Re: [talk-au] Help - Node relocation
On Feb 17, 2022, at 8:16 PM, Lisa wrote: > Thank you for such a quick response :) OSM: We aim to please! > When I go into Edit mode the old node that needs to be removed isn't > displaying, but when I am not in edit mode I can see it? > Am I using the wrong method of editing it? > Or do I need to do something else? It's not that you are or aren't using a "wrong" method of editing it, there are several (almost MANY!) methods. At this point it is that I don't know WHICH "editor" you are using. The word "editor" can be "software editor" (like iD, the more-or-less "default" editor built-into a web browser you get when you surf to www.osm.org. Many people use iD, especially novices. Or, "editor" it can mean "human editor," like you, when you edit in OSM (using a "software editor" of OSM). Whew! So, when you click the little down-arrow to the right of "Edit" at the top of your OSM browser page, do you select "Edit with iD (in-browser editor)"? Or, maybe you are not on a computer / desktop / laptop (or even tablet) and using a web browser, you might be on a smart-phone and using an app to edit OSM, like Maps.Me or OsmAnd (there are lots and lots of these). Or, you might even be on a smartphone, but still using a browser (in which case, you could use iD like that, but editing can be "crowded"). As I don't know which (software) editor you (the human editor) are using, but I guessed iD (and maybe I'm wrong), I'll need to know "which software editor" are you using, human editor named Lisa? And we can go from there (I hope, I don't know everything about all of them!) If you wish, we can take it "off-list" (between us, excluding talk-au@openstreetmap.org in our email distribution). Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Help - Node relocation
On Feb 17, 2022, at 7:51 PM, Lisa wrote: (a question) Hi Lisa: I'm assuming you are using the iD editor. It seems you know the difference between the new node being correct and the old node "needing to go," you can click on a node and delete it like this: Select the node with a single click, Press and hold until a pop-right menu toggles off (usually to the right, might be to the left), let go of the mouse button, Slide your finger pointer down to the bottom icon, the trash can icon, and when hovered over it, click. You just deleted the node. Happy mapping! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta
On OSM's USA Bicycle Networks wiki [1], the introductory section posits a nice section on "What to map." (In the realm of bicycle routes / networks in the USA). We distinguish between "infrastructure tagging" and "route tagging." We talk about mapping SIGNED routes (and planned routes that are distinctly GOING TO BE signed) and how we DON'T tag as a route "what is simply what somebody considers 'a good ride,' as those can be subjective or ephemeral." Of course, this section has been "hammered out" by numerous OSM Contributors and wiki writers (and some talk-us chatter, if I recall correctly), so it is a form of "consensus in wiki." You are welcome to use it as a starting point or modify it to how you map down under. Check it out and feel free to liberally borrow (i.e. copy it word-for-word if you like). In short, "it works for us." [1] https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Betty's Burgers - fast food or restaurant?
Not to mention, burgers come with “Betty’s secret lube” (sauce) and can be “dressed any way you like.” OK, I’ll stop there. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Betty's Burgers - fast food or restaurant?
On Feb 9, 2022, at 4:12 AM, Peter Hardy wrote: > Betty's Burgers & Concrete Co? I've eaten at the one on Clarence St and the > one in Darling Harbour in Sydney (admittedly before *waves arms around* all > of this, so a couple years ago). They're fast food with dine-in tables - > order at the register. Whew, this feels like a long-shot, but OK, here goes: if these are the same chain as in Santa Cruz, California (a couple, I’ve been to the one in Seabright near the beach), Capitola and Aptos, with a “saucy wench” theme (Betty Page, actually), these are walk-up, order, sit down, your burgers-and-fries are brought to your table (indoor and outdoor). See https://www.bettyburgers.com and https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/01/male-fans-made-bettie-page-a-star-but-female-fans-made-her-an-icon/282794/. If this little chain of (four?) restaurants that started in Santa Cruz is also in Oz, well, split my timbers, that’s pretty amazing. You could call them fast_food, you could call them restaurant, you’d be correct either way. (I lean towards fast_food, as “burger” and “pretty fast” goes right there). “Saucy wenches” and all. No offense meant to anybody; “saucy wenches” have my utmost respect. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] "Bad" directions on Outback roads
On Feb 8, 2022, at 8:08 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Do routers "read" such things as flood-prone, intermittent & seasonal? My "quick, off-the-cuff" answer would be: "better routers SHOULD." The real answer is very much "check your particular router." ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging a house name
On Feb 4, 2022, at 12:48 AM, Dian Ågesson wrote: > Genuine question: > > If I go to Officeworks and get a sign printed with the name "Bob" and put it > on my letterbox, does that become the name of my house? I would think this is an EXCEEDINGLY "locally variable" question (and answer). To wit: I once lived at a house, in a city, with a post office, in a country with a postal service, that had a three digit address. There was a "granny unit" (called an "auxiliary dwelling unit" in local California real estate / zoning parlance) in the backyard where a couple lived (they necessarily shared utilities with the "main house," but it was like a little cottage, completely separate from the main house, but built on a different foundation on the same property parcel). At a certain point, to avoid both confusion and mix-up and to offer some additional privacy (as to where certain people's mail was coming from), a new mailbox appeared on the porch (next to the other mailbox for the main house where a group of us university students shared housing in our salad-days of under- and graduate-school semi-poverty). This new mailbox was labelled (somewhat amateurishly by one the couple in the backyard cottage with the three digits of the house number, likely designated by either the city, the post office or both a century or so ago (old Victorian-style house from the early 20th-century), plus the figure "1/2" (one-half). During the time I lived there, the garage was converted into a living space (likely illegally, i.e. without proper permits), and once again, a new (third) mailbox appeared at the cluster of the previous two, this time, with the three digits of the main house's address, a hyphen and the capital letter A. Nobody did anything, nobody asked permission (of the city, of the post office...), and mail "so addressed" was actually placed into the proper boxes. This lasted some number of years while I lived there and even for a while during the time my mail got forwarded until my name was no longer was associated with the address. A few years ago, I drove by that house (sentimental memories?) and while not much else had changed, there was only a single mailbox there. I could not tell if either the "backyard cottage" was still there, or if the garage was still occupied (with "illegal" plumbing and an outdoor shower shielded by little more than some tall bamboo), but one mailbox seemed to fit the circumstances of all who lived on the property. Are there "proper" procedures to "split" an address or "name" a house? Probably (in some places). Probably not, in other places. I'd ask around locally, as I really think this is an EXCEEDINGLY "local" thing. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging a house name
Dang auto-correct, of course that's addr:housename. And when there is "both," as it appears here, "that's a good question!" (Maybe enter both?) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging a house name
On Feb 3, 2022, at 10:12 PM, Mat Attlee wrote: > Whilst I was out surveying today I stumbled upon a building that had a street > number but also a house name, as just above the entrance and door number it > said Rivenhall. Now the question is should this be tagged as the name or > addr:housename? I know the latter is common in the UK though I couldn't find > anything about best practice in Australia. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of address:housename keys in OSM, widely distributed all around the world, including in Australia. (Yes, this tag is especially dense in Europe). See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=addr:housename#map for a map of "how dense." ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Information source question - sorry kind of lengthy.
On Feb 2, 2022, at 2:23 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > So you're standing in the pub having a cold beer & the two blokes beside you > are talking. > ... > Does that count as Local Knowledge? Graeme, I'm not an attorney / solicitor, but what you describe is called "hearsay" and is not usually allowable as "evidence" (under Rules of Evidence; consult your local "Rules"). I know, we're not talking about a court of law, we're talking about "good practices to enter data into OSM so as to be compliant with ODbL." But similar principles apply: second-hand (or third-hand...) knowledge of something (e.g. a conversation overheard in a pub) edges into a land of "gossip" and this is why gossip can be so damaging (in a court of law OR in OSM): it isn't backed up by the "author's" (speaker's) direct observation. Anybody can "gin up" something. That doesn't make it true. How do you know those blokes in the pub aren't 100% setting you up to fail by entering the closure data in OSM? I realize such a scenario is far-fetched, but this technique absolutely has been used before to "trap" people into believing something is true, when it isn't. That's why "hearsay" is excluded from courts as evidence. OSM should be at least as cautious, so (speaking for myself), I wouldn't enter the pub conversation data into OSM. Good thread. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Information source question - sorry kind of lengthy.
On Feb 2, 2022, at 1:50 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > The 'facts cannot be copyright' may be a USA thing that does not work > elsewhere. Don't know but I would not rely on it alone. While I am reasonably certain this is true in the USA, I don't believe that makes it necessarily false elsewhere. Not to start an argument, but I'd be curious to know if a "fact" (about a closed section of roadway) falls under Australia's "Part III Works" (of copyright law there) of literary, artistic, musical and dramatic works, or "Part IV Subject Matter" (e.g. sound recordings, films, broadcasts...). It would seem to be "neither" (and leaving Australian copyright law with nothing to apply to), but I'm happy to be enlightened otherwise. Bob simply asks whether what he knows about a closed section of roadway going into OSM is a violation of ODbL. Questions of "where did the knowledge of this come from?" are valid to ask, but when the answer is "direct, personal observation," what is copyright-able? Any copyright law which claims that publishing (or re-publishing) straight facts is a violation of law needs to be examined in the light of what OSM Contributors do all day long: which is to put facts about the real world into a geospatial database. We're in real trouble if we can't do that. The corollary is that I don't think we're in real trouble. Again, it all seems to come down to "how did you learn about that?" If it was a government-published (maybe Crown Copyright holds, I wouldn't be surprised if it does) radio-disseminated Livetraffic broadcast (and again, for various reasons, that could go either way), I'd be wary of entering it (in Australia, but in USA, if published by federal gov't, it's automatically in the public domain; the fifty states vary somewhat but I'd say a trend is for "open data" or "sunshine" laws to apply and make it "freely" available). However, if it is Bob traveling to both sides of the closure, observing signs and concluding that such "facts" are directly observable truths in the real world, I'd offer him my two thumbs up to putting those data into OSM with little or no worry. If Bob heard a radio broadcast and those data fell under copyright for some reason, or he knows they were derived and/or explicitly Google Maps data, well, "not." But if he ALSO made the drive noted above, he can "mentally subtract" the radio/Google slap-that-might-say-don't and ignore those, allowing his "personal observations" to supersede. And maybe he even enters "personal observation" as the source of the data in his changeset comments as he does. (I've done that, and I'm proud when I do). (OK, that WAS kind of lengthy). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Information source question - sorry kind of lengthy.
On Feb 2, 2022, at 12:41 AM, Bob Cameron wrote: > MR358 or Coulsons Creek Road between Willow Tree and Merriwa NSW is closed > for repair of major slippage as it crosses the Liverpool Ranges. > "Livetraffic" (Traffic for NSW govt site) says not reopening until late 2023. > A reference on that to a local govt site is devoid of any current information. > > In the OSM data catalogue Wiki thare are a number of TFNSW waivers but I dont > see anything obvious that would allow me to copy the "Livetraffic" closed > road section. > > Livetraffic uses Google maps. It is quite explicit as to what length/location > is closed. > > As it turns out I'll be at the Willow Tree and Merriwa ends of this road in a > week so can view any closure signs. I also know the slippage section as I > drove on it just before it was closed a year ago. There are even Mapillary > images of same. I don't however plan to drive up to the closure barriers at > each end to check for sure! > > Do I have enough to make an educated guess as to what section would be deemed > closed without violating any copy-write etc stuff. I don't think this is lengthy at all (but I'm rumored to be loquacious). I think what this fundamentally comes to is "facts cannot be copyrighted." As long as you are aware that perhaps the Livetraffic MIGHT be copyrighted (you heard it over the air, so "maybe," it is government produced, so "maybe") and you explicitly "subtract that from your knowledge," you are on the right track. Start with your knowledge (you "know the slippage section" from only a year ago), that's pretty solid ground to stand on. Also, don't forget to "mentally subtract from your knowledge" anything Google Maps (explicit), though the fact that Livetraffic uses that is a grey area, as it could be considered a "derived work." I'm not a copyright attorney (and I am in California, USA), but if what you are entering into OSM what you know to be (truthful) facts, you're 100% OK, as "facts cannot be copyrighted." I don't know if this helps, I hope it does. Good on ya' to ask, maybe others can hone in on a better bullseye than I am here. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking
I think as long as "conflates a bunch" is made "explicit" it can be a helpful tag. This is why I said "generally," as a "rich" tagging as this (which mixes semantics and says "choose a full meal from the menu, not a la carte") can be an exception. Again, it must be understood that it is a "rating," rather than explicit values that mean specific things unto themselves. > On Jan 30, 2022, at 9:15 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 15:27, stevea wrote: > But to conflate two wholly different semantics into one key, mmm, not > generally a good idea. > > But that's exactly what the AWTGS does, it conflates a bunch of independent > variables together, it generally works where the harder trails are longer and > steeper and more remote, but breaks down for long walks which are flat, > easily accessible, easy to navigate and not remote. However, it's in use as > an official grading system, so it's fine to map it at least in the case where > it's officially assigned. Data consumers can decide if they want to use it or > use more attributes for each specific trail difficulty variable. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking
> On Jan 30, 2022, at 8:16 PM, Phil Wyatt wrote: > I think Class 1 specifically mentions disability access so I would hate to > see that combined in any way with other classes. +1: I agree that "disability access explicit" and "how much experience you have as a bush-trail walker" are orthogonal (statistically independent). OSM, as we tag (especially newer, evolving tagging schemes) DO want to keep orthogonal semantics separate. This can be another value, another key, another sub-key...we know the drill. But to conflate two wholly different semantics into one key, mmm, not generally a good idea. Fun discussion otherwise! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] US Trails Working Group
I will "go here," too. Years and years before this talk (I participated in the OSM-US sponsored Mappy Hour where this talk of "fragile trails" in the USA's southwestern deserts where "even a human footstep crunches to death slowly crystallizing soil" was presented) my local area had similar issues where mountain bikers in a "trails closed to mountain bikers" area went and mountain biked the trails anyway. It was cat-and-mouse for years with state police catching a lot of mice and many expensive techy mountain bikes (thousands of $ each!) confiscated / impounded. All the while, OSM exploded with mountain bike trails in the area. These got technical, with mountain bike ratings on the (very closed) trails, while EXPRESSLY tagged access=no. This caused a "dimming to gray" (or grey if you prefer), though you could still see the trails in Carto, visually they are "closed trails" (if you know that as you look at them or see "gray path" on a legend). One night, they vanished (from Carto, from OSM). Days later, they re-appeared with what looked to me like even "tighter" tagging emphasizing they are closed trails. And even new ones appeared (not many more), with the same "strict" (closed, no access to hikers or bikers) tagging. They remain, they are closed, I don't think illegal mountain biking in the area is as much a problem as it used to be, as enforcement got better. Connecting those dots is not hard for anybody in this community. I don't want to sound "hard" as I say this, but as you manage property, enforce rights against trespassing if you don't want trespassing there. The "moral of the story" that seemed to shake out from this was "maps don't cause illegal mountain biking, people do." (Impolitely, "stupid people" and "scofflaws" can be substituted). I hear loud and clear that "well, a map displays a trail..." then there is a stupidly spectacular fail on the part of humans after that. Caveat mapor. The problem is not an accurate map with accurate data. The problem is human activity (including being stupid or a scofflaw) and / or enforcement against it. We humans are not perfect about discovering and trespassing everybody who shouldn't use a trail. But OSM (or any map) is not the cause of that. Does OSM have a place in the discussion? Yes. We are having it now (in part). We publish "truth on the ground." After that, caveat mapor. There remains work to do in educating, especially the public on public lands, about how fragile some (public) places are and how stupid it would be to partake of a (particular) trail. Especially if signs discourage or forbid using it. A trail in a map is not an invitation to hike it: these are merely data. As Andrew wonderfully notes, there are "shorter, better paths" to easing this situation. Good for us for having this dialog and better developing these. I'm not cross-posting to talk-us, as people have heard / read me say this before (there and other places). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Help needed with OSM Inspector error
On Jan 4, 2022, at 3:51 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 16:51, stevea wrote: > But it is a bit better than it was five minutes ago. > > & has now disappeared from Inspector, so you obviously did something right :-) > > I'll also leave the bus route relation to somebody who knows what they're > doing! Graeme makes a request, Steve does what he can (Warin and Steve have an on-list and off-list dialog), Steve leaves alone what he's not sure about in the relation, Graeme confirms that "something right" happened and that he agrees with Steve that leaving "the bus route relation to somebody who knows what they're doing." Just another good day in OSM and its mailing lists. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging "boundary" roads with addr:*
On Jan 3, 2022, at 7:47 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 1:42 PM Andrew Hughes wrote: >> In the interest of stirring up a hornets nest (jokes). I'd like to know what >> could be said for tagging ways (streets/roads) with add:suburb (or >> addr:county...) where the suburb (or other region/area) the road "belongs" >> to can NOT be spatially determined (i.e. typically runs along or forms the >> boundary of the suburb/area). >> >> I'll leave it at that (purposely open ended). > > The addr:* namespace is for recording physical addresses ie: along > with a house number. What you are looking for is the is_in:* > namespace. > > I will leave it up to the reader to figure out how useful this type of > tagging is. Mmmm, yeah, I consider is_in so close to being deprecated, especially with Nominatim, that imo there is very little gained by this sort of tagging. Can you determine if Nominatim performance is satisfactory in the area you'd propose to map like this? This walks right up to the edge of (and maybe crosses?) adding not-very-useful data (as we have geocoding and reverse-geocoding strategies that work pretty well). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] US Trails Working Group
Mmm, mostly, I’d say, Warin. But let’s be careful not to encourage “only what my use cases are” too much. When you say “if it cannot be seen from a public, customer or permissive place then I don't really care to map it,” I ask for caution with this sort of attitude. This is too parochial and “it isn’t useful for ME, so I don’t care to map it” leans towards "it shouldn’t be in OSM.” This precludes a great many things from potentially entering our map. It “lacks object permanence,” (the understanding that objects continue to exist even when they cannot be seen, heard, or otherwise sensed). For example, a prison might meet your definition and fail to be entered, but I’d still like it to be in OSM and I might even map one if I know enough about it to do so. However, you do, of course, remain free to “not really care to map it.” That’s OK, but as everybody does that, OSM will remain under-mapped. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Help needed with OSM Inspector error
I deleted what appeared to be the superfluous way (which indeed WAS part of the relation). However, “Route 754” (relation/10974127) seems to need some additional “role” tags (forward, backward). I’ve edited hundreds, maybe thousands of routes (bus, bike, road, rail…) but as I’m a right-hand-drive Yank and don’t know the route or local area, I defer to others to tidy this up to perfection. But it is a bit better than it was five minutes ago. SteveA > On Jan 2, 2022, at 10:37 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Been looking at OSM Inspector & it is showing an error on a near-by street: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id=791590032#map=18/-28.08609/153.42409 > > The error is being reported as a "Way without tags". > > I can see a line there, which appears to be a duplicate of Christine Ave?, > but no tags. It's tied into a bus route relation & I don't want to stuff > around with it, not knowing enough (anything!) about how relations work. > > Is anybody please able to check it? > > Thanks > > Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] US Trails Working Group
This is an identification of something I have noticed has been going on for some time (as Phil mentions, since the early '90s, before OSM's time): other mappers (governments, especially) "use" OSM as a reference, and OSM's data influence other GISs. In my case, I've been watching as certain statewide (California-level), county-level (a division of my state) and national-level databases, when they contain some "drift" or data which are slightly "off" both CAN and DO have OSM data "influence" them. Whether good, bad, more correct or less correct, this really happens. It's a rather long-term (years to decades) trend, but it is real. I've both seen it over the last five to ten years and I do continue to see it — even more and more often — into the present. OSM takes itself (our own data) seriously (and we should, we are "proud parents" / stewards of growing our data well). Other "agencies" and "entities" do, too. And this can and does affect their data (sometimes), too. Rather than be surprised by this, wonder what to do about this or not do anything about this, let's at least recognize this and move towards "embracing" it. I think we're on the right track, as we take ourselves (our data) seriously, and so do many others in the world. Happy 2022. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] First Nations flags?
On Dec 17, 2021, at 3:25 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Thanks again everybody for your thoughts, & apologies if the subject is > boring to you! You are welcome / it is my distinct pleasure. No apology necessary, I don't find this boring in the least, it's quite interesting. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] First Nations flags?
On Dec 16, 2021, at 1:49 AM, Phil Wyatt wrote: > My feeling is these two flags should be changed to flag:type=indigenous on > the wiki rather than national given what has been found during this > discussion. > > I am also not confident in changing the wiki but I think there is consensus > for the change I offer my +1 for "consensus for the change" that flag:type=indigenous might be added to the wiki. However, Phil also suggests flag:type=cultural (as an existing example), so someone might also add that, perhaps as a given, perhaps as a suggestion. We could also get fancy and say flag:type=indigenous;cultural and let renderers figure that out. Renderers often, though not always, DO parse such semicolon-separated values, though what they do with them is wholly up to that particular renderer. As I said: "nuanced, complex." I'm not trying to throw a monkey wrench into the pot, or tip it over completely, merely stir it as I mutter my observations. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] First Nations flags?
