écrit : > Sometimes users deleted a large number of > buildings e.g. here https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=72427535 > without giving a clear reason Looking at Achavi, red outlines make us think objects were deleted. But in fact, the buildings were simply slightly moved to realign to DigitalGlobe imagery (not Bing). And no correction of geometry was made, even where too many and unsquared angles to represent a rectangular building. Also Tags are systematically added: "mapper"="mspray4" "source"="Akros" ___ 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] mspray stealth organized mapping
Does possibly look like organized editing. No need to invoke intention — if this was “stealth” that means they are intentionally trying to hide. More likely case is they simply aren’t aware of the guidelines. Mikel On Friday, May 22, 2020, 4:52 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: I just noticed a serie of mspray[numerical suffix] (mspray16, mspray15, mspray13 and mspray4 for example) are are mapping many buildings in Senegal, some of which of dubious quality. This looks like organized mapping but I do not see any description of it in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities I attempted contact today, I am awaiting an answer - I'll keep this list informed. I suspect if may be part of the mSpray malaria spraying project. ___ 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] healthsites.io breaks OSM data, do not use
Update: https://github.com/healthsites/healthsites/issues/1357#issuecomment-602164476 The editor is disabled for now. They're working on fixing bad edits. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Sunday, March 22, 2020, 03:37:43 AM EDT, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote: On 3/21/20 17:39, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > the "healthsites.io" web app allows you to contribute data to OSM, > however if you modify existing OSM objects, it throws away all tags it > does not know of. Until this bug is fixed, please refrain from using > healthsites.io! > > You can track progress here > https://github.com/healthsites/healthsites/issues/1357#issuecomment-602068556 > > Bye > Frederik > It is one more lesson of this outbreak that the emergency response tools are to be prepared and tested well beforehand. By the way, a viral respiratory infection can be stopped, or at least slowed down, by mere physical separation of hosts, i.e. people, because it stops the exponential chain reaction. That is why mapping with the reliable editor say an archeological site in a forest could be also very beneficial. As some people could hike to it on weekend, instead of going to an overcrowded city park. And we shall also remember of ambulances. Sometimes it is very hard for a driver to find a location of an address. In some cases it may take hours. So the general overall improvement of the map should continue. Best regards, Oleksiy ___ 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] healthsites.io breaks OSM data, do not use
Yikes. Good catch and agreed. Can anyone track the extent of the damage, and prepare to restore the thrown away tags, while keeping the good new data? * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Saturday, March 21, 2020, 12:42:01 PM EDT, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, the "healthsites.io" web app allows you to contribute data to OSM, however if you modify existing OSM objects, it throws away all tags it does not know of. Until this bug is fixed, please refrain from using healthsites.io! You can track progress here https://github.com/healthsites/healthsites/issues/1357#issuecomment-602068556 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
> Today's blog posts are the press releases of past years. It would have been >quite possible to run it past the responsible organs of the organisation they >were writing about, as it would have been customary in earlier days. Good enough idea, but I have seen very few or even no examples of someone asking OSMF about a PR/blog beforehand, nor the OSMF asking for that. Not a bad idea to change expectations around this. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, March 20, 2020, 04:43:28 PM EDT, Simon Poole wrote: Am 20.03.2020 um 20:00 schrieb Mikel Maron: >> But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step >> imports. > No they're not. It's a couple sections in a blog post that is being wildly > misinterpreted. Today's blog posts are the press releases of past years. It would have been quite possible to run it past the responsible organs of the organisation they were writing about, as it would have been customary in earlier days. Simon > > * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron > > > > > > > On Friday, March 20, 2020, 02:18:54 PM EDT, Rory McCann > wrote: > > > > > > On 19/03/2020 20:15, Mikel Maron wrote: > >> This whole thread is blown out of proportion, and rehashing old >> theoretical debates about imports that are more or less resolved in >> practice. > > Yes, we have an import guideline. But this thread is from Facebook > trying to change that. To side step imports. > > BTW the Etiqutte guidelines require you to assume all people here are > operating in good faith 😉 > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
> But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step imports. No they're not. It's a couple sections in a blog post that is being wildly misinterpreted. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, March 20, 2020, 02:18:54 PM EDT, Rory McCann wrote: On 19/03/2020 20:15, Mikel Maron wrote: > This whole thread is blown out of proportion, and rehashing old > theoretical debates about imports that are more or less resolved in > practice. Yes, we have an import guideline. But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step imports. BTW the Etiqutte guidelines require you to assume all people here are operating in good faith 😉 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
> What's your guess, who will care more for the map, people who have copied AI >generated data or those who have created it, or doesn't it matter and it's the >same? Germany is awesome but not the only way things can develop. People who already care about OSM and have for years think rapid can help. They also recognize it has limitations. And btw, this thread started on the theoretical possibility of rapid being used for general purpose conflation, not AI proposed data. Mikel On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 11:12 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Do., 19. März 2020 um 13:01 Uhr schrieb Mikel Maron : Martin, have you actually tried RapiD? It doesnt resemble what you describe and does not disempower anyone. it changes the way we add things, or at least has potential to significantly shift the relation of individual people creating geodata (bottom up) towards big players providing geodata (top down) which at best gets looked at and "confirmed" by the contributor who actually copies it in, at worst it is a click-through mechanical operation without any effective review. From talking to mappers in places with less developed maps than Germany, there is enthusiasm about a tool that will help their mapping processes, and a thorough understanding of the limits of the approach. as always, you can find both, people applauding and people opposing. If Germany had started with a process like this, they would not be where they are now (a vital community of active mappers). To keep the data useful, permanent maintenance is required. What's your guess, who will care more for the map, people who have copied AI generated data or those who have created it, or doesn't it matter and it's the same? CheersMartin ___ 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] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
> How would a mapper performing imports via RapiD comply with the import >guidelines? By complying with the guidelines before setting up an import process that leveraged RapiD for conflation. Mikel On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 11:28 AM, Jmapb wrote: On 3/19/2020 7:57 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: There is nothing here about circumventing our well defined import guidelines, or disrespecting our basic tenets. The blog post says "The process of creating an import is too onerous for many users" and "Our hope is that RapiD can become a tool that’s simple enough for anyone to import and verify new data sets." How would a mapper performing imports via RapiD comply with the import guidelines? Jason ___ 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] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
Some imports are good, some are bad. We have ways to asses them with guidelines. There are tools to help the technical process. Maybe there’s more possibilities with rapid on tooling, maybe not. Seems pretty simple. This whole thread is blown out of proportion, and rehashing old theoretical debates about imports that are more or less resolved in practice. Mikel On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 2:44 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 19.03.20 17:54, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > So - why are authoritative data sets an unwelcome addition? At its core, OSM is a platform for collaboratively editing geodata. So the following would be strong reasons not to import a dataset: - other mappers should not edit it (because the dataset is the official source and changing it would just make it wrong) - other mappers cannot meaningfully edit it (because we cannot see the object in the real world and don't have access to useful sources). The way you describe it, collaborative editing doesn't seem to be a net benefit to your scenario, and in fact makes it harder to sync updates with the authoritative source. So as a thought experiment: Why not just convert your dataset to the OSM format to make it compatible with the OSM ecosystem, but skip the import into the main OSM database? In practice, I guess part of the answer for that is discoverability: Who wants to hunt down datasets scattered across various servers and portals? So it's tempting to put it all into a single big database. And I guess that's ok as long as it doesn't get in the way of the main purpose of that database too much – which is collaborative editing, not data distribution. But surely, with a decent implementation of compatible data layers tracked in some central repository, authoritative data could be used *with* OSM without being *in* OSM. Tobias ___ 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] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
Martin, have you actually tried RapiD? It doesnt resemble what you describe and does not disempower anyone. From talking to mappers in places with less developed maps than Germany, there is enthusiasm about a tool that will help their mapping processes, and a thorough understanding of the limits of the approach. Mikel On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 7:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Do., 19. März 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm : I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software that interacts with our database. I think we should disallow any contributions made with RapID/map-with-ai and friends. I support this notion. OSM should remain the project where local people add facts, not a collection of probable geo data as identified by AI (based just on remote sensing and without a clue of the "on the ground situation"). For many tasks it more important that the information is reliable (and maybe obviously incomplete) than apparently "complete". From am political point of view, OSM is a project that gave the power to the people and we have been working hard to make a success. Let's not hand the power over to big business now. Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM is not the place for dissemination of authoritative data sets
Frederik, you’re crying out against phantoms, and getting stuck on one interpretation of the word “authoritative”, and using that misinterpretation as an excuse to beat on one of your favorite punching bags, and try to exact radical unrational restrictions on a piece of software. What Facebook is saying here is that RapiD can make the technical part of the import process easier. It’s a well done conflation process that has every single new feature individually examined by a mapper. There is nothing here about circumventing our well defined import guidelines, or disrespecting our basic tenets. It’s just your imagination. There are totally rational ways to engage with an idea like using rapid for conflation. Let’s do that, and figure out how we can make OSM better with productive conversation. Mikel On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 7:28 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, a propos a recent statement from our friends at Facebook in which they make plans for the future of our project, https://tech.fb.com/map-with-ai-updates/ > Beyond AI-based data sets, one of the biggest challenges for OSM is importing > even readily available authoritative data sets > ... > our hope is that RapiD can become a tool that’s simple enough for anyone to > import and verify new data sets and to make use of these powerful tools I would like to reiterate that the "challenge" is not that it is difficult to import "authoritative data sets"; the problem is that authoritative data sets are fundamentally incompatible with the way we operate in OpenStreetMap. To quote just an obvious example, the government of India certainly has an authoritative data set about where their boundaries are, it's just that this does not align with facts on the ground and hence our data is different. The past has shown that petrol station chains also have "authoritative" data sets about their stations but they are riddled with bugs, and not suitable for wholesale import. I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software that interacts with our database. I think we should disallow any contributions made with RapID/map-with-ai and friends. 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announcing Daylight Map Distribution
I heard Mapbox is working on this and divide data spatially not as a sequence of changeset. My impression would be that this way you could produce a "nice looking map" but most likely it will break for routing purposes in most horrible ways where ways suddenly are not connected anymore as some changeset inbetween has been withdrawn/rejected. Mapbox Streets Review groups data for review by feature type and spatial proximity, for a single day. There’s some complexities but it does maintain the routing graph. I understand Facebook does something similar, but yes their use case does not involve routing but only visible map. Nothing wrong with that, fit the process to purpose. > So i'd guess the way you and IIRC Mapbox try to solve the vandalism/bad edit issue is a labour and machine learning intensive task which you cant win. Once you eliminate changesets you fall behind and you pile up inconsistencie That’s not the case. It is labor intensive, but with well designed processes it’s manageable, and you can stay on pace and consistent. I’d say one issue is not missing problems but being overly conservative, and flagging false positives. So flags in OSMCha from Mapbox shouldn’t be interpreted as a definite problem, but a suspicion. That’s by design, but it would be good to get even more accurate. > So i'd love to hear more thoughts about long term ideas how to solvethis in a >collaborative manner. OSMCha is probably not the final solution but currently >it brings together analysis, be it human or machine learning in a transparent way, not that it currently has an impact on the main OSM database. 100%. OSM and OSM validation needs to be collaborative to work. One idea, OSMCha could be more integrated into OSM.org, could provide more insightful insight in the history view. Mikel On Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 5:52 PM, Florian Lohoff wrote: On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 05:08:10PM -0700, Michal Migurski wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I’m writing to let you know about a new OpenStreetMap project Facebook > just released. It’s called Daylight Map Distribution. Daylight is a > complete, downloadable preview of OpenStreetMap data we plan to start > using in a number of our public maps: I think its a humble approach to try to identify (un)intentional bad edits. A lot of people try to deal with this. I am doing a lot of QA myself and i look at OSMCha changesets in my greater surrounding on a daily basis. I fail to see a sane technical way of producing consistent map data out of some intermingled data of which some changesets have been flagged/removed. I heard Mapbox is working on this and divide data spatially not as a sequence of changeset. My impression would be that this way you could produce a "nice looking map" but most likely it will break for routing purposes in most horrible ways where ways suddenly are not connected anymore as some changeset inbetween has been withdrawn/rejected. So i'd guess the way you and IIRC Mapbox try to solve the vandalism/bad edit issue is a labour and machine learning intensive task which you cant win. Once you eliminate changesets you fall behind and you pile up inconsistencies. This is, i guess, the reason for your "one shot" dump of your current internal state. So from my perspective the vandalism/bad edit issue will only be fixable if we have some review process (Not that i would suggest one) for strictly sequential changesets where review must be in order and a once rejected/withdrawn changeset can only be requeued not put in that sequential place again. And even then you'll see vandalism sneak by with innocent looking edits or intentional 3rd party validation. So i'd love to hear more thoughts about long term ideas how to solve this in a collaborative manner. OSMCha is probably not the final solution but currently it brings together analysis, be it human or machine learning in a transparent way, not that it currently has an impact on the main OSM database. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away___ 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] Announcing Daylight Map Distribution
Thanks Mike and Facebook for doing this. I commented on your diary post, but also adding to the coversation here. It's great to have this insight out and available. There's a good tradition of downstream data processing and redistribution in the community (you could call them packages I supposed) -- from GeoFabrik's regional and country downloads, to OSMQATiles, etc. In this case (and I focused on this when we spoke), I'm not sure that the most valuable thing to distribute is what made it through Facebook filters, but rather what didn't make it through and why. That insight is valuable to identify problems that need fixing on a faster basis, notify local communities and other editors, and to build up a corpus of understanding of what problematic edits in OSM look like. The most actionable way to do this distribution will be through OSMCha. Through the OSMCha API, you can flag changesets/features with reasons, and can be set up so that any reason tag by Facebook has a "Facebook:" prefix. This is what Mapbox has set up. The Mapbox Streets Review team looks at edits every day, and problems are flagged and surfaced in OSMCha. You can see all of this [with this OSMCha filter](https://osmcha.org/?aoi=083b147b-a72c-4026-9db5-b70761a6795c). You'll see the most recent flag as about 3 days ago -- that's the typical time between OSM edit and review / publishing in Mapbox Streets. Adding in Facebook flagged problems to OSMCha would provide even stronger signal of problems, and hope to explore implementing it with you all. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Monday, March 9, 2020, 08:10:29 PM EDT, Michal Migurski wrote: Hi everyone, I’m writing to let you know about a new OpenStreetMap project Facebook just released. It’s called Daylight Map Distribution. Daylight is a complete, downloadable preview of OpenStreetMap data we plan to start using in a number of our public maps: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/migurski/diary/392416 Facebook uses maps to let our users find friends, businesses, groups and more. OpenStreetMap (OSM) has a substantial global footprint of map data built and maintained by a dedicated community of global mappers and it’s a natural choice for us. Every day, OSM receives millions of contributions from the community. Some of these contributions may have intentional and unintentional edits that are incompatible with our needs. Our mapping teams work to scrub these contributions for consistency and quality. What’s Included in the Daylight Map Distribution: • A PBF planet file composed of 100% OSM data, released under the terms of the Open Database License. • Only those edits which have been validated to contain no malicious vandalism or unintentional errors so we can show them in our display maps This is just an initial first release, and we’re looking for feedback from the community to decide what would be useful to release in the future and how frequently. I’d be interested to hear any response you might have about it! -mike. michal migurski- contact info and pgp key: sf/ca http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html ___ 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] Announcing Daylight Map Distribution
It's fair to point out that "no malicious vandalism or unintentional errors" is overdoing it, no one can claim 100% on this. But "you don't really know what you're talking about" is a rude thing to say. And expressing a belief that FB is not capable of doing this to a small, or even large degree, is not based on any factual inquiry of what they've done. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Tuesday, March 10, 2020, 04:06:05 PM EDT, Marc M. wrote: Michal Migurski wrote > Only those edits which have been validated to contain no malicious vandalism > or unintentional errors so we can show them in our display maps I get the impression that you don't really know what you're talking about. There are many "complaints" that FB does not respond enought to community feedback. So to believe that FB is capable of validating even the slightest change is naive at best. I spend a lot of time checking every changeset in 2 comfort zones, I regularly detect anomalies, but to know if it is correct or not takes time. Regards, Marc ___ 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] OTG rule, borders & mountains existing | Re: Crimea situation - on the ground
Colin doesn’t seem to be advocating for deference to and worship of authorities in all situations. That’s an over the top interpretation. It’s maybe better to say that it’s something to consider when evaluating data — as we always look at a mappers context in OSM when looking at edits and revisions. Side point > we *are* a project of hobbyists and volunteers and professionals. And students and researchers. And anyone else who wants to participate in an open map. Been that way since the beginning. Let’s not cut ourselves short in comparison to “professional” tools. Many of the software tools we’ve developed as a community are leading the industry. Mikel On Wednesday, February 12, 2020, 4:42 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 2020-02-12 10:28, Colin Smale wrote: > Where a boundary coincides with the centre line of > a road for example, and there is a discrepancy in OSM between the > locations of the two, there should be a recognition that the > professionally surveyed locations are more likely to be correct I disagree. What you are requesting here is that we blindly defer to authorities. "I cannot verify this - but a professional surveyor with his $10k equipment claims it is so - hence I guess I have to believe it." I think this is not how OpenStreetMap should be operating. I can see how to a professional surveyor the idea must be painful that someone comes along with their rubbish equipment and makes a change, but we *are* a project of hobbyists and volunteers, and something that a hobbyist and volunteer cannot verify ("don't touch this unless you invest $10k in equipment first!!!") should not be in OSM, and we should not worship precision that we cannot create ourselves. 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OTG rule, borders & mountains existing | Re: Crimea situation - on the ground
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-February/083993.html * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Tuesday, February 11, 2020, 04:42:42 PM EST, stevea wrote: Thanks, Mikel, but may I please ask what you mean by "control boundaries?" SteveA > On Feb 11, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: > > btw, I think it's entirely compatible to follow On the Ground, with tagging > that recognizes the distinction between political boundaries and control > boundaries. > > * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron ___ 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] OTG rule, borders & mountains existing | Re: Crimea situation - on the ground
btw, I think it's entirely compatible to follow On the Ground, with tagging that recognizes the distinction between political boundaries and control boundaries. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Tuesday, February 11, 2020, 03:55:48 PM EST, stevea wrote: On Feb 11, 2020, at 12:05 PM, Mark Wagner wrote: > Have you actually been to the US-Canada border? For thousands and > thousands of kilometers, it's really obvious: > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/US-Canada_border_at_Crawford_State_Park_20130629.jpg > > Even when it's not as obvious as in that photo, there are still > frequent boundary cairns. And yes, they're mapped in OSM: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1997617997 I have been there, and in British Columbia, as is your example. There will always be counter-examples to a claim of "boundaries are not always obvious or indicated on-the-ground," (as you did, here, with a cutline in the real world some of these being mapped in OSM). Same with mountain ranges, oceans / bodies of water, etc. that have no signage or evidence of them (named as they are) being OTG. Simply stated, there ARE (and always will be) things we map which are not OTG, making OTG not a rule strictly followed. However, we map these anyway, and by the thousand. My point is that OSM shouldn't pretend that the OTG "rule" is absolute, as it isn't. While I think all of us (even its original proponent in 2007, as Mikel stated earlier) agree that OTG is "an excellent guideline to be followed where it can be," others (Colin, Yuri) here have chimed in or infer that it can't realistically be absolute (as it isn't, and it can't). Me, too. There seems to be consensus that "Independent verifiability" is a crucial component of Good Practice in those cases where OTG cannot STRICTLY be followed, as in cases of invisible boundaries, oceans without signage, and mountain ranges where we are forced to concede "well, everybody simply KNOWS that these are 'The Alps' or 'The Rocky Mountains.'" The solution here is "this (and its correct name) can be independently verified, that's "good enough for OSM" even without OTG evidence. https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Talk:Good_practice#Supplementing_and_clarifying_the_On_The_Ground_.22rule.22 has input from Yuri and jeisenberg and I discussing whether unsigned routes qualify for this treatment (we can't see them OTG, but we map them anyway, as a public agency asserts their existence, though it hasn't signed them well). While routes like this are a relatively minor (lesser) concern about OTG, broader discussion continues here (in talk). (I'm OK with that). But lest my suggestion that we modify/soften OTG from a "hard rule" (which it isn't and cannot be) into a wishy-washy, too-ill-defined "guideline," please understand I'm stating OTG isn't a rule. Rather, it is an excellent guideline to be followed where it can be and is, but it is a fact that it cannot be and is not always followed. The particulars of how we better apply OTG going forward might be difficult to describe well and reach consensus upon, but we shouldn't let that deter us, even with disagreement. Rather than get snarled in counter-examples, let's discuss how OTG isn't and can't be strictly followed in many cases. It IS followed in the majority of cases, but in those corner cases where it isn't, because it can't be ("nothing" is OTG), must be realistically addressed, likely in our wiki where we state the "rule" today, though going forward much better state a "guideline". I think we can get there, but it remains under discussion / construction. SteveA ___ 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] Crimea situation - on the ground
Godo point SteveA. If I had it to do over again, when I developed this in 2007 for our first edit war over city names in Northern Cyprus, I would have name this the "On the Ground **Guideline**" rather Rule. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, February 7, 2020, 02:15:11 PM EST, stevea wrote: Without touching the Crimea specifically, I'd like to chime in that "on-the-ground" (OTG) is a good rule, but in reality it must be approached more like a goal to be achieved where it can be, as we must acknowledge that realistically, this rule both cannot be and is not applied everywhere under all circumstances. That is the simple truth and OSM should not pretend otherwise. Maybe we need to tighten up our language about how we define OTG to better acknowledge this, clearly and explicitly. A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which frequently do not exist "on the ground," but our map data would be remiss if it excluded these. So we do our best to include boundaries even as they are not on-the-ground, but exist in both de pure and de facto ways in the real world, so OSM expresses them. Yes, when boundaries are disputed, this is difficult: there is no way around that and it isn't unique to OSM. I like Mikel's recent suggestion positing that OSM can better develop tagging that accommodates a wide array of disputes, as we do have plastic tagging and it can evolve well. Other examples include large bodies of water and mountain ranges. I've lived on the Pacific coast most of my life and been to dozens of beaches, but never once on any beach have I seen a sign which reads "Pacific Ocean." Same with no signs at the edge of or in the middle of "Rocky Mountains" or "The Alps." (I've been, and I haven't seen). Yet, OSM maps oceans and mountain ranges. How do we know their names without anything on the ground? It's a tricky question which usually starts with some hand-waving (especially for enormous, major-chunk-of-planet-sized entities like oceans), and progresses to "well, everybody simply KNOWS that's the Pacific Ocean..." and we are faced with OTG and an inherent contradiction of what we should do, then we do it anyway. (Name something without having a solid OTG reality). To a lesser (weaker) extent, OTG flexibility might also apply to newly developed routes (bicycle routes are a good example) as these may not be signed (or well signed), yet a government (whether local, state or national) expresses these as real (on a public map — just as with a boundary) and poorly signs or doesn't sign them at all in the real world. OSM uses "unsigned_ref" to denote these, but it's a fuzzy semantic that doesn't have wide agreement or even consensus. I have seen the opinion that these shouldn't be in OSM at all, which seems a shame for things which many local users (of a bike route decreed by a government, for example) agree do "exist," yet there isn't any OTG evidence for this. While one tenet of OSM is "don't copy from other maps," when the only evidence that something exists is ONLY from a PUBLIC map (yielding us ODbL permission), we have to reconcile that with OTG. Today, we don't do that very well. So, rather than being fully enthusiastic about the absolute application of OTG (we simply can't), let's realize that it is a good guideline which should be followed where it can, yet it must include some flexibility which allows for exceptions. I haven't seen that said (here, yet, perhaps it is elsewhere) and I believe it is important to be explicit about it. SteveA California ___ 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] Crimea situation - on the ground
There's two different concepts at play, that OSM does not currently tag well when in conflict. There's national sovereignty, which is a political concept which in large part depends on international recognition. And there's de facto control, which could result from military actions. For most of the world, these two are in sync. In Crimea, they are not, and there is a dispute. There are so many varieties of disputed territories in the world, it's hard to come up with a system that works for every single situation. And tagging structures for disputes could certainly get complicated. However, I believe that the OSM community could come up with something that works well enough for Crimea, that it would be broadly agreed that the situation is represented accurately. That tagging may not work for every single dispute in the world, but the tags could evolve as well as they are implemented in practice. -Mikel On Friday, February 7, 2020, 01:38:23 PM EST, Tomas Straupis wrote: Note, that I'm opposing OTG rule application to non-physical objects as that is philosophically impossible as well as too unpracticall. ___ 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] Diversity in OpenStreetMap, Seeking your help on ideas for the Foundation
Hello -- I've written up ideas on steps the OSMF could take to address questions on diversity. Input and help welcomed. Please share to other OSM channels so people from far and wide can participate. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mikelmaron/diary/391966 ThanksMikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Licence of Facebook's derived road datasets? ODbL?
I suggest that those that want to continue this discussion do so on the legal-talk mailing list. It’s especially for discussing this level of detail of license questions.https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/ You all are free to ignore my suggestion, it’s not made with any moderation authority. Mikel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap
Some first results from the OSM community survey https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2019/09/17/pre-sotm2019-survey-initial-numbers-and-reflections-from-board-members/ Thanks all who submitted! Curious to hear reactions and ideas here and at SotM * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Saturday, August 10, 2019, 11:45:08 AM EDT, joost schouppe wrote: Hi, We had a tight schedule for this survey, because we want to be able to present something by the next SotM. That explains why some questions aren't exactly worded perfectly. It would have been better to get more people involved and do more testing. But that inevitably slows things down. We did ask the science mailing list for feedback, but the only response was a volunteer to translate to Hungarian (thanks Levente!).And while I think there are clearly some issues that we missed, the output will still be quite useful. I think we would like to get more people involved next time. The first survey was really last minute, this one is a bit better prepared but still made a few mistakes. The next one can be built over a bit more time. Oh The "remote mapping" was added as a "nice to know" and wasn't even deeply discussed between the three of us writing the actual survey questions. We did intend to publish "raw data", and consulted with LWG to get a proper wording for that. We understood that the "Publicly, aggregated and anonymously" meant "answers presented together" in whatever form (spreadsheet etc) and was not referring to a summary. If we misenterpreted that (unfortunately that feels kind of obvious now), than we'll make sure the wording is better next time. And there is also the option to become an OSMF volunteer who has signed ad NDA, for those who want to work with the raw data. -- Joost SchouppeOpenStreetMap | Twitter | LinkedIn | Meetup___ 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] Tagging Governance
Fascinating discussion, thanks for all participating. The tension between an open community and standards of practice has always been the key dynamic of OSM. What I think has changed as OSM has grown and accreted code, data, and culture is .. less opportunity to just do it. Like many things in those days, Map Features page came about at the initiative of one person (Andy Robinson https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2005-November/000450.html), with close consultation within a relatively small community. The closest I think we can get in 2019 is (as has been suggested?) asking a smaller group to dig into the topic, come up with guidelines, recommendations, a plan, to share for further discussion with the broader community. This is essentially the model of OSMF working groups -- and I think a working group looking particularly at tagging could be a good idea, but also understand that not everyone thinks this should be under the umbrella as an official org. If the idea of a smaller group seems sensible, then the particulars of how to bring it together is something else we can talk about. Mikel p.s. Getting off topic but did want to respond to Christoph's assertion > There are no interface specifications and unit tests in text writing. Interestingly, I have seen this work well. It's possible to define some writing standards in code, and run unit tests on them, to maintain consistency of structure and terminology. For a simple example, we once had tests for the Mapbox blog (published in markdown) to warn about usage of the "OSM" abbreviation (preference was to fully spell out OpenStreetMap). On Thursday, September 12, 2019, 7:59 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Thursday 12 September 2019, Roland Olbricht wrote: > Thus the question is: are contradictions between pages a problem? If > yes then a holisitic toolset may do better, if not then the holistic > tool has no advantage in this regard. Yes they are but it is unrealistic in practical work on any text document of considerable size to keep it contradiction free at all times. For writing any larger body of text collaboratively you will need to compartmentalize to some extent and have different people focus on different parts of the whole thing and coordination between those will need to happen through human evaluation and human communication. Being able to keep an eye on the whole while working on the details is one of the core qualifications necessary for this. There are no interface specifications and unit tests in text writing. There is also usually a significant benefit in terms of clarity and readability of text if there is clear individual authorship on the level of individul sections or chapters. If you mix different styles of writing on a too fine grained level that often has a negative effect on text quality. As Frederik said the idea to approach this with "Lets use technology X in combination with technology Y and everything else is going to fall into place" is not going to work. The real hurdle here is to set up an editorial baseline of guiding principles and goals and find qualified people willing to contribute to such a project under these principles in the long term. And this is not something you can bootstrap from open community discourse and consensus because then it would be no different from what we already have on the wiki with all the cacophony of different contradicting interests and opinions. Therefore this idea of a curated body of tagging documentation can only be a contribution to open community discourse and governance on tagging, it cannot be the result of it. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ 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] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap
> My main concern is rather that there are a lot of free form questions yet >there is no option for the participants to allow publication of the individual >free form answers in anonymized form. Select “publicly aggregated and anonymously” as answer to the first question and the free form answers will be published. Mikel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap
We did this write up on how the previous survey was useful for board discussions, and some summary of what was raised https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2019/06/13/surveying-openstreetmap/ * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 05:55:35 PM GMT+3, marc marc wrote: Hello, where are the results of the previous survey and the resulting actions available? I don't remember the exact title but I'm talking about the investigation about what osmf could/should do, a few months ago. it would be nice to be able to indicate that you want to receive a notification when it is available, as not everyone reads the minutes of the different groups to find a follow-up to what they have participated. Regard, Marc ___ 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] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap
Also note that no questions are required, so you can skip if most comfortable with that. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 05:00:05 PM GMT+3, Mikel Maron wrote: > The question wrt remote mapping would seem to be designed to achieve a >specific result. Not at all. But please do feel free to answer truthfully, and explain anything in the previous question "Where do you map mostly?" * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 04:31:38 PM GMT+3, Simon Poole wrote: Hi Dorothea There's a typo in the section on communication channels, the first occurrence of "other mailing lists" is mangled. @the designers of the survey. The question wrt remote mapping would seem to be designed to achieve a specific result. While a truthful answer on my behalf would require a yes, because now and then I'll map remote and if it is simply reverting a changeset on request of a remote mapper, but that doesn't mean that a) I in general think it is a good idea, b) it is any significant part of my contributions. Simon Am 07.08.2019 um 12:59 schrieb Dorothea Kazazi: > Hello, > > The following survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap > was developed by board members. The survey is not quantitative and its > aim is to stimulate discussions in local communities and at the Local > Chapters Congress at SotM. > > https://osmf.limequery.org/428835 > > ~ The survey will run for two weeks. > ~ Only one question is mandatory: "How can we share your answers?". > > There is more information on the scope of the survey and approach on > the opening page. > > warm greetings, > > Dorothea > > > ~~ > Links you can share for different languages: > > English (Base language): https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=en > Chinese (Simplified): https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=zh-Hans > Chinese (Traditional; Hong Kong): > https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=zh-Hant-HK > French: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=fr > German: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=de > Hungarian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=hu > Italian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=it > Lithuanian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=lt > Persian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=fa > Portuguese (Brazilian): https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=pt-BR > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] Survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap
> The question wrt remote mapping would seem to be designed to achieve a >specific result. Not at all. But please do feel free to answer truthfully, and explain anything in the previous question "Where do you map mostly?" * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 04:31:38 PM GMT+3, Simon Poole wrote: Hi Dorothea There's a typo in the section on communication channels, the first occurrence of "other mailing lists" is mangled. @the designers of the survey. The question wrt remote mapping would seem to be designed to achieve a specific result. While a truthful answer on my behalf would require a yes, because now and then I'll map remote and if it is simply reverting a changeset on request of a remote mapper, but that doesn't mean that a) I in general think it is a good idea, b) it is any significant part of my contributions. Simon Am 07.08.2019 um 12:59 schrieb Dorothea Kazazi: > Hello, > > The following survey on global and local communities in OpenStreetMap > was developed by board members. The survey is not quantitative and its > aim is to stimulate discussions in local communities and at the Local > Chapters Congress at SotM. > > https://osmf.limequery.org/428835 > > ~ The survey will run for two weeks. > ~ Only one question is mandatory: "How can we share your answers?". > > There is more information on the scope of the survey and approach on > the opening page. > > warm greetings, > > Dorothea > > > ~~ > Links you can share for different languages: > > English (Base language): https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=en > Chinese (Simplified): https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=zh-Hans > Chinese (Traditional; Hong Kong): > https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=zh-Hant-HK > French: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=fr > German: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=de > Hungarian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=hu > Italian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=it > Lithuanian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=lt > Persian: https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=fa > Portuguese (Brazilian): https://osmf.limequery.org/428835?lang=pt-BR > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap
Sorry I but I disagree. Yoga is a long tradition in OpenStreetMap ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPq4X47x3x0 * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 10:04:46 AM GMT+3, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone > On 7. Aug 2019, at 03:34, Naveen Francis wrote: > > Try YOGA it will help you. I don’t believe this is an acceptable comment in the OpenStreetMap context, it may be at wikimedia, here it is not. Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap
I'd love to move into rational and studied discussion of corporate involvement in OSM and the application of machine learning techniques. It's easy to get caught up in rhetoric. I dislike "turbocharged" as much as I dislike "exploitation". The entire application of machine learning is plagued with overblown rhetoric, when after all, it is simply a statistical technique. OpenStreetMap was founded on equal parts radical, reactionary rhetoric, and JFDI. It's also easy to forget how much traditional map making rejected OSM -- that the craft of surveying is not something to be left to wild hooligans. While at the same time the involvement of companies was a critical part of the vision since 2004, from helping build software, selling GPS devices, hosting servers, and contributing data. And certainly bringing new people into the community -- no matter how people find OSM, I have almost universally seen a magic gleam in the eye of people who take part, that forms the core of many corporate initiatives in OSM. Just because my brain exploded with that vision of OSM before I started having the supreme privilege to spend my working days on it does not entitle me to some more exalted position. I wonder if some of us have lost touch with that spirit, as OpenStreetMap has succeeded so wildly. I was so absorbed the audacious vision of OSM in 2005, I still am regularly shocked that anyone takes OSM seriously. Yes it is radical in 2019 to reject corporations and machine learning. But I think we have a lot more to offer than conservative rejection; rather we have a wildly successful, collaborative, practical approach that puts humans in the fore of complex technologies, as the world grapples with very complex times. The reaction to Facebook's work really confuses me. Have critics of it actually tried it? I found it a measured approach, where every edit needs to be examined closely by a human and is checked for quality. The advantage of it, where I tried it in a dense partially mapped urban settlement, is that it highlighted missing streets very well, and made what would have been a maddening squinting process a bit smoother and more enjoyable. I still felt satisfaction in what I was doing. From talking with folks here in Kenya, there is genuine excitement at these new techniques. They've experienced the challenges of creating the map, and want to focus and build skills where their human abilities are most valuable. Now I am not saying that we accept anything without a critical examination. Absolutely not! What worries me is that our criticisms are not informed. And that there are valuable corporate contributions, and those that are not, and the same goes for new technologies. Yes, there are quality issues. Yes, there are issues of the experience of the map and the community we built. Yes, there are serous issues of displacement and alienation. What are these specifically, and what are the range of responses we can explore together? To take one example, Simon rightly points out that road geometry is only a portion, and perhaps the easiest portion, of what needs mapping. And that metrics to measure overall completeness sets real goals for us. How can we rally and build community around this? So many of our tools are oriented to greenfield mapping. What creative workflows, metrics, analysis and visualizations of OSM data can bring the same thrill of creating the map from a completely blank slate, to a stage of the map where the base geometry is there? -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Saturday, July 27, 2019, 01:43:59 PM GMT+3, Simon Poole wrote: Am 26.07.2019 um 19:30 schrieb Naveen Francis: Including my ₹ 0.10 (Indian ten paisa) Echoes same thoughts of Brazilian Real. AI-assisted human mapping tools will be a good aid for the OSM community. "Map faster, Map better". 40,00,000 kms to be mapped in India. 15 years of OSM mapped 18,00,000 kms. The (rhetoric) question is, why is this the case? Because the community in India is still very small relative to the population size. So from where will the additional contributors come from that will turn the additional 4 million road geometries in to something really useful? There is a real danger of the desire for "completeness" instead of quality resulting in multiple TIGER 2.0s, and we are just now slowly working ourselves out of the hole we dug (full of good intentions) with the original. Note on the side: outside of raw total road length, a much more sensible comparison would be completeness measures per road categories (which I suspect is likely to look far less dramatic) and which might give more realistic goals for the community. Simon thanks, naveenpf On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:42 AM Sérgio V. wrote: Just adding my R$0,02 (Brazilian Real). I
Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap
>"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salarydepends >upon his not understanding it." Ok it's a pithy quote. Is it possible that however well written, this quote may not always be right? that it's difficult but not impossible to get a man or woman to understand something, despite their position? and that my salary does not depend on me avoiding thinking freely about this project? Seeing that none of you arguing with me in this thread know me personally, I think it's extremely presumptuous that you think you understand me. > I think it's unfair to accuse Christoph of being uninformed. Is it unfair that Christoph accuses me of being in a cult? I did not accuse Christoph of being uninformed. But the general argument here certainly is -- about the capability of people involved in OSM in a corporate way having no ability to think in another frame; or that even the corporate frame can not encompass other viewpoints, only profit. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, July 26, 2019, 01:18:11 PM GMT+3, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: The most well-know version is from Upton Sinclair's campaign to become governor of California in the 1930's: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair - See https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/ Upton Sinclair is most famous for writing "The Jungle" as a young man. > "enough with the division of OSM along these blunt, uninformed lines" I think it's unfair to accuse Christoph of being uninformed. From what I've read over the past year, he appears to be one of the few individuals who are informed about the goings-on between the OSMF board and corporations, who is not actually a member of either body. On 7/26/19, Mikel Maron wrote: > > From Christoph... >> The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap and the OSM community >> has meanwhile all the characteristics of a cult .. But i have strong >> doubts meanwhile that arguing with people who are fully immersed into the >> belief system of corporate PR regarding OSM is of benefit in most cases. > Well this is pretty much a statement to end the conversation, isn't it? I > could say the same "cult" about the knee jerk reaction of the self appointed > representatives of the "hobby mapper". It does lead me to the same > conclusion, almost -- which is that there is no point discussing these > topics with you people here. But where would that get us? > I for one would not say anything if I did not personally believe it. I am > not here representing corporate interests (at this very moment I'm writing > this from the middle of Nairobi's largest slum working on OSM, rather than a > comfortable room in Europe). You can still draw whatever conclusions about > me you like. > For me, enough with the division of OSM along these blunt, uninformed > lines. > From Martin...> Fakeboosts > good one :) >> Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of >> the OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the >> OSMF / OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB. > Well that very well might be true about perception. But Facebook did not say > that OSMF was supporting the project. They representing correctly. We all > here get the difference and understand that HOT is a different organization. > Making this distinction is not Facebook's problem, but rather HOT and OSMF > should do a better job explaining the complexity of the whole universe of > OSM. > -Mikel > * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron > > On Friday, July 26, 2019, 12:17:38 PM GMT+3, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > @mikel in Fakeboosts own blog post there is still the misrepresentation of > the role OSM plays in this project, due to HOT appearing to be an official > OSM body (by the mere utilization of the OpenStreetMap trademark in their > company name): > > > “The RapiD tool was developed in conjunction with those in the mapping > community who have been working in this area for many years. Because this > tool was built with their input, it is already having an impact,” says Tyler > Radford, the executive director of the Humanitarian OSM Team (HOT), which > aims to make sure OSM represents all parts of the world." > > > and > > > The Map With AI team is collaborating with HOT to add more features to > RapiD. For one step in that process, they’ve integrated RapiD into a > development branch of HOT Tasking Manager, > > > > > > > > > Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of &g
Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap
>From Christoph... > The corporate appropriation of OpenStreetMap and the OSM community has > meanwhile all the characteristics of a cult .. But i have strong doubts > meanwhile that arguing with people who are fully immersed into the belief > system of corporate PR regarding OSM is of benefit in most cases. Well this is pretty much a statement to end the conversation, isn't it? I could say the same "cult" about the knee jerk reaction of the self appointed representatives of the "hobby mapper". It does lead me to the same conclusion, almost -- which is that there is no point discussing these topics with you people here. But where would that get us? I for one would not say anything if I did not personally believe it. I am not here representing corporate interests (at this very moment I'm writing this from the middle of Nairobi's largest slum working on OSM, rather than a comfortable room in Europe). You can still draw whatever conclusions about me you like. For me, enough with the division of OSM along these blunt, uninformed lines. >From Martin...> Fakeboosts good one :) > Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of the >OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the OSMF / >OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB. Well that very well might be true about perception. But Facebook did not say that OSMF was supporting the project. They representing correctly. We all here get the difference and understand that HOT is a different organization. Making this distinction is not Facebook's problem, but rather HOT and OSMF should do a better job explaining the complexity of the whole universe of OSM. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, July 26, 2019, 12:17:38 PM GMT+3, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: @mikel in Fakeboosts own blog post there is still the misrepresentation of the role OSM plays in this project, due to HOT appearing to be an official OSM body (by the mere utilization of the OpenStreetMap trademark in their company name): “The RapiD tool was developed in conjunction with those in the mapping community who have been working in this area for many years. Because this tool was built with their input, it is already having an impact,” says Tyler Radford, the executive director of the Humanitarian OSM Team (HOT), which aims to make sure OSM represents all parts of the world." and The Map With AI team is collaborating with HOT to add more features to RapiD. For one step in that process, they’ve integrated RapiD into a development branch of HOT Tasking Manager, Whoever reads this and does not have deeper insights into the workings of the OSMF must get into the impression that HOT is an official part of the OSMF / OpenStreetMap, i.e. OSM is collaborating with FB. I am not sure if being a "corporate Gold member" already counts as being in collaboration with OSMF (likely not, because "collaboration" means "working" (labor) together, not just providing funds) Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap
This is just another badly written article by a third party. As someone else on thread said, hardly the first time a media piece gets OSM wrong. Take a look at facebook’s own words here https://tech.fb.com/ai-is-supercharging-the-creation-of-maps-around-the-world/ I’m sure there’s plenty of phrases in FB’s own post to get worked about, if you’re looking for things to flame Facebook and the entire corporate world about. Myself, I like what they’re doing. Mikel On Friday, July 26, 2019, 10:47 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 25.07.19 22:03, Frederik Ramm wrote: > This press release is on the same level as "Cloudmade's > OpenStreetMap Project" so many years ago. In case anyone doubts that - https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/07/facebook-ai-is-supercharging-the-creation-of-maps-around-the-world.html "Recently, Facebook released a statement about its new effort to create an OpenStreetMap project to not only benefit from mapping data but also making this platform an open-source navigational source for users." And the rest of the article is about how Facebook's only purpose is to bring comfort to people's lives etc. This is probably normal for corporate PR people, but for me it's just disgusting. 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Facebook mapping highways using AI in collaboration with OpenStreetMap
I also tried it out after Drishtie's post, and was impressed with many of the considerations in the process. The team developing this is indeed very open to feedback and have iterated a lot. I had also been watching this work as it moved alongside great strides in quality checks in iD. Deliberate open work to apply ML where it can be useful -> aiding human mappers, is the name of the game. Recommend to all to check it out directly. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, July 25, 2019, 05:29:17 PM GMT+3, Martijn van Exel wrote: I did. After Drishtie Patel announced a preview of this project[1] I gave it a go and shared my observations with them. Martijn [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/DrishT/diary/368711 > On Jul 24, 2019, at 2:16 PM, stevea wrote: > > I'm not sure whether Martijn said this or not ___ 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] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared
> I believe the issue is more about the unwillingness to take community > feedback seriously at all when it doesn't coincide with the opinions already > held by the developers. Which brings us back full circle to the discussion of > the privileged position of the default editor on openstreetmap.org and the > related transparency (aka who is holding the purse strings) and the > non-existent community control or even just control by the OSMF. This is a very interesting paragraph, dense with deep topics for the OSM project. These topics should separate this from the particulars of individual situations, because the dynamics are not unique to any single component of the OSM data and software ecosystem. OSM has always been a muddle and arguably one of the reasons for its success. In OSM people disagree, there's strong points of view and discussion, sometimes it resolves, often times we continue to muddle through. Yes, the OSMF has ultimately legal authority over all aspects of the project but by design and history, exercises it very selectively. And community is a very amorphous concept, with disagreements over what that means and how it functions. Certainly the shape of the OSM project has outgrown the systems we haphazardly put in place for governance and community back in 2007. It's worth stepping back from many of the recent heated issues in the community, and look at how they are the result of growth without intentional adaptation, and consider what kind of approach we can take to imagine what OSM is like in the next 15 years. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, May 9, 2019, 5:56:14 PM EDT, Simon Poole wrote: Am 09.05.2019 um 23:14 schrieb Mikel Maron: > What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on www.openstreetmap.org? Absolutely. My understanding is this feature will greatly improve data quality in OSM. I think it's fair to validate squareness of existing buildings. Appreciate the great work of the iD team. The question was not about validating square or not square buildings, it is about storing a hint for iDs validation mechanism permanently in OSMs data. There is some precedent for doing so, as was mentioned in the github issue, still it is a bit controversial and discussion when adding such a feature should be expected. [Rant on the massively overrated concern for buildings in the first place and the background why people think that such a validation is necessary omitted] Also commend your attention to tagging issues Michael. There's certainly a broader issue with how tags are managed in OSM. In short it's a mess all around and is in need of a rethink. I don't think this minor issue is a "hill to die on" however. I believe the issue is more about the unwillingness to take community feedback seriously at all when it doesn't coincide with the opinions already held by the developers. Which brings us back full circle to the discussion of the privileged position of the default editor on openstreetmap.org and the related transparency (aka who is holding the purse strings) and the non-existent community control or even just control by the OSMF. Simon -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, May 9, 2019, 4:18:20 PM EDT, Michael Reichert wrote: Hi, this could be seen as a tagging discussion but I think that it is a discussion on governance and power. That's why this email goes to the Talk mailing list. Quincy Morgan, one of the maintainers of iD, invented a new tag called nosquare=yes today which should be added to buildings which are not square and should not be flagged by iD's validator. I (and later Paul Norman) pointed out issues with the tag. I asked Quincy to discuss the addition with the wider community beforehand. https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6332 Here are the issues I pointed out in the bugtracker. At the beginning he planned to use square=no which he later changed to nosquare=yes but this change does not make things better: > Although noname=yes is common, it is not that common that it can serve as an argument in favour of introducing unsquare=yes. In difference to noexit=yes, unsquare=yes and noname=yes only serve as a workaround for quality assurance tools. noexit=yes also conveys information for map users: There road ends here. > > Some people prefer to tag as complete as possible and add oneway=no, cycleway=no, lit=no etc. to any way. However, such a practice is not base on a broad consensus and if you dig deep enough in the history of user blocks in OSM, you might find blocks set due to an excessive use of negative binary tags. > > I think that iD does not need this tag and should only validate buildings if they have been a
Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared
> What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on > www.openstreetmap.org? Absolutely. My understanding is this feature will greatly improve data quality in OSM. I think it's fair to validate squareness of existing buildings. Appreciate the great work of the iD team. Also commend your attention to tagging issues Michael. There's certainly a broader issue with how tags are managed in OSM. In short it's a mess all around and is in need of a rethink. I don't think this minor issue is a "hill to die on" however. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, May 9, 2019, 4:18:20 PM EDT, Michael Reichert wrote: Hi, this could be seen as a tagging discussion but I think that it is a discussion on governance and power. That's why this email goes to the Talk mailing list. Quincy Morgan, one of the maintainers of iD, invented a new tag called nosquare=yes today which should be added to buildings which are not square and should not be flagged by iD's validator. I (and later Paul Norman) pointed out issues with the tag. I asked Quincy to discuss the addition with the wider community beforehand. https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6332 Here are the issues I pointed out in the bugtracker. At the beginning he planned to use square=no which he later changed to nosquare=yes but this change does not make things better: > Although noname=yes is common, it is not that common that it can serve as an > argument in favour of introducing unsquare=yes. In difference to noexit=yes, > unsquare=yes and noname=yes only serve as a workaround for quality assurance > tools. noexit=yes also conveys information for map users: There road ends > here. > > Some people prefer to tag as complete as possible and add oneway=no, > cycleway=no, lit=no etc. to any way. However, such a practice is not base on > a broad consensus and if you dig deep enough in the history of user blocks in > OSM, you might find blocks set due to an excessive use of negative binary > tags. > > I think that iD does not need this tag and should only validate buildings if > they have been added or modified in the current session. If doing so, they > will be reported once which does not bother that much. > > Adding such a tag is not a simple change as it might seem to be and I ask you > to discuss it with the broader community on the Tagging mailing list. What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on www.openstreetmap.org? Best regards Michael -- Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten ausgenommen) I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists) ___ 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] Your thoughts on osm.org
A map built from data from the osm community index to connect to mapping communities https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Tuesday, March 12, 2019, 1:01:59 PM EDT, Martijn van Exel wrote: Hi all, Here’s something I ask myself from time to time and would like to hear other people’s thoughts about. Imagine the openstreetmap.org home page, but without the map. What would the home page be about instead? What would be on it? Thanks for sharing, Martijn ___ 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] We need to have a conversation about attribution
Just as my opinions here don’t represent the osmf board, they don’t represent Mapbox either. Personally, I don’t care much about the details of attribution either way. I love to see it and regularly look for it in every map I come across. I tweeted this three weeks ago https://twitter.com/mikel/status/1094603703384973312. I’m also under zero illusions that anyone else but people in osm notice or care. As enthusiastic as I am to see osm “in the wild”, I’m irritated by license shaming. I know, it’s irritating by design. I don’t believe it works and just casts a bad light of OSM. The main motivation that triggered this discussion about attribution, is to paraphrase, that the “no one knows OSM”. However much OSM is known now, I agree, it should be known more. OSM is the most interesting story in mapping of the last ten years. There are so many good stories. To make sure OSM is known takes a serious communication and marketing strategy, resources to build relationships with press, etc. Certainly attribution is important. LWG is working on better guidelines. Publicly shaming on a regular basis hurts our opportunity to be better known. Or we become known for being a grumpy underdog. Mikel On Friday, March 1, 2019, 5:25 AM, Simon Poole wrote: Just a couple of general comments on this. - The LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our attribution guidance this year seehttps://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2019-01-10 - I would have preferred that the discussion take place when we've actually written something, because some of the issues raised have been settled since at least 2014, including obtaining legal advice on what "reasonably calculated" is, but that's life :-). In any case the community can expect a draft guideline for discussion in the upcoming months. And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the results of the 2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847 which a) states that the attribution is be default expanded, and b) that should be the case "whereever possible" which in our understanding limits the use of a default collapsed attribution to cases where it is physically impossible to show the expanded version, for example very small map snippets. In 2014 we felt that this was acceptable (we don't have an formal statement on this iirc), and I would go out on a limb and say that it would still be considered a reasonable guideline. Simon ___ 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] We need to have a conversation about attribution
These are norms not rules. ODbL doesn't specify how attribution needs to happen, or anything about equivalence with other attribution. So even if OSMF were to take on enforcement, there's nothing to specific to enforce. (And I recommend we drop the whole license shaming shenanigans -- we should accept that OSM has won and we are not the underdogs any more. ) Sure we could get legal, but imagine the number of legal opinions about what "reasonably calculated" means. We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation. We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation can only be formulated through the OSMF; a mailing list discussion will not lead to a legal decision, though it's an interesting pulse on the topic. afaik the LWG is actually thinking about updating the guidance to modern day usage, and welcome that effort. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, February 28, 2019, 8:03:23 PM EST, Greg Troxel wrote: Paul Norman via talk writes: > On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> >> In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" >> providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an >> click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples: >> >> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png >> https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG > > In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how > they find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom > logo like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap > > With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated" > attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other > companies. Agreed. The notion that there isn't room does not hold up to scrutiny. I tend towards OSM being more aggressive about insisting that the attribution rules be followed. ___ 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] OSMF Membership Fee Waivers for Financial Hardship
If the membership fee for OSMF is a financial burden, the OSMF Board will review any requests for a fee waiver from potential members. This is a temporary measure, while a full process is implemented (if you are interested to help, please let us know!) Below are details on the decision, how we'll handle applications from yesterday, and how to apply. To apply: email bo...@osmfoundation.org, with your first and last name, country of residence, OSM id. Also please state that you are applying for fee waiver because of financial hardship, and give a short account of your activities in OpenStreetMap. On the decision: At the 2014 Annual General Meeting [1], it was decided > The membership fee for associate membership, which normally is tied to the >regular membership fee, may be waived if paying the fee would constitute an >unreasonable burden to the member, either because of financial hardship or >because of the lack of a suitable money transfer facility. Implementation was delegated to the Membership Working Group. Yesterday, they announced the full process for waiver because of lack of suitable money transfer [2]. At yesterday's Board meeting, we resolved to review fee waiver requests for financial hardship. [3] > The membership fee waiver program has not been implemented yet. However, >today (2018-11-15) there was a flurry of emails sent to the board and the >Membership Working Group from people asking to join the Foundation and the fee >to be waived. The board will review the requests and individually decide on >the waiver. If approved, the membership join date will be the date of the >approval. The starting date of membership will be recorded on the day they are processed. That means that applicants from yesterday will not be members in time to participate in this year's AGM. There was a request to delay the AGM to accommodate more sign ups through this process; however the AGM time and date had already been announced. [1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Annual_General_Meetings/14[2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-November/005427.html[3] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-11-15#Voting_on_reviewing_recent_fee_waiver_requests * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Diversity-talk] How do you mapping gender neutral toilets? What should the unisex tag mean?
> That's one of my original questions. What (if any) data consumers are using this data/tags? > > If some popular site/app was using it to display a map that's one thing. If no-one is using the data, and many data contributors (mappers) are using "unisex=yes" as gender neutral, then it doesn't matter if the wiki says "it's the same as gender segregated"! 🙂 > > I haven't found any sites/apps/projects using this data/tags. Proud to say, my alma mater University of California, Santa Cruz, has had various versions of its campus map based on OSM, and they highlight gender neutral bathrooms. "unisex=yes" is the tag used there.https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1951346808 The application of the tag is not consistent across the campus, so is a prime location to engage for a mapping effort. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, April 26, 2018, 3:18:45 AM EDT, Rory McCann wrote: On 26/04/18 01:00, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > If most existing data is using unisex to mean "there are both male and > female toilets", then it doesn't matter one bit what the wiki says. > Reusing the tag to mean "there are gender-neutral toilets" will cause > confusion with that existing data. That's one of my original questions. What (if any) data consumers are using this data/tags? If some popular site/app was using it to display a map that's one thing. If no-one is using the data, and many data contributors (mappers) are using "unisex=yes" as gender neutral, then it doesn't matter if the wiki says "it's the same as gender segregated"! 🙂 I haven't found any sites/apps/projects using this data/tags. ___ 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] [Talk-us] Undiscussed mass-revert by user Nakaner-repair
> If mappers find edits they consider questionable - either factually or >methodologically - and attempts to get in contact with the mapper making those >edits fail it is commonly accepted practice that mappers can revert such >changes While that is somewhat correct (I question how common or accepted or in what cases a revert is called for, but anyway...), that's not what's happening as far as I understand. All edits are being reverted without evaluation of their individual merit. Nakaner seems to be applying an organized editing policy here without grounds. We do not have an official policy, nor do we have guidance on how this kind of situation would be managed. I am not saying there is not an issue here with the edits by these mappers and this group. Just that this action by Nakaner does not look to be particularly well thought through. > i am pretty sure the local US community does not want this to continue in >their domain and how to best accomplish that would be a good subject of >discussion While you are probably correct that the US community does not want this kind of behavior,, as far as I can tell no one was consulted outside of the German forum discussion, where the US community does not tend to hang out -- so I'm not sure you should just make this assumption. How best to accomplish this would actually be a good subject of discussion, but _before_ a mass action such as the one Nakaner has deputized himself to do. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, April 20, 2018, 12:30:02 PM EDT, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Friday 20 April 2018, Ian Dees wrote: > > I'd be interested in seeing all of these reverts reverted (at least > in the US) until discussion can take place. I don't know about these changes or the reverts of them in detail but on a general note here: If mappers find edits they consider questionable - either factually or methodologically - and attempts to get in contact with the mapper making those edits fail it is commonly accepted practice that mappers can revert such changes. This happens every day many times all over the world and is a good way to reduce the workload of the DWG by not getting them involved in all the small matters mappers can resolve between each other. OTOH reverting an edit, even if that edit itself is a revert, without trying to discuss it with the mapper making it, is generally not considered to be acceptable. I don't want to assess Nakaner's edits with that but your call for a blanket revert of them without a previous discussion giving him the chance to explain his intentions with those edits and their merit would not be in line with established practice in OSM. If what the discussion on the German forum indicates is accurate, i.e. that there is a group of mappers performing organized edits which reject attempts to contact them and evade blocks established to ensure they do not continue without getting in contact with the community by creating sockpuppet accounts, i am pretty sure the local US community does not want this to continue in their domain and how to best accompish that would be a good subject of discussion. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ 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] Effecting change in OpenStreetMap
I agree there are several parts of the OpenStreetMap software ecosystem where there's a healthy developer process. openstreetmap-carto and iD come to mind. Search and routing. Part of the issue with the main website -> it's a monolith, encompassing many different components. Sign up & authentication, messaging and communication, data exploration, the API. Andy Allan has been doing great work lately to make development on the rails app cleaner and more approachable. A good next step to consider is further isolating components, and the stakeholders on those components, so that development discussion and plans can become more focused. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Tuesday, November 21, 2017, 10:36:05 AM EST, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 21 November 2017 at 14:47, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote: > "I'm worried about this. I have not performed a technical review." as a > blocker for PR merge: > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/2939 > > Basically, most of wide ~2011 dev community was hired away, and core is in > hands of those who weren't hired away by Map* for whatever reason, be that > lack of social skills or lack of technical skills. You've got no fresh > blood, and there's no road map for it to improve. I can't speak for the other projects, but at least towards openstreetmap-carto this is very unfair criticism. In fact, what you're describing is something I've been actively trying to combat with openstreetmap-carto. Our project has added 8 maintainers, 4 of which have been added over the past two years. Also in the last two years, 22 people have contributed code through pull requests. So it's certainly not true that it's impossible to get something merged into the project. Your criticism of the comment on your PR is not fair either, the comment 'I'm worried about this' was referring to an earlier, more detailed response, by me: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/2939#issuecomment-343258037 > Basically, most of wide ~2011 dev community was hired away, and core is in > hands of those who weren't hired away by Map* for whatever reason, be that > lack of social skills or lack of technical skills. Either that, or they like to fiddle with maps at night time, and have a day job in a more lucrative industry. -- Matthijs ___ 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] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13
blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } Let's not get hung up on this, I think we're missing the point. The way the item in WeeklyOSM was written was rude and unnecessarily antagonistic. The very same information about the direction of the discussion could have gotten across without resorting to commentary on an individual, or continuing the argument. I have a good rule of thumb for online communications. Imagine the people being addressed are in the same room as you. Read what you're writing out loud, without any intonation. If you are not comfortable saying the same in real life, not a good idea to write it online. Mikel On Tuesday, November 21, 2017, 8:36 AM, Rory McCann wrote: On 17/11/17 23:04, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 11/17/2017 07:34 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: >> Also, there is such a thing as "fake balance". Imagine you're >> running an article about someone who's discussing ways to offset >> the problems caused by the Mercator projection; you don't then need >> to also quote someone from the Flat Earth Society for the sake of >> impartiality. > > This is actually quite important. In the US, after the election, I > read a lot of media critique where people said that many papers had > misunderstood their journalistic impartiality as having to give both > sides of an argument equal coverage, however nonsensical one side may > have been. This mistake that was made by well-meaning, > liberal-thinking, fairness-aspiring journalists, it was claimed, > contributed to giving the country Trump. I second this. Irish broadcast law requires that political discussions are "balanced", which was horrible during the 2015 same-sex marriage debate. It was used to require that any mention of LGBTQ people on TV was also "balanced" be equal airtime for people to respectfully claim that gay people are a threat to children¹. Requiring "balanced" discussions is fundamentally incompatible with any sort of code of conduct. Panti's Noble Call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXayhUzWnl0 : > Have any of you ever come home in the evening and turned on the > television and there is a panel of people - nice people, respectable > people, smart people, the kind of people who make good neighbourly > neighbours and write for newspapers. And they are having a reasoned > debate about you. About what kind of a person you are, about whether you > are capable of being a good parent, about whether you want to destroy > marriage, about whether you are safe around children, about whether God > herself thinks you are an abomination, about whether in fact you are > "intrinsically disordered". And even the nice TV presenter lady who you > feel like you know thinks it's perfectly ok that they are all having > this reasonable debate about who you are and what rights you "deserve". > > And that feels oppressive. Calls for "balance" are often only made in one direction. Does anyone believe that any mention of a company is required to give equal space to someone to (respectfully, reasonably) claim that privately owned companies are a threat to society, to the planet, are evil, and must be fought, and must not be trusted? Surely people people should be impartial on the capitalism/communism debate! -- Rory [1] http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bai-rejects-charge-of-stifling-debate-on-gay-marriage-301581.html ___ 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] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13
One request. Can we not relitigate thie topic of Yuri's tool on this thread. Want to focus on helping WeeklyOSM to improve its coverage of our whole community. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, November 17, 2017, 4:29:39 PM EST, Steve Doerr wrote: On 17/11/2017 20:50, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > One important aspect was missing in the announcement. The tool's new > name is a tiny part of a much bigger set of community suggested and > requested changes. Fully ignoring functionality changes that many > community members suggested is biased. > > Mechanical edit claim was also never justified -- saying it's a > mechanical edit tool doesn't fit with the community's own definition, > per wiki. Just the other day the importance of using the right word > was mentioned - when I allegedly missed the word "deprecated". Let's > keep things consistent, and not dilute or change the meaning of > existing terms to fit the immediate agenda. > +1 --- 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13
> I don't think you could argue with "perceived by many as unreasonable" - just >wade through the recent archives of the talk mailing list again and weigh the >arguments for and against. It's just not ok to call out an individual like that. It's not appropriate, not correct and not helpful. The dynamic of the discussion be expressed much better, with full information, without disrespecting each other. I'm happy to find ways to help WeeklyOSM if you all agree that the issue of impartiality is an important and serious one to take on. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, November 17, 2017, 1:35:58 PM EST, Andy Townsend wrote: On 17/11/2017 17:52, Mikel Maron wrote: Yes, doing this is hard work, and appreciate the job WeeklyOSM has to do. Point is, statements like "Yuri is as unreasonable as before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM" is inappropriate, and there are many better ways to summarize the topic. Well to be fair, the article as written didn't actually say that - it said "is perceived by many as unreasonable". Full disclosure - I'm an occasional contributor to the weekly OSM newsletter. I didn't add or edit that article (actually I didn't contribute to any last week - you can usually tell the ones I've written because they have more links and perhaps too many words in them), but although perhaps a little over-concise I don't think you could argue with "perceived by many as unreasonable" - just wade through the recent archives of the talk mailing list again and weigh the arguments for and against. Also, there is such a thing as "fake balance". Imagine you're running an article about someone who's discussing ways to offset the problems caused by the Mercator projection; you don't then need to also quote someone from the Flat Earth Society for the sake of impartiality. Secondly - and this is a point that applies to many other areas of OSM too - there seem far more people willing to contribute their copy-editing skills here on a mailing list than actually helping put _next_ week's newsletter together. It's not a new phenomenon - a short while ago WeeklyOSM had a complaint from an OSM-centric organisation (let's call it "X") that "we never report on what's happening with X". It was politely suggested to the complainer that perhaps they ought to volunteer themselves; then they could submit all the articles they like. It went very quiet after that. It's a similar situation with technical discussions elsewhere ("you ought to render X like Y", "you ought to change how the osm.org website works so I don't have to build infrastructure for $project", "Nominatim ought to support my $odd_non_address_search_example"). Although there's always room for improvement, much of what's around OSM now has a surprisingly low bar for entry, whether it's creating a map based on OSM data that shows $favourite_but_quite_rare_tag, or answering questions on the help site or forum, or as here, volunteering to submit and review a few news articles a week. Best Regards, Andy ___ 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] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13
Yes, doing this is hard work, and appreciate the job WeeklyOSM has to do. Point is, statements like "Yuri is as unreasonable as before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM" is inappropriate, and there are many better ways to summarize the topic. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, November 17, 2017, 12:35:44 PM EST, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2017-11-17 17:27 GMT+01:00 Mikel Maron : Good point. Try this.. > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the >tool now called Sophox. The discussion continues to be quite contentious. but then the message boils down to: "Yuri Astrakhan is discussing a re-named tool (Sophox) on the talk mailing list", and you have to go there and read through everything in order to actually get "information". Cheers,Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13
> believe the version you propose is still biased, because Yuri says his tool >isn't about performing mechanical edits. Good point. Try this.. > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the >tool now called Sophox. The discussion continues to be quite contentious. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, November 17, 2017, 11:23:23 AM EST, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2017-11-17 16:53 GMT+01:00 Mikel Maron : Now try this version... > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the >tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). The discussion >continues to be quite contentious. This is better. It gets the same substantial information across, but does not call out judgement on an individual, and allows the reader to enter the discussion with an open mind. Thank you Mikel for the insights, but I believe the version you propose is still biased, because Yuri says his tool isn't about performing mechanical edits. ;-) Cheers,Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13
> Anyway, it's sad to see that WeeklyOSM has abandoned all attempt at >impartiality Impartiality is an ongoing issue for any journalistic enterprise. WeeklyOSM has at times done better, and done worse. I think WeeklyOSM is a really valuable service, and I hope the editors there are open to our help to become a better service for the whole OSM community. Let's look at this example, and see if we can come up with something better. Compare the original version... > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the > tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). Yuri is perceived by > many as unreasonable as before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in > OSM. and this version > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the >tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). Yuri is as unreasonable >as before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM. This is worse, but I posit not much worse. While the published version does semantically avoid WeeklyOSM making this judgement, the meaning comes through much the same. Now try this version... > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the >tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). The discussion >continues to be quite contentious. This is better. It gets the same substantial information across, but does not call out judgement on an individual, and allows the reader to enter the discussion with an open mind. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, November 17, 2017, 6:52:25 AM EST, Rafael Avila Coya wrote: Hi: I've read the majority of the posts of the "New OSM Quick-Fix service" thread in OSM-talk, and I don't see any partiality in the post of the WeeklyOSM. In fact, I think they have been very polite and diplomatic. Cheers, Rafael. On 17/11/17 11:34, Steve Doerr wrote: > On 17/11/2017 08:20, weeklyteam wrote: >> Yuri Astrakhanre-started >> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-November/079504.html>the >> discussion on the Talk mailing list about the tool to do mechanical edits >> (it is now called/Sophox/). Yuri is perceived by many as unreasonable as >> before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM. > > > "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress > depends on the unreasonable man." > -George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) > > > Anyway, it's sad to see that WeeklyOSM has abandoned all attempt at > impartiality. > > > -- > > Steve > > > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > Virus-free. www.avast.com > <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ 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] New OSM Quick-Fix service
Hey everyone -- let's do stick to the topic at hand. My takeaways from the good points on the discussion here from Frederik and Yuri. * It's ok to have different points of view* Being respectful of each other is important. Very important* Let's not make disagreements personal Online communication is hard. We are missing all the context and cues from real life. Let's make an extra effort to get beyond the inevitable miscommunications when they crop up. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Tuesday, November 7, 2017, 4:32:42 AM EST, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: TLDR; Please read my previous email, and lets discuss the actual tool, its capabilities, and how it can fit and add value to OSM ecosystem, while minimizing potential negatives. Frederik, I have offered to have a direct video conversation with you to better understand your concerns, explain my goals, and bring it back into productive scope, but no luck yet. I still hope you are more interested in resolving our differences than having a public tribune. Lets not spend hours on emails, but try to understand each other's concerns in a private conversation, without involving the entire world. I am sure what you think I am trying to do is substantially different from what I actually am trying to do, and my understanding of your concerns is also different from your actual concerns. If there is a large group of people who are trying to do something different from your strongly held believes, it means they have a problem you might not be aware about. In your example, "kick foreigners out" is a symptom of a problem - possibly related to people's insecurity or lack of education. Vilifying them and calling their ideas outrageous makes us feel righteous and united, but does not solve the actual problem or changes what they think - it actually exacerbates it, because both sides become more entrenched in their believes. So yes, I do want to keep our conversation constructive (not positive!) - understand concerns on all sides, and provide the most value to everyone involved. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 07.11.2017 07:29, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > Please keep discussion to constructive suggestions and ideas - they help > us all move forward and reach agreement. I have a general remark about statements like the above, that is not related to your specific tool. Statements like this are aimed at silencing opposition. But that is neither fair, nor right, nor a good way for a community to move forward. Opposition must be allowed, and people who are in opposition must not be cast as "negative" (="bad"). Just imagine if someone suggested something outrageous ("Let's deport all foreigners from or village") and then if someone says "no", they are told: "Please keep discussion to constructive suggestions and ideas". ("If you have a better idea on how to get rid of foreigners, we're all ears!") There are many ideas that are broken beyond repair, where the basic tenets are already so wrong that no constructive suggestion can ever make it good. Rejecting such ideas is good, and a valuable contribution. Please don't try to silence opposing voices by limiting discussion to "constructive suggestions". As I said, this is not aimed specifically at you; I think the last time I said it was in a discussion about a tree import where the importers asked critics to simply take their energy elsewhere instead of being "negative" about the import. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" __ _ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.or g/listinfo/talk ___ 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] Misrepresentation of OSM by HOT?
Hey Frederik Really good questions. First off, I don't necessarily see this as an American - European thing .. there are plenty of people with different approaches to communication everywhere. What does guide me is experience communicating online, in text, with people from a variety of backgrounds. It is *very* easy to misunderstand intent online. It is *very* easy to have an limbic reaction to something we read online. (There is in fact a lot introspection right now about the effect of this dynamic on democracy as a whole). When I feel it's necessary, I go out of my way to not only share my issue, or what I want to happen, but also my thought process getting there, and my understanding of other points of view. The start of this thread began in the context trademark policy. I don't mean to get into a discussion about the details of trademark policy, though that is an important topic. Starting off discussion of the Tasking Manager in this way feels pretty aggressive. As HOT, and very importantly the individuals who participate in HOT, are well known in the OSM community, you can assume they are on this mailing list, are open to discussion, and want to make things better. In fact, I totally agree with Christoph that the new Tasking Manager needs to improve how it communicates about OSM, and there have been some constructive suggestions in the thread. I think posting on talk@ is one fine way to open that discussion. He could also have contacted HOT people directly, posted on the hot@ list, opened GitHub issues. The point is, HOT is not a faceless, unresponsive entity, but people you run across every day in OSM, with whom you can discuss things, and work together constructively. So here's maybe a turn at rephrasing the original email. > Subject: How can we better talk about OSM on the new Tasking Manager?>> I > recently turned up on the HOT tasking manager page > (http://tasks.hotosm.org/)> and found the page is now presenting itself as > the "OpenStreetMap Collaborative > Mapping" portal with no indication > except for the small logo on top that this is one of> many projects in the > OpenStreetMap community.>> At the same time it seems (at a first glance) I > could not find any links on the site> to OpenStreetMap. > > To the visitor unfamiliar with OSM this is quite likely to generate the > impression that this is OSM and that contributing to "OpenStreetMap > Collaborative Mapping" always happens via HOT tasks. >> From past discussions on this topic, I figure HOT does not want to give >> this> impression. Here are some ways I think the tasking manager and it's >> relationship> to OSM could be better communicated. Hope this helps clear this up. Thanks-Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Monday, October 23, 2017, 11:24:33 AM MDT, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 10/23/2017 05:06 PM, Ian Dees wrote: > On Oct 23, 2017 08:59, "Mikel Maron" <mailto:mikel.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > However ... I hope we can also agree that it is counter productive > to start off such discussions in such an argumentative pose. I hear > a lot of distrust in phrases like "misrepresentation", "claiming > ownership", "exactly what HOT doesn't do". It's emotionally draining > for me to read things like this, and I don't think I'm alone. There > is always more we can learn from each other, about what to do and > how to do it. We are all here in OpenStreetMap because we love the > map. Can we please use that as a starting point in our interactions, > and focus on helping each other to make the map together? > > > Yes, thanks for bringing this up Mikel. Combative questions and the > assumption that the other party is trying to attack OSM makes threads > like this extremely difficult to participate in. People interested in > having a conversation about OSM avoid the mailing lists because of > threads like this and it hurts our community. I find it tiring to read these "see that's why nobody does mailing lists any more" tirades, and it is very difficult for me to separate criticism of the style in which something is written, from criticism of the actual message. I feel that there's too much language policing going on, and too little respect for cultural diversity. Christoph is, like me, from Europe, and those of you who are quick to cast him (or "threads like this") off as harmful to the community, seem to be from the USA. Is it possible that we simply have different ways to express things? Can civil conversations about OSM only be had by US citizens and those who swallow their values, and everyone else is a problem? Or do we have the same set of values but so
Re: [OSM-talk] Misrepresentation of OSM by HOT?
Christoph I see that my message wasn't received as intended. My hope is not to amplify disagreements, but to help set a constructive and friendly tone. Let's take the discussion of how we're communicating "offline" -- I'll connect with you, and I hope set up a time to talk directly. In any case, I don't feel I'm deflecting. As I said, "I think there are some very reasonable ideas and discussion on this thread, about how to describe the tasking manager, OSM, HOT, etc", and appreciate your work to help frame the complexities of OSM appropriately. I also think we should have better guidance on the handling of trademark policy, the appropriate ways and places to raise issues, and how the OSM Foundation and LWG handle these issues. Will bring this up. Thanks-Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Monday, October 23, 2017, 10:23:14 AM MDT, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Monday 23 October 2017, Mikel Maron wrote: > [...] However ... I hope we can > also agree that it is counter productive to start off such > discussions in such an argumentative pose. I hear a lot of distrust > in phrases like "misrepresentation", "claiming ownership", "exactly > what HOT doesn't do". This has nothing to do with trust, i looked at the website and describe my observations here. The term "misrepresentation" is from the trademark policy: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#5.3._Misrepresentation If you think it is inappropriate to use such a term w.r.t. OSM trademarks this is probably something you need to discuss with the LWG. > It's emotionally draining for me to read things > like this, and I don't think I'm alone. Have you considered that it might be "emotionally draining" for OSM contributors to see the name of the project being used on a website like this without any links to OSM and mentioning of the fact that OSM is all about collaborative global mapping even without HOT or the tasking manager? FWIW - i do not feel emotionally drained about this, but i feel rather offended by your, Ian's and Clifford's reactions deflecting a matter-of-factly critique of that website and the resulting discussion about this and possible ways to improve it (and i welcome the constructive suggestions so far) into a discussion about what words may be used in discussion here. I would also like to remind you that one of the most important guiding principle in communication in OSM is to "assume good faith". I followed this principle here by describing my observations of the tasking manager without any interpretation as for why it is designed this way - although this is of course a question i did contemplate. It would be nice to see you doing me the same courtesy by arguing the topic at hand without insinuating "an argumentative pose", "distrust", "Combative questions" or a lack of respect. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ 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] Misrepresentation of OSM by HOT?
Hello everyone I think there are some very reasonable ideas and discussion on this thread, about how to describe the tasking manager, OSM, HOT, etc. We all can agree it's complicated, and explaining this right is worthy of our time and energy. (One additional complication to consider is that the tasking manager software is used in lots of different scenarios, include every day mapping, so the tag line may need to cover non-disaster situations as well.) However ... I hope we can also agree that it is counter productive to start off such discussions in such an argumentative pose. I hear a lot of distrust in phrases like "misrepresentation", "claiming ownership", "exactly what HOT doesn't do". It's emotionally draining for me to read things like this, and I don't think I'm alone. There is always more we can learn from each other, about what to do and how to do it. We are all here in OpenStreetMap because we love the map. Can we please use that as a starting point in our interactions, and focus on helping each other to make the map together? Thanks-Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Monday, October 23, 2017, 7:59:41 AM MDT, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Monday 23 October 2017, Simon Poole wrote: > I suspect Christophs issue is more that HOT seems to be claiming > ownership of "OpenStreetMap collaborative mapping". Yes, this is one of my points. The other is that it fails to connect the visitor to collaboration and communication within the OSM community. The visitor is invited into what is being presented as "OpenStreetMap collaborative mapping" but this whole concept as it is being presented on that site seems to be carefully segregated from the rest of the OSM community with its communication channels, wiki, local communities etc. No one can forbid HOT to do that but if they do so they IMO should not present this under the name OpenStreetMap as "OpenStreetMap collaborative mapping" in general or even as pars pro toto. Or they could rework the site to properly present OpenStreetMap and HOT and how they relate to the visitor. learnosm.org (which i think is also mainly built by HOT) shows this is possible to do. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ 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] [Talk-us] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr
The essential discussion here is -- OSM communities can put together plans ahead of this redaction, in order to minimize impact to the map. With sufficient legal process. This seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to plan out, rather than doing a large scale revert and scrambling to clean up after. The chdr problem has been with us for years. There is little risk in giving slightly more time to plan ahead. Perhaps that is best done country by country. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Monday, August 28, 2017 7:06 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Monday 28 August 2017, Greg Morgan wrote: > We do get to go through the five stages. We do get to express the > emotions until acceptance of our fate as part of the healing process. > There is no rubber stamping! > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model You are free to express your emotions but I think you are overreaching here with comparing a redaction of data in OSM to the grief over a serious personal loss. In case this was not clear the term 'healed' as i used it was referring to the legal concept of healing a breach of contract or other legal infractions by ceasing some activity or doing something you neglected to do before. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ 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] [Talk-us] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr
> we can find a good workflow for that. I wasn't expecting the community to >start working on this pre-redaction but if people prefer that to fixing issues >later... Absolutely, let's do this! Also, Frederik, I think your script picked up false positives. Spot checked in DC, and these are expansions of both the street and the quadrant ("St NW" -> "Street Northwest"(. Can we fix the script and regen the list? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109419946/historyhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109431926/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109431927/history -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Sunday, August 27, 2017 2:45 PM, Greg Morgan wrote: On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: Happy to help. All we'd need for MapRoulette is a list of locations and a proper description of the work we'd expect people to do. Anyone can create the challenge but I'd be happy to do it.Martijn Martijn, I'd would be great if you can break this down to an area. For example, I have a list of Arizona streets. I'd prefer to work on this as an Arizona challenge verses one big chdr challenge. Please Advise,Greg ___ 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] HDYC, login requirement and "privacy"
This topic started a bit backwards -- with an action taken by one project within the OSM ecosystem. We've covered a lot of perspectives on the topic of privacy in OSM, and possible actions and their implications. To turn this thread into some forward movement for us, a good course of action will be as follows. This does not clearly fit into one Working Group responsibility, so the OSMF Board can consider taking up the design of the process at least. * We need to considerately research and assess the personal information (PI) risk. Including defining what is PI, and what various part of OSM might expose. * LWG get informed legal advice on EU and other jurisdiction's PI laws* Consider the range of possible activities to address the risk I reckon the most reasonable and effective starting activity will be to clearly define what OSM users need to know about contributing geodata to OSM, and the PI considerations they should keep in mind. As Frederik says, "raising awareness". For this to be effective, this means smarter design in the learning process and onboarding of new mappers. And perhaps that's the ending point. Personally I can't see any way the removing contributor metadata from geodata would 1) really protect anyone 2) not hobble the project, which depends so much on user reputation to retain quality. In any case, let's kick that question down the road. -MIkel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, May 5, 2017 12:28 PM, Yves wrote: Actually, can an OSM username be considered as 'personal data'? Can somebody point out to a definition of 'personal data' ? How would this be different from, say, my github account? Yves___ 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] Responding to vandalism
Hi Frederik wrote > Hence, the #1 strategy against "there's no local community that helps newbies >and reports vandals" for me is always: Attract a local community. Put more >cynically: A map without a local community is not able to survive, and has >never been, and it was perhaps a mistake to put it there in the first place. It's an interesting question -- what is the ideal local community, what is the way of building one, and what is the role of the global OSM community in this? I don't think we have the answer to this, nor is there one answer -- what has worked in Germany, or even particular parts of Germany, is not going to work everywhere. I doubt that participation of the global community has dampened the growth of local communities, quite the contrary in my experience. Anyway, I feel this thread has wandered and I'd love to focus on what I take is Manohar's intent in writing this email...> Building better support systems to respond to bad edits could help more experienced mappers focus on community building activities. Even well developed local communities could simply use better support systems to monitor and respond to issues on intentional vandalism and unintentional errors. What do those systems look like? How can we improve the osm website, other services in the OSM ecosystem, documentation? For example (this may have been mentioned before on the thread) .. the OSM US community has set up a Slack channel with notifications of every new user editing. We monitor this channel, give a quick look at edits, and send welcome emails. That said, it's an overwhelming number of new users, and improvements which helped the community both focus on problematic new edits and scale welcomes would help a lot. I work with Manohar at Mapbox, so do have some rough ideas here from our internal QA work. But really wanted to learn what else is used currently, and what we'd all like to do together. Curious to hear if there's some commonalities among Tomas's tools for Lithuania, Joost's approaches, Michael's osm-analytical-tracker. Maybe we could also schedule a time to chat together on IRC and brainstorm approaches. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, March 16, 2017 2:07 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, I find it a bit unfortunate that you have chosen to use "vandalism" in the subject, even though you later write On 16.03.2017 14:47, Manohar Erikipati wrote: > ... protect the map against common mistakes and intentional attacks. I think that "common mistakes" (mostly, beginner's mistakes) and intentional attacks are two very different things that need very different strategies. And in vandalism, I would also distinguish between teenage doodles ("penis! ha ha ha!"), and serious concerted efforts to harm OSM. The latter we haven't seen yet, but need to be prepared to face in the future. > Much of the world lacks an active mapping community It is my personal belief that OSM can never work without an active local mapping community. That's one reason why I am always skeptical about armchair mapping or massive imports (or even using machine learning to generate data). These techniques help to fill the map with nice colours but they don't give us what OSM thrives on - local mappers. Hence, the #1 strategy against "there's no local community that helps newbies and reports vandals" for me is always: Attract a local community. Put more cynically: A map without a local community is not able to survive, and has never been, and it was perhaps a mistake to put it there in the first place. 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM for government
Joost Off the top of my head... The French government led by etalab have a really good model of working with OSM and several good projects.In the USG, USAID has been working with OSM and universities for data in Malaria spraying campaigns.Several resilience programs developed by the World Bank serving local governments using OSM. Let's get a catalog started -- want to create a wiki page Joost? -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, February 3, 2017 10:47 AM, john whelan wrote: A couple of the city of Ottawa web sites use the osm map. Ottawa Hydro which is owned by the City for example. I think the UK has imported all the bus stops and there are tools to import the GTFS format transit data but that depends on the license of course. Cheerio John On 3 February 2017 at 10:33, Clifford Snow wrote: TRIMet in Portland, Oregon, US is the regional transit operator. They use and contribute to OSM. The US National Park Service has been working on a version of iD that can feeds users changesets into both OSM and NPS. Last I heard it still is waiting to be rolled out. (Now that NPS is in trouble for their tweets, not sure if we'll even have national parks.) If there isn't a catalog there should be. Clifford On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:44 AM, joost schouppe wrote: Hi, With the Belgian community, we're making some careful progress into getting government to really integrate OSM/VGI into their data management efforts. So not talking about background maps here, real data contribution or community engagement. There are some very specific issues and opportunities there. I believe the Canadian Census is going that way. Are there any other projects in this direction? Is there anything like a project catalogue around? -- Joost SchouppeOpenStreetMap | Twitter | Link edIn | Meetup __ _ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.or g/listinfo/talk -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.usOpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch __ _ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap. org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup
blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } Paul, thanks I hadn't seen that before, and it's a good response. Mikel On Friday, January 6, 2017, 7:05 PM, Paul Norman wrote: On 1/6/2017 7:37 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39517002 is an example. There were issues with this import, sure. This was not vandalism, advertising, or a fatal breakage of the map -- not a situation where an immediate action was justified (and definitely there are other situations where immediate action is needed). An active mapper and an active community were communicating, acting to fix the problems. The reverter in this case choose to ignore the mapper and the community and took a unilateral action, in contradiction to some guidelines on the wiki. This kind of approach discourages community contribution and cooperation. We can do a lot better to cooperatively improve the map and how we map it. The revert in this case did not involve the Data Working Group. The DWG statement on this issue ishttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2016-September/007260.html. Quoting from it Advance permission is not required for reverts, nor for normal mapping activities. At the same time, users are expected to be responsible, particularly when using tools for reverting which allow large-scale changes where other users may disagree with them. Where there are problems with an import reverting is an option, but just one of many, and often not the appropriate first action. Unless there are legal problems or fatal problems with the import it is preferable if the original importer can fix the problems in a timely manner. There was every indication this was going to happen in this case. The revert of 39517002 was inappropriate and counter-productive. New actions like this revert may lead to further Data Working Group involvement and potentially blocks. If the Canadian community needs help reverting 41749133 and 41756737, the Data Working Group can revert those changesets. Because there seems to be some confusion, neither Nakaner or Mikel are members of the Data Working Group. Frederik Ramm, Andy Townsend, and myself are the three people in this thread who are also members of the DWG. Unless they state otherwise, their opinions aren't representing the DWG. Paul Norman For the Data Working Group ___ 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] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup
> It is fatal for the project... It's difficult for me to see how more respect, patientience, and clarity is an existential threat to OpenStreetMap. Perhaps I'll feel different after I run through a few of these cases... Mikel On Friday, January 6, 2017, 11:52 AM, Simon Poole wrote: Am 06.01.2017 um 16:37 schrieb Mikel Maron: .. I would suggest that using this case to make your point is seriously misplaced. Reverting a broken import asap to allow for a) the guidelines to be followed, b) address technical and legal issues, is the sensible, logical and low impact and only scalable course of action. It is definitely neither unfriendly nor un-welcoming or any other adjective you want to use*. The earlier and more consistently it happens the less effort and work is lost by all participants. If there is an issue with immediate reverts, it is that, particularly in the past, there hasn't been enough. The numerous broken imports (CANVEC and broken import is essentially a synonym) that bitrot in our data and are long past any reasonable way of removing them are testimony to this. It is fatal for the project that you are creating the impression that as long as you argue long enough and feign innocence you will be able to bypass the rules and get away with whatever you want. To the contrary, we should be making it clear that not following the few, definitely not particularly arduous to adhere to, rules will result in immediate removal of the content. Simon * the participants in the referenced discussion are neither newbies, not aware of the guidelines, or any other mitigating factor, but that is not the point. ___ 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] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup
> "Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports" and "well documented >and visible plan" I read it as meaning "I want you to stop doing what you are >currently doing in the way that you are doing it", and want to understand >why.> I'd much rather the direction on this came from the community rather >than the board You are questioning my motives and my affiliations. Yes, I wrote off the cuff, quickly in the middle of the thread. (Though have no idea what you mean by dog whistle here -- and I do know what a dog whistle is, I've just survived the US election :P). But sure, I'll take a little time here to do my best to achieve a clear communication -- no doubt I'll fall short, happy to keep trying. It is good we have guidelines for handling imports, mechanical edits, disputes, and a community and working group that works to protect the map. I helped start the DWG after all. I do think there is room for improvement in certain circumstances (I'll give an example below) -- particularly around the tone and depth of the communication, the right speed of action, and transparency of process. My motivation is pretty much the same as everyone's here -- create a great map welcome to contributions to everyone who shares the vision of OSM, and helps us collectively improve how we do it. And I'm getting involved again in the DWG as me -- this has not been discussed by the Board at all, and serving as a Board member has no bearing on this discussion for anyone involved. http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39517002 is an example. There were issues with this import, sure. This was not vandalism, advertising, or a fatal breakage of the map -- not a situation where an immediate action was justified (and definitely there are other situations where immediate action is needed). An active mapper and an active community were communicating, acting to fix the problems. The reverter in this case choose to ignore the mapper and the community and took a unilateral action, in contradiction to some guidelines on the wiki. This kind of approach discourages community contribution and cooperation. We can do a lot better to cooperatively improve the map and how we map it. We need guidelines and transparency on reverts and other processes of the the DWG, so the community knows best how to act when issues arise, and what to expect as mappers. We need to have a consistent understanding -- this will only help us in the DWG over time. Transparency educates everyone and has benefitted other parts of the OSMF, like the Board. Certainly not saying the transparency means all is visible -- there are definitely sensitivity topics, privacy implications, etc. So that's where I'm at. My next steps are going to be review what we have written up on the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes), assess where there's a need for more clarity or inconsistencies, and propose some edits. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, January 6, 2017 6:16 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: On 05/01/17 12:23, mi...@groundtruth.in wrote: * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron ... As Frederik said, better reporting and processing can benefit DWG. This is something I want to spend time on. I think that it's important that how we do this sort of thing as a project is discussed in whatever public forums are available (and right now the "most international" one we have is this talk list, alongside the other widely-used international community forums for different languages over at forum.osm.org such as the DE and RU forums there). Your "Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports..." post above may have been something of a dog-whistle response to Frederik's post, but when I read things that talk about "the current revert regime" and say "Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports" and "well documented and visible plan" I read it as meaning "I want you to stop doing what you are currently doing in the way that you are doing it", and want to understand why. I'd much rather the direction on this came from the community rather than the board (and yes, there will obviously be as many different views as there are OSM mappers). If "the communication I've seen from community members making reverts has left a lot of rough feelings" then let's talk about it (for a start; which particular actions are we talking about? Was the data that was removed added when it shouldn't have been (for e.g. license reasons) and are we just talking about the tone of the conversation, or something else? Activities such as https://www.openstreet
Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup
blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } Ok I hear you. Let me walk this back a step. Not the same standard, but a standard beyond now that gives some visibility to the process. I know there is a process of monitoring, analysis, communication and action followed by the DWG. Let's document that. And a simple not burdensome log of actions - summarizing the above. This visibility will improve community understanding of the process, help to spot trends, and improve everyone's work overall. Mikel On Wednesday, January 4, 2017, 5:00 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Mikel Maron wrote: > Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports (outside > of obviously urgent problems). Where a revert of an import (or other automated edit) is done by DWG because an import did not follow the rules, reverting that import just goes back to the status quo ante. That allows damage to be cancelled out and the import to be retried, later, when the problems have been addressed. Nothing is lost to OSM or the importer, and a lot is gained. I would gently submit that requiring DWG volunteers to undergo through a laborious consultation regime for every revert, simply to be able to apply the long-standing (and well-founded) rules, would achieve nothing apart from driving away a bunch of selfless, hard-working volunteers. (There are no other large-scale reverts that take place in OSM to my knowledge.) Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Wikipedia-Wikidata-admins-cleanup-tp5888517p5888705.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup
Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports (outside of obviously urgent problems). That means a well documented and visible plan, community discussion. Rob's comment shows that it is not possible for someone eyeing a revert to judge this from a quick look at the data or discussion on talk@. Right or wrong, the communication I've seen from community members making reverts has left a lot of rough feelings. I don't believe that this thread meets a community friendly threshold for reverts. Can we hold off on the current revert regime across the board until we have as good guidance and practice in place as we have for Imports? * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 2:50 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 01/04/2017 07:25 PM, nebulon42 wrote: > I would revert it then. > Violations of the automated edits policy should not be tolerated. Some automated Wikidata additions have been reverted by me in the past, mainly where they came from an algorithm that used proximity (and not existing wikipedia tags) to match OSM to Wikipedia. As for Yuri's edits which are based on matching Wikipedia tags, I asked him on 18 November to stop making un-discussed automated edits: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/4377#map=6/54.750/35.752 to which Yuri replied (last comment in the list) "Woodpeck, I have already stopped changing any objects except the admin levels regions 1-6, and even those I have greatly slowed down, and began reviewing most of the auto-resolved wikidata IDs. I will cease further automodifications, and instead concentrate on getting wikidata tags quality review for the admin levels." Contrary to what he wrote there, he's modified more than one hundred thousand objects *after* that exchange - newly adding, instead of just quality reviewing, Wikidata tags. I think that at in a first step, those wikidata tags added by Yuri after 18 November need to be removed. It is rather brazen to ignore our existing rules outright, especially after I had made it very clear to Yuri that his edits *are* automated edits according to our rules. I was a bit hesitant because there's quite a few people in OSM who think that low-quality Wikidata tags are better than no Wikidata tags at all, but hearing here that the express desire of other community members has been blatantly ignored just like our automated edit rules have, I'm leaning towards reverting the lot and making a clean new start. We're not in a rush here - we can afford to wait until someone who actually knows the area they are working in has the time to add Wikidata tags. That will yield much higher quality data than some automated matching. 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Building Detection using Machine Learning
Frederik, all > an editor plugin were to help the mapper trace buildings that the mapper >identifies or at least individually verifies, that would probably be ok This feels like the consensus across the board -- machine learning has potential to be useful when integrated into a human editor workflow. Maybe we can work on guidelines that encapsulates this. With something written up, we'll be able to stop "spinning wheels" on whether this is useful or not, and focus on experimenting and implementing promising approaches. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 7:59 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 12/22/2016 01:10 AM, john whelan wrote: > Do we have any guidelines in the wiki etc? Nothing specific, no. Automated editing and/or import guidelines would apply to any such process and I would ask everyone who overhears discussions about "uploading" machine-detected data to OSM to point this out to those discussing. We've already had to revert a couple hundred thousand such edits (roads though, not buildings). If, OTOH, an editor plugin were to help the mapper trace buildings that the mapper identifies or at least individually verifies, that would probably be ok, at least until HOT trains an army of monkeys with typewriters, er keyboards, to rubber-stamp everything the algorithm puts out ;) More generally speaking, in my opinion the human-centered aspect of mapping is a key property that sets us apart from other map databases. You can safely assume that any algorithm we can run to detect buildings, Google can run 1000 times faster and with a fraction of the error rate, leading to 1000 times more and 10 times better data of that kind than we can accumulate. This is not a field in which we can, or should attempt to, compete. 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [HOT] Help HOT give 10 communities the resources to map!
Hey all, please dampen down the conspiracy theories, personal bitterness and politics. There are ways to ask questions with out being damning, and to share perspectives without lowering ourselves to populist rhetoric and smearing. Let’s try better. The etiquette page on the wiki is a good read to get our conversations on the right footing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette. Thanks -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM New Logo Proposal
blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } Im not a designer, but standard wisdom on logos is something that works at multiple scale with few substantial differences is better. Less visual noise is good. Mikel On Saturday, October 15, 2016, 5:13 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 10/15/2016 08:03 AM, Yves wrote: > I personally find the 'negative magnifier' elegant, and the > disappearance of the 0s and 1s a good way to simplify this logo and make > it easier to scale. I wonder what the established wisdom in the design community is about this. I mean, many people view the web site on a high-dpi screen with about a bazillion calibrated colours and we could have a super crafty logo with gradients and shadows and a shiny 3D effect and so on. Then there are use cases where you want to logo on a T-shirt or in 16x16px in the corner of a map. Does that automatically mean that you need to have the lowest-common-denominator logo that uses only 4 colours and is easily scalable - or are there ways to have a polished logo for large displays together with a scalable version and both still retain the same visual identity? Of course even a simple logo can look good in large print but I do like it about the current logo that there are details to discover when you look closer. 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Reporting Attribution Issues on Mapbox maps
blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } > Webpages not hosted by Mapbox that are > using Mapbox tiles with > OSM-derived data would be responsible for > their own attribution, so > you'd need to contact them like with any other site. Actually, our support team will work to resolve attribution issues with maps using Mapbox tiles anywhere. Expect that this will resolve issues more expediently, since we likely have contact directly to responsible people for the site. I believe Serge was wondering about attribution issues with sites using tiles or data not from Mapbox. That would include tiles from OSM.org. I don't have a solution, but would like to figure it out. I do believe that the more coordinated and respectful we make the process, the more likely issues will be resolved, and stronger relationships will develop with users of OSM data. Mikel On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, 4:49 PM, Paul Norman wrote: On 6/10/2016 3:03 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > But I'm a little concerned about non-MB hosted maps. If not this URL, > where can we report attribution issues related to non-hosted Mapbox > maps and can you link to that other place we can report attribution > issues related to that other kind of customer from the same web page? Webpages not hosted by Mapbox that are using Mapbox tiles with OSM-derived data would be responsible for their own attribution, so you'd need to contact them like with any other site. If someone isn't comfortable doing this or not having success, they can forward the information to le...@osmfoundation.org and the LWG can look into the issue. Also, if someone wants to contact Mapbox about an issue on mapbox.com and doesn't want to use the webform, they could use one of the contact methods for their designated agent for notifications of claimed infringement at http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agents/m/map-box.pdf. ___ 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] Reporting Attribution Issues on Mapbox maps
Hey -- we've set up a support point for attribution issues on Mapbox hosted maps. Let us know if you spot something, and we'll work to fix. https://www.mapbox.com/blog/report-attribution-problems/ (Note, we won't be handling attribution issues on non-Mapbox hosted maps) -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Mapbox imagery won't load hires imagery that seems to exist
Andreas -- going to look into your satellite question, and contact options here at Mapbox. More soon.-Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, June 10, 2016 9:37 AM, Andreas Vilén wrote: Recently (in May or some time earlier), southern Sweden (as well as many other locations) got new Mapbox imagery in many areas that earlier only had very low resolution imagery. The resolution is not super hi-res, but workable and much better than nothing. At best, it looks like this: http://grillo.users.openstreetmap.se/hires%20mapbox.png This imagery covers a large area, but in some places, the highest resolution seemingly refuses to load (like Mapbox haven't imported all zoom levels). It certainly looks like it's the same photography session: http://grillo.users.openstreetmap.se/hilowres%20mapbox.png (yes, I have tried to reload imagery, try for yourselves at this area: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/56.15778/13.75513 ) In other places, where there was imagery before this big update, the old poor imagery replaces the better imagery on higher zoom levels. For example here, where the zoomed out imagery looks like it should be of higher resolution than what replaces it when zoomed in (poor black and white imagery): zoomed out: http://grillo.users.openstreetmap.se/highres%20zoomed%20out%20mapbox.png , same area zoomed in: http://grillo.users.openstreetmap.se/lowres%20zoomed%20in%20mapbox.png I have already tried contacting Mapbox about this (about a month ago) but got no reply. I would be very grateful if anyone could shed some light on this situation! Regards Andreas PS: In contacting Mapbox. I had to create a Mapbox account. Does anyone know what's going on? Are they going to upload the higher resolution tiles that they probably have? Does anyone have a way to contact Mapbox about this that will actually go to someone who works with this? The contact options for OSM mappers who use Mapbox imagery seem to be very limited. I had to create an account and lie about my occupation (because they forced me to choose between very few different job titles when creating the account). Also, the contact form didn't seem to take OSM questions into account at all. ___ 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] OpenStreetMap Foundation is hiring an Administrative Assistant
Wanted to update members on the admin assistant process. We're pleased with the interest so far. But also want to allow just a few more applications to come in. We're extending the application period by 1 week until June 10. Thank you!Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 11:53 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: The OpenStreetMap Foundation Board is looking for a detail oriented, part-time administrative assistant with a passion for open communities, who can help accelerate the work of the OpenStreetMap Foundation. Sharp organization and communication skills, and excitement for the mission of OSM will be helpful. The role's responsibilities will be to help prepare for meetings, tracking action items and votes; ensure excellent communication between our volunteer community members, working groups and the board; handle inquiries and communicate on behalf of the foundation; and organize our paperwork and publish routine matters. Is this you? Or know a great candidate? You have until Friday, June 3 to apply. Full job posting at http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Administrative_Assistant. Email ap...@osmfoundation.org with applications and any questions. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Burger King use of OSM without Attribution
Thanks -- yes appreciate the heads up on the issue, and please give us a few days to get this fixed. Mapbox takes attribution very seriously, and has relationships with the relevant customers to get this addressed. And by the way, working on setting up a contact point where attribution issues on Mapbox hosted maps can be directly reported. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 5:03 PM, Milo van der Linden wrote: I agree, as we are on "speaking terms" with mapbox, it seems to me that we can easily fix this like gentlemen. Kind regards, Milo 2016-05-31 22:35 GMT+02:00 Benoît Barteaux : They don't seem to cut the image, as the problem seems to come from mapbox directly. I think that sending now a copyright notice to BK/mapbox would seem a bit premature and upfront. Give them time for the email to travel to the right person and to think/react for a bit. After some time then, maybe. Cheers, Benoit On 31/05/16 22:16, Clifford Snow wrote: Mikel, I wonder if they just crop the image for the website, cutting off attribution? They haven't replied to me, so I am going to look for something like a legal contact at Burger King. Though we could issue a copyright takedown to AWS. On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: Thanks for the report, we're looking into sorting out this attribution issue at Mapbox. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Saturday, May 28, 2016 4:51 AM, Milo van der Linden wrote: Burgerking is using the static image api from mapbox: http://api.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/dondeinc.ilo032fk/url-http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fdonde-img%2Fpin-bk.png%3Fc%3D3(-117.4382504,47.71573001)/-117.4382504,47.71573001,16/640x640.png So perhaps mapbox should be asked why attribution is not visible in the static image api. 2016-05-28 7:22 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow : I notices a new user added a fast food node [1] in Spokane, WA. The name was entered as BK. Assuming it was probably a Burger King, I did a search and found that it was actually a Burger King restaurant. What I noticed was their map [2] was identical to OSM. I sent a message via their contact me link on the page asking that they comply with our terms of use. Has anyone else noticed Burger King using OSM data before? [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39617650 [2] http://www.bk.com/restaurants/wa/spokane/1804-west-francis-ave-5816.html On a side note, I did send the user a message asking to verify the name. First time user with MAPS.ME. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- | | Milo van der Linden web: dogodigi tel: +31-6-16598808 | ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Cordialement, Besoins en programmation IT de pointe ? Contactez nous, BBashIT s'occupe de tout ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- | | Milo van der Linden web: dogodigi tel: +31-6-16598808 | ___ 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] Burger King use of OSM without Attribution
Thanks for the report, we're looking into sorting out this attribution issue at Mapbox. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Saturday, May 28, 2016 4:51 AM, Milo van der Linden wrote: Burgerking is using the static image api from mapbox: http://api.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/dondeinc.ilo032fk/url-http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fdonde-img%2Fpin-bk.png%3Fc%3D3(-117.4382504,47.71573001)/-117.4382504,47.71573001,16/640x640.png So perhaps mapbox should be asked why attribution is not visible in the static image api. 2016-05-28 7:22 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow : I notices a new user added a fast food node [1] in Spokane, WA. The name was entered as BK. Assuming it was probably a Burger King, I did a search and found that it was actually a Burger King restaurant. What I noticed was their map [2] was identical to OSM. I sent a message via their contact me link on the page asking that they comply with our terms of use. Has anyone else noticed Burger King using OSM data before? [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39617650[2] http://www.bk.com/restaurants/wa/spokane/1804-west-francis-ave-5816.html On a side note, I did send the user a message asking to verify the name. First time user with MAPS.ME. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.usOpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- | | Milo van der Linden web: dogodigi tel: +31-6-16598808 | ___ 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] India wants to license maps
The India open data and OSM community are working to address this http://savethemap.in/. I'm sure they'll let us know if they need more help.-Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, May 12, 2016 3:16 PM, Milo van der Linden wrote: The big ironic here is that a lot of the larger mapping companies have workforces in India creating and processing map and geodata for them. Is this dog going to bite it's own tail?Op 12 mei 2016 9:02 p.m. schreef "Michał Brzozowski" : So then we should promptly raise awareness of the issue. I think EFF is the right place to ask for support, if they hadn't covered it already. Also, OSMF might make a blog post describing how it can affect us, that could be shared / linked to raise awareness. Information moves rather quickly in the technological blogosphere. Michał On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 7:37 PM, john whelan wrote: > It may impact us. > > http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36276754 > > Cheerio John > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] OpenStreetMap Foundation is hiring an Administrative Assistant
The OpenStreetMap Foundation Board is looking for a detail oriented, part-time administrative assistant with a passion for open communities, who can help accelerate the work of the OpenStreetMap Foundation. Sharp organization and communication skills, and excitement for the mission of OSM will be helpful. The role's responsibilities will be to help prepare for meetings, tracking action items and votes; ensure excellent communication between our volunteer community members, working groups and the board; handle inquiries and communicate on behalf of the foundation; and organize our paperwork and publish routine matters. Is this you? Or know a great candidate? You have until Friday, June 3 to apply. Full job posting at http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Administrative_Assistant. Email ap...@osmfoundation.org with applications and any questions. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crowdfunding for OpenStreetMap in Bénin : 275km² high resolution satellite imagery for Cotonou
Hey I don't know really understand the discussion about charity, or what this has to do with all this sensitivity about the autonomy of a local community. I see a fundraiser for imagery, for purchase from a big satellite imagery provider. OSM Benin is doing amazing work, but it's not like they're trying to launch a satellite itself! This imagery can be gotten as a donation -- just like you're asking for donations now. And those crowdfunding campaign donors, well I bet they're willing to trust a local communities decisions, as long as the community and OSM are strengthened. Suggesting this is not an insult -- absolutely none intended. Seems silly to not spend the money more productively, but that's my view and not my decision. There are many imagery providers and services that have been willing to help with imagery for active projects -- this is nothing new in OSM. Just look at the Ecuador response to see the latest manifestation of that willingness. There are lots of great mapping efforts in West Africa and around the world, and we all know there are many gaps in imagery. If OSM Benin had asked for help with imagery before starting this fundraiser, you bet I would have helped; this is not about a bandwagon as you strangely suggest Rod. We need to prioritize needs, and seeing the community activity and organization in Cotonou is key to the thought -- this is a place that can really use imagery. In other words, both a gap in imagery coverage and an active use are ingredients to consider. So if OSM Benin can organize AOI for imagery needs, and demonstrate activity on the ground in those place, I don't see why other requests wouldn't be considered. I would love to talk directly with the OSM Benin team to understand the need, and there are many people who are happy to help cross language barriers to help with translation, and convey things in the best way possible. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 4:19 PM, Rod Bera wrote: Hi John, You seem not to imagine for a second people in the South can take initiatives and do things by themselves, without resorting to a charity from the North. We agree charities can be effective (e.g. when there is a quake or typhoon) by making possible a quick release of imagery. Then only the real mapping work begins, by a reliable task force of OSM mappers, maybe with HOT to organise things a bit. However, such dramatic events happen in and around Cotonou too (esp. floods), but seemingly not with enough casualties to hit the headlines. Or to get proper imagery. Besides, people in Cotonou and other areas of Benin have been waiting for a while for decent maps, and OSM Bénin has worked a lot in an adverse context (power and network outages, sometimes GPS, often field papers with no workable base map, etc.) As long as they were mapping in dire conditions, they seemed to attract no attention from those imagery providers. Now their initiative is having some success, imagery providers pop in. Fair enough, and welcome, there are many more areas with no decent imagery. And OSM Benin are keen to issue a list of other imagery-deprived areas in Benin... and elsewhere. You seem to argue resorting to charities and well established imagery providers is better than doing thing oneself. With such views OSM would simply not exist, we would still be relying on mapping agencies, and there would have been no worldwide open alternative. This argumentation "why would you do things by yourselves? we can give you better" is a bit patronising and at the opposite of the OSM spirit. Again, with such an ethos there would be no OSM project (back in 2004 and for several years after "well, mapping agencies are doing tremendous work, after all, why sould we work on an alternative?" was a common answer) This argumentation reminds me of the recent "go and buy yourselves petrol for your bikes instead, and leave us the imagery stuff" (Mikel, I know it's not an exact quotation, and that by the way you didn't want to be insulting, but try and imagine how the fellow mappers in Benin can take this). Of course we are happy to see people "do better", but we are proud to have communities who can cope without having to flatter those dominant organisations, which by the way are useful as long as they don't want to impose their views and practices in an exclusive way. And more importantly there is room for everyone in OSM. On cost effectiveness, granted (if you live in a country where tax rebates of the kind apply, and if the charity you whish to donate to is properly registered by the gov. of the country you live in... Common in N. America and Europe, but don't assume this is the case everywhere). However this $45 difference you're claiming is the cost of independence. Yes, there are people who value independence this much. Ther
Re: [OSM-talk] Crowdfunding for OpenStreetMap in Bénin : 275km² high resolution satellite imagery for Cotonou
blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Gaza#Commercial_aerial_photography Yes, we raised money to buy imagery, in the first HOT activation. Yahoo imagery only covered the southeast part of Gaza. If we had a mechanism to request imagery from providers, we certainly would have. The situation is very different today for OSM. You only need to look at the Ecuador response to see the willingness of imagery providers to help when there is a need. Mikel On Monday, April 25, 2016, 1:32 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/25/2016 07:02 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > see for example http://wiki.openstreetmap.org and Gah, broke the link - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Gaza#Commercial_aerial_photography 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crowdfunding for OpenStreetMap in Bénin : 275km² high resolution satellite imagery for Cotonou by 1-May 2016!
That's awesome Kevin. Totally agree, funds can be used for mapping parties and motorcycle fuel! Let me know if Mapbox can help here too, willing to look into it. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Monday, April 25, 2016 12:01 PM, Kevin Bullock wrote: Hi all - I am working with OSM-Benin on behalf of DG to see if we can do something creative; I would rather see this crowdfunding be used for on the ground verification resources. Best, Kevin Bullock On 4/25/16, 9:25 AM, "althio" wrote: >John, > >You can't blame people for looking for the best imagery around Cotonou, Bénin. >We are talking of the largest city in this country, 700 000+ inhabitants. > >I don't find it very reasonable to propose another project 1000 km away. >The local mappers want to map their city, that's all. > >Best, > >- althio > > >On 25 April 2016 at 16:31, john whelan wrote: >> There seems to be fairly reasonable free mapbox imagery of this area >> available. There is a lot of very reasonable African imagery available that >> has not yet been mapped. >> >> http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/1087 is an example. >> >> Cheerio John >> >> On 25 April 2016 at 10:17, nicolas chavent >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Below is the English translation of an email sent first to the >>> hot-francophone mailing list. It focuses on the first crowdfunding 100% >>> directed to OpenStreetMap in Western Africa. The project is run by the local >>> OSM association (OSM Bénin) with the support of the collective Projet Espace >>> OSM Francophone (ProjetEOF) to purchase 275km² high resolution imagery over >>> Cotonou, Benin economic capital. >>> >>> Enjoy the read and shall you be interested, join us! The crowfunding >>> closes May1, 2016: in 7 days, we still have to raise 550 Euros (25%). This >>> is an easy mean to make a big difference and have a huge OpenStreetMap and >>> opendata impact in Cotonou and Benin by helping significatively the mapping >>> of Cotonou by the Cotonou mappers who can then be supported remotely by the >>> global OSM community and the Western African groups in the first place. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Nicolas on the behalf of the Association OSM Bénin et the collective >>> ProjetEOF >>> >>> >>> = Crowdfunding for OpenStreetMap in Bénin : 275km² high resolution >>> satellite imagery for Cotonou by 1-May 2016! = >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> This crowdfunding "Imagerie Satellite pour OSM Benin" ([1],[2]) is lead by >>> the Association OpenStreetMap Bénin (OSMBénin) [3] with the support of the >>> collective Projet Espace OpenStreetMap Francophone (ProjetEOF) [4]. It aims >>> at purchasing around 275 km² high resolution imagery over Cotonou in a >>> license which allows for creating into OpenStreetMap geographical >>> information about building, road network, hydrography and landuse. >>> >>> The mappers from Benin are active creating geographical data in >>> OpenStreetMap and thus improving the Free Map of this World via mapathons >>> [5] field data collections [6], as well as conducting information and >>> outreach work tied to heavy training in GIS (QGIS) and mapping with OSM [7]. >>> Unfortunately they are missing on Cotonou high resolution imagery via the >>> Bing and MapBox layers. This forces the Benin OSM community to map Cotonou - >>> Benin economic capital - through field surveys only (GPS, Mobile phones and >>> FieldPapers), a long time and money intensive work. This takes us back to >>> the early ages of OpenStreetMap prior its members had access to high >>> resolution imagery through agreements with Yahoo, Microsoft Bing or >>> benefited from opendata programs. >>> >>> Shall this crowdfunding works well, this would be a major breakthrough for >>> the growth of OpenStreetMap in Cotonou and in Benin, as a matter of fact, >>> with this imagery purchased, hosted and accesible: >>> - Not only the mappers from Bénin would be more efficient mapping Cotonou >>> and in a position to dedicate more time to non mapping activities such >>> information, outreach, building partnerships while continuing and expanding >>> the activities they had been carrying out in the rest of the country since >>> 2013 as one can read from the "Infolettre OSM Bénin" [8]. >>> - But for mapping Cotonou, they could benefit from the support of the >>> glo
Re: [OSM-talk] Involving Cyclists in OSM
Strava uses OSM http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strava * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 6:13 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: I am meeting with one of the key players in Seattle's cycling clubs to pitch doing a presentation to their membership. I'm interested in hearing from cyclists on why and how OSM is useful to them. I have no problem talking about the open data concept and incorporating slippy maps, but I want to make sure I cover the salient points that would interest cyclists. If you know of any websites that use bike routes or otherwise make use of OSM data that would really be great. Thanks,Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.usOpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ 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] A message to our friends at HOT, Peace Corps etc. about Changeset Comments
"On the other hand you can't deny that HOT is in some ways self defeatingsince it isolates lots of people from the whole of OSM and the nitty grity parts." Fully denied. There are many facets to OSM, we are all, I hope, working to provide ways to integrate them. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, November 19, 2015 12:10 PM, Simon Poole wrote: Am 19.11.2015 um 15:53 schrieb Blake Girardot: > > It is a ridiculous statement on its face; obviously HOT does not > succeed if OSM does not succeed. I think we fully agree and if you recheck you will see that I said essentially the same. > > As to the original issue Ramm raised: > > Most HOT folks who commented agreed the example changeset comments, > while useful, could benefit from improvement (as could the vast > majority changeset comments in OSM). Mikel has already opened an issue > in github to improve them and the issue has already been brought to > the people who manage HOT OSM Tasking Manager projects, how is that > not working with and being responsive to the larger OSM community? Again if you go back you will see that I couldn't quite believe that a shism was really being declared because it doesn't make any sense. On the other hand you can't deny that HOT is in some ways self defeating since it isolates lots of people from the whole of OSM and the nitty grity parts. Intentionally naturally, but it doesn't necessarily actually help the humanitarian sectors understanding of what OSM is and how it works. > > I think HOT's history demonstrates an eagerness (and outright need) to > work with the OSM community at every opportunity (not mistake free of > course). But I can also personally point to at least 1 example where > HOT has reached out to OSMF and the License WG and literally been > ignored after repeated attempts to even discuss an issue. I would be interested in a reference to that. We get a large number of enquiries, ~ 200 this year to date, and occasionally stuff gets pushed back, particularly if there is no good answer (naturally you would get an answer pointing that out). Simon ___ 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] A message to our friends at HOT, Peace Corps etc. about Changeset Comments
"On the other hand you can't deny that HOT is in some ways self defeatingsince it isolates lots of people from the whole of OSM and the nitty grity parts." Fully denied. There are many facets to OSM, we are all, I hope, working to provide ways to integrate them. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, November 19, 2015 12:10 PM, Simon Poole wrote: Am 19.11.2015 um 15:53 schrieb Blake Girardot: > > It is a ridiculous statement on its face; obviously HOT does not > succeed if OSM does not succeed. I think we fully agree and if you recheck you will see that I said essentially the same. > > As to the original issue Ramm raised: > > Most HOT folks who commented agreed the example changeset comments, > while useful, could benefit from improvement (as could the vast > majority changeset comments in OSM). Mikel has already opened an issue > in github to improve them and the issue has already been brought to > the people who manage HOT OSM Tasking Manager projects, how is that > not working with and being responsive to the larger OSM community? Again if you go back you will see that I couldn't quite believe that a shism was really being declared because it doesn't make any sense. On the other hand you can't deny that HOT is in some ways self defeating since it isolates lots of people from the whole of OSM and the nitty grity parts. Intentionally naturally, but it doesn't necessarily actually help the humanitarian sectors understanding of what OSM is and how it works. > > I think HOT's history demonstrates an eagerness (and outright need) to > work with the OSM community at every opportunity (not mistake free of > course). But I can also personally point to at least 1 example where > HOT has reached out to OSMF and the License WG and literally been > ignored after repeated attempts to even discuss an issue. I would be interested in a reference to that. We get a large number of enquiries, ~ 200 this year to date, and occasionally stuff gets pushed back, particularly if there is no good answer (naturally you would get an answer pointing that out). Simon ___ 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] A message to our friends at HOT, Peace Corps etc. about Changeset Comments
While it's factually correct to say that you don't have to take part in the community to work with OSM, I seldom see that in practice. Missing Maps and HOT are deeply involved in the OSM community. When we do see this gap between the data and community anywhere in OSM, it's a great action to take on, to find ways to make our community welcoming and understandable to more mappers. We also need to recognize that OSM is a collection of communities, especially along linguistic lines, and that we need to work more to integrate in positive ways. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, November 19, 2015 11:44 AM, Simon Poole wrote: Am 19.11.2015 um 15:17 schrieb Paul Johnson: On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Simon Poole wrote: This seems a bit of an odd time to announce a schism and I'm sure you didn't intend for your statement to come across as it just did. While rabid anti-OSMers are gaining more power and influence in HOT and MM, Not sure what MM is, but how can you be anti-OSM and be on the Humanitarian OSM Team? Seems rather self-defeatist. MM == missingmaps, sorry. The point is that you can use OSM, the infrastructure and tools, as a convenient and free service for mapping without buying in to OSM the collaborative, community driven mapping project, the only thing which is really required is that you have to live with the licence as determined by the contributors. In the end not much different than if you were to buy such a service from ESRI. Now we don't really require buy in to OSM the project when people sign up, historically this has mainly caused issues with individuals and some times companies that have gone off on a tangent. But there is no doubt that a lot of things about OSM are "different", the rules, the structures (or rather the absence of them), how we technically do things and in the end getting community buy in to whatever you are doing, that are considered pesky annoyances and particularly a hindrance when you are on a mission to save the world. Simon ___ 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] A message to our friends at HOT, Peace Corps etc. about Changeset Comments
While it's factually correct to say that you don't have to take part in the community to work with OSM, I seldom see that in practice. Missing Maps and HOT are deeply involved in the OSM community. When we do see this gap between the data and community anywhere in OSM, it's a great action to take on, to find ways to make our community welcoming and understandable to more mappers. We also need to recognize that OSM is a collection of communities, especially along linguistic lines, and that we need to work more to integrate in positive ways. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, November 19, 2015 11:44 AM, Simon Poole wrote: Am 19.11.2015 um 15:17 schrieb Paul Johnson: On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Simon Poole wrote: This seems a bit of an odd time to announce a schism and I'm sure you didn't intend for your statement to come across as it just did. While rabid anti-OSMers are gaining more power and influence in HOT and MM, Not sure what MM is, but how can you be anti-OSM and be on the Humanitarian OSM Team? Seems rather self-defeatist. MM == missingmaps, sorry. The point is that you can use OSM, the infrastructure and tools, as a convenient and free service for mapping without buying in to OSM the collaborative, community driven mapping project, the only thing which is really required is that you have to live with the licence as determined by the contributors. In the end not much different than if you were to buy such a service from ESRI. Now we don't really require buy in to OSM the project when people sign up, historically this has mainly caused issues with individuals and some times companies that have gone off on a tangent. But there is no doubt that a lot of things about OSM are "different", the rules, the structures (or rather the absence of them), how we technically do things and in the end getting community buy in to whatever you are doing, that are considered pesky annoyances and particularly a hindrance when you are on a mission to save the world. Simon ___ 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] A message to our friends at HOT, Peace Corps etc. about Changeset Comments
This is confusion. Kate was challenging that notion and was saying that HOT is definitely part of the OSM community, and OSM encompassed a lot of methods. No one I've seen in HOT or OSM is anti OSM, that's just wrong. We're all hear to create the best open map ever. Maybe we can focus on how to do that. Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, November 19, 2015 8:57 AM, Simon Poole wrote: This seems a bit of an odd time to announce a schism and I'm sure you didn't intend for your statement to come across as it just did. While rabid anti-OSMers are gaining more power and influence in HOT and MM, I do assume that the majority of the HOT and MM communities are not falling in to the trap of believing their own marketing copy and realize that they are a small minority in the larger OSM community and are dependent on the good will and support of the wider OSM community to make a difference. Simon Am 19.11.2015 um 14:28 schrieb Kate Chapman: Hi Christoph, The flaw with this logic is that people in HOT are not participating in the OSM community. Is the OSM community to remain static and "conventions" made years ago may never change? Do we not have the same goal of a free map of the entire world? -Kate On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Thursday 19 November 2015, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > #MissingMaps #hotosm-project-12345 Lubumbashi, Congo (DRC) > #100mapathons #OSMGeoWeek > > This is *not* useful. But to be fair this is not only the fault of the mappers but also of the HOT project managers since they specifically instruct mappers to use such changeset comments. Generally the HOT project mapping instructions contain a lot of things that are questionable from the viewpoint of the OSM community. IMO HOT needs to make sure these comply with the OSM conventions, for example by sourcing these instructions from the OSM wiki and allowing the OSM community to provide input and fixes this way. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ 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] A message to our friends at HOT, Peace Corps etc. about Changeset Comments
Hi friends I'm mining a few actionable nuggets from this discussion. * Document (or link to documentation) on how the OSMTM works in the wiki, including structure of changeset comments.* Update guidance to encourage mappers to add their own insights in changeset comments* Share more the downstream analysis of changeset comments, like http://osmgeoweek.org/metrics* Make the point person for an OSMTM visible and contactable for feedback.* Investigate potential use of other tags in the changeset Created a GitHub ticket for working through ideas https://github.com/hotosm/osm-tasking-manager2/issues/703 Mikel ps For the Argentinian case, has anyone asked the local community there to reach out? I'm sure they would be able to help them get on the right track. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Thursday, November 19, 2015 3:43 AM, Michael Reichert wrote: Hi, Am 19. November 2015 01:52:40 MEZ, schrieb john whelan : > HOT and OSM are slightly different, HOT maps on OSM but uses a simpler > more > standardized approach. HOT uses the OSM database/platform and therefore it has to adapt and follow OSM's rules. Nobody forces you to use OSM. Why don't you do something like OpenHistoricalMap and use your own database basrd on OSM software? > HOT tends to map in areas that do not have a great deal of OSM mapping > already in place so I don't see that it really matters if they use > preset > comments from the tile system. The HOT comment gives you the task and > tile > number so you can look up on the tile system where it is and also what > has > been asked for. A mapper should be able to get an idea what has been edited at a given changeset without decrypting the changeset comment using an external service (HOT tasking manager in this case). Who guarantees that HOT tasking manager will still be online in 5 or 10 years? Best regards Michael -- Diese Nachricht wurde auf einem Smartphone verfasst, ist daher nicht GPG-signiert und enthält Tippfejler. This message was been written on a smartphone. That's why it is not GPG-signed and may contain tyops. ___ 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] Fw: new message
Hello! New message, please read <http://tecmawatco.com.vn/touched.php?g0he> Mikel Maron ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] USG commits to OSM
blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } Big news today from the Open Government Partnership Summit. US Government has committed to Open Mapping in a big way. And hopefully the first of many national commitments. Congrats everyonehttps://www.mapbox.com/blog/usg-open-mapping/ Mikel ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Some thoughts against remote mapping
A few points Full disclosure. The post that touched off this thread was written by my wife and partner in Map Kibera. All the points on this thread are very good points to keep in mind with any mapping project, but there's no universal rule in my experience. Don't forget that mappers are everywhere and that amazing connections take place that don't fit our usual conception of remote mapping, like https://twitter.com/uscgjerusalem/status/523473404532645888 I have seen the amazing pride that comes from residents themselves creating the map from a blank spot. I've also seen the same from a very well filled map, selectively and carefully updated with local knowledge. And I've seen incredible, life saving work from remote mapping, that locals are not only incredibly grateful for, but value as a connection to the global community. The key in my opinion is understanding the transformative pride of mapping (as we all know well, that's why we're here), and designing for it. Our design challenge for OpenStreetMap constantly changes, and much of our tools are still oriented towards filling in the blank map. A map with all the buildings can look "done" in the standard rendering, but of course we know it's not done. Is there a way to visualize the map to take into account the depth and local knowledge of the data? So that the pride of filling in the blank spot can be felt even when previous work has been done? I'd say that's a design challenge even in well mapped countries, which will need to be maintained and updated for the rest of time! -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Saturday, June 13, 2015 1:52 PM, Tom Lee wrote: These critiques seem to be beginning to develop themes explored more fully and famously by James Scott in _Seeing Like A State_. In it, he explores the implications of government efforts at systematization, including the original French cadastre and some German forest management projects. I'm afraid the news is worse than you might think, Frederik: Scott makes a compelling case that the *very act of mapping itself* snuffs out locally adapted systems of property management, social support and cultural exchange. It is a troubling critique and one that bears serious consideration. (It also carries vast and unwieldy intellectual coattails, including a deep connection to the failed anarchist project of the early twentieth century.) For my part, the value of being able to deliver emergency services, economic development and competent governance seem overwhelmingly worth the cultural costs that accompany efforts to rationalize the world. It seems to me that the verdict is in and we're all building a global society (and global map!). I'm skeptical that OSM should or can be a meaningful bulwark against this process. Local mapping is preferable not because it escapes the intellectual hegemony of mapping practices -- there is no escape from them at all if you are making a unified map -- but because it delivers a better map. And some map is better than no map: > Does every building address need to be mapped? If not, it just seems like an >easy win — why not collect everything? One reason not to is because later when >you find you need local buy-in, even OSM may be viewed as an outsider project >meant to dominate a neighborhood, a city, especially in sensitive >neighborhoods where this has indeed been a primary use of maps. I wonder if >people will one day want to create “our map” separately from OSM. A different >global map wiki which is geared toward self-determination, perhaps? That would >be a major loss for the OSM community. This struck me as shortsighted. The author is suggesting that leaving the map blank is preferable because someone might fill it in later, and that person might feel intimidated by the presence of existing data. I will gently submit that needing a blank slate is not even close to the most off-putting thing about OSM for new mappers. More to the point, even if you take an *extremely* rosy view of the extent to which the act of mapping enhances self-determination, the "loss to the OSM community" seems vastly less important than the losses to everyone who could be using the map to facilitate their businesses, recreation, or government. Every day that a part of the map remains unusably empty is a day that those people lose benefits they might have had -- or a day in which they become more reliant on closed data that has already gotten the job done. Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk