Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed bulk removal of service=driveway2

[Yves via talk]

That would be again discussing with the proponent, as Brian started.
Taginfo chronology already show one mass edit and revert, best to make sure 
there's not another waste of energy beforehand.
Yves 

Le 27 juin 2023 12:46:50 GMT+02:00, Marc_marc  a écrit :
>Le 27.06.23 à 12:27, Yves via talk a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>> Le 25 juin 2023 01:02:04 GMT+02:00, "Brian M. Sperlongano" 
>>  a écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> And indeed, nine months later, we see that not only has the work not gotten
>>> done, but while we all squabbled away with our pet views about automated
>>> editing, we find that we agreed to nothing, and the mapper has quietly
>>> continued to add this nonsense tag to the database unabated:
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/service=driveway2#chronology
>>> 
>> 
>> An automated edit or a Maproulette challenge makes no sense in these 
>> conditions.
>
>Could you explain what you think?
>And what solution will you use if neither a mass edition nor an 
>object-by-object edition is suitable in your opinion?
>
>
>
>___
>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] Proposed bulk removal of service=driveway2

[Yves via talk]

Le 25 juin 2023 01:02:04 GMT+02:00, "Brian M. Sperlongano" 
 a écrit :

>
>And indeed, nine months later, we see that not only has the work not gotten
>done, but while we all squabbled away with our pet views about automated
>editing, we find that we agreed to nothing, and the mapper has quietly
>continued to add this nonsense tag to the database unabated:
>https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/service=driveway2#chronology
>

An automated edit or a Maproulette challenge makes no sense in these conditions.
Yves 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

[Yves via talk]

Le 10 janvier 2023 08:12:43 GMT+01:00, Snusmumriken 
 a écrit :
>On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 23:06 +, Andy Townsend wrote:
>> On 09/01/2023 20:17, Snusmumriken wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 08:21 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> > > You seem unwilling to understand that defining a way to refer to
>> > > ids
>> > > will cause social pressure not to change ids,
>> > Is there actually evidence that would corroborate this claim?
>> 
>> There have definitely been complaints to the DWG when people
>> "resurrect" 
>> old long-deleted nodes, or exhibit "unusual mapping behaviour" such
>> as 
>> never deleting any nodes, and always re-using them in some other 
>> feature.  There have also been complaints about changes to objects
>> that 
>> people consider "special" such as
>> https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/1 
>> and, er,
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/69#map=17/48.06733/12.86258 .
>
>Right, I guess one could say that when it comes to retaining existing
>osm ids there is bad practice and good practice, and a grey area. Any
>proof or indications that creating a URI scheme would increase the bad
>practice?
>
No, adding such a URI scheme wouldn't change at all the way contributors 
contribute.

However it would further degrade the impact of the "bad practice". 

I put "bad practice" between quotes because if it is considered good practice 
to try to keep IDs when editing because it's easier to retrieve history when 
trying to understand each other edits, it's not mandatory. 

Yves

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

[Yves via talk]

Le 9 janvier 2023 16:19:14 GMT+01:00, Niels Elgaard Larsen  a 
écrit :
>
>I sometimes do get annoyed at especially new mappers that often
>excessively delete and recreates objects. Because it obscures the
>history.
>
If it is a trend for new mappers, which I understand well because sometimes it 
is easier to re-create from scratch, then you shouldn't be annoyed by it. The 
good news here is that a new mapper tries to improve the map!
A new mapper that could be put off by the slightest social pressure.
Yves 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

[Yves via talk]

Le 6 janvier 2023 15:49:53 GMT+01:00, "Sören Reinecke"  a 
écrit :
>
>Better would be to have a separate FOSS platform for storing POI information 
>using a permanent identifier connected to OSM somehow e.g. by a key 
>"somepoiplatformid". But no one created such a platform yet.
>
Probably because it is slightly complicated to do and ressource-intensive?
For this reason, data consumers creating geo:id would not be likely to do it 
either.
Yves 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Making GPS tracks in Android

[Yves via talk]

Gps logger was perfect, unfortunately : 
https://github.com/mendhak/gpslogger/issues/849
Yves 

Le 20 décembre 2020 19:43:00 GMT+01:00, Martijn van Exel  a 
écrit :
>Andy, 
>
>If you would like something lightweight that just does GPS track recording, I 
>would recommend GPS Logger 
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GPS_Logger_for_Android 
> . A nice bonus is 
>that you can have the app automatically upload your tracks to OSM in whatever 
>privacy mode you choose. It can also sync with Nextcloud, Dropbox etc.
>
>OSMTracker offers a little more functionality like recording waypoints with 
>specific, configurable notes, and recording audio notes. 
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSMTracker_(Android) 
> 
>
>I’m not on Android right now but I’ve used both these OSS apps for years.
>
>Martijn
>
>> On Dec 20, 2020, at 5:36 AM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>> 
>> Father Christmas came early this year, and has delivered to me a smart
>> new Android phone, whose GPS is much better than on my old one.
>> 
>> I want to use it to trace some tracks on a local nature reserve. What
>> app(s) do you recommend for this?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

[Yves via talk]

Niels, Arnalielsewhere post wasn't about mapping, the map is used to illustrate 
something. 
I agree with others comments pledging for more time to be taken to read someone 
else's lines. 
Yves___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Find actively browsed undermapped regions and other gaps in OSM

[Yves via talk]

Really fun to see usernames where your brain expect places, I love it!
Makes me want to check on neighborhood, so it's a good work. 
Yves

Le 20 octobre 2020 15:31:15 GMT+02:00, Darafei Praliaskouski via talk 
 a écrit :
>Hi,
>
>Fixed links:
>
>Kontur OpenStreetMap Antiquity:
>https://disaster.ninja/live/#id=GDACS_EQ_1240102_1338684;position=7.92,45.59;zoom=4.4;overlays=bivariate-custom_kontur_openstreetmap_antiquity
>
>Kontur OpenStreetMap Building Quantity:
>https://disaster.ninja/live/#id=GDACS_EQ_1240102_1338684;position=-75.17,40.144086257217054;zoom=8.56;overlays=bivariate-custom_kontur_openstreetmap_building_quantity
>
>The other layers are available in the right Overlay panel.
>
>Have a good day.
>
>On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 3:46 PM Darafei Praliaskouski  
>wrote:
>>
>> Hi mappers,
>>
>> We’ve polished our visualization of the need for OpenStreetMap data,
>> and its quality. We’ve been building Disaster.Ninja tool to assist HOT
>> in their activation process, but believe it’s also useful for the
>> general mapping community.
>>
>> Kontur OpenStreetMap Antiquity layer lets you see where people look at
>> the map tiles versus when the map was last edited. Good way to see
>> undermapped regions that are explored by the users in search of data.
>> We base the layer on tile views information, thanks Operations Working
>> group for making it available for such analysis.
>>
>> https://disaster.ninja/live/#position=7.92,45.59;zoom=4.4;overlays=bivariate-custom_kontur_openstreetmap_antiquity
>>
>> Kontur OpenStreetMap Building Quantity is now pointing to a lot more
>> missed buildings. This became possible thanks to Copernicus releasing
>> a high resolution global landcover classification raster, and
>> Microsoft providing the computer vision detected buildings for Canada,
>> USA, Uganda and Tanzania. Look at the gaps here:
>>
>> https://disaster.ninja/live/#position=-75.17,40.144086257217054;zoom=8.56;overlays=bivariate-custom_kontur_openstreetmap_building_quantity
>>
>> I know this layer was used to plan some mapping parties in Ukraine already.
>>
>> Check out the other layers if you haven’t seen them, too. :)
>>
>> To support this visualization we combined all the available public
>> datasets (Facebook Population, OpenStreetMap, Microsoft buildings,
>> Copernicus) into a single world population dataset. If you need it for
>> your analysis, get it here:
>> https://data.humdata.org/dataset/kontur-population-dataset
>>
>> Hope to hear your thoughts on this update.
>>
>> Darafei
>
>___
>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] Idea for improving mapping system

[Yves via talk]

Out of topic content. There is discussions about being more welcoming on this 
list, along with being open to other communications channels. Even with that in 
mind, I must admit I hadn't logged in or subscribed to slack to check on the 
discussion while the topic may be of interest.
By any means, this does not mean that the idea or discussion is not worth it, 
especially if volunteers are involved in such a project, and I would not 
request anything that would refrain them to go forward. 
I'm sure I will hear about it sooner or later. 
Yves 



Le 18 octobre 2020 08:38:16 GMT+02:00, Maarten Deen  a écrit :
>+1
>
>I'm sorry if I sound a little paranoid, but somone with an email address 
>of little.banana.peel and calling him TheAdventurer64 and asking people 
>to read something for which they have to log in to with a google account 
>does not give the feel for a solid foundation for a discussion.
>
>Regards,
>Maarten
>
>On 2020-10-18 06:02, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> Would you mind describing the proposed system here, in a concise form?
>> 
>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 7:36 PM TheAdventurer64
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> 
>>> A user and I were talking about implementing a system for better
>>> mapping, as described here:
>>> https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1602968516431900
>>> This addition would have many benefits, including:
>>> * More mapping. We have tons of new mappers each day, as well as a
>>> great editor for them. However, many of these new mappers leave
>>> after just a few edits. Examples:
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lukastheg03
>>> 
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Th3Roomi3
>>> ___
>>> 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] Proper use of route relations?

[Yves via talk]

Operator or network tags are often quoted for this kind of network. However I 
find it difficult not to wish for putting 'name=Boulder Valley Ranch Trails' 
somewhere, and a relation seems a good candidate.
  network:name=Boulder Valley Ranch Trails? But the network tag and its 
acronyms values make it quite technical at first sight.
Yves ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Proper use of route relations?

[Yves via talk]

Le 1 août 2020 22:08:17 GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer  
a écrit :
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 1. Aug 2020, at 20:48, Yves via talk  wrote:
>> 
>> This would be better joined in a site relation.
>
>
>why should it? What’s the benefit? How is this different to adding all roads 
>of a village into a site relation?
>

If the set of trail is at least well known under a name, why not?
In your counter example, a village probably has an administrative boundary of 
some sort, so I don't think we could add relevant information in doing so. 
Yves 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proper use of route relations?

[Yves via talk]

This would be better joined in a site relation.
Yves 

Le 1 août 2020 18:20:27 GMT+02:00, Mike Thompson  a écrit :
>I have come across a number of examples[0] of route relations where all the
>trails in a given park have been put into a single relation.  Is this a
>recommended use for route relations?
>
>Mike
>
>[0]
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10962561
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8409089

-- 
Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec Courriel K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma 
brièveté.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk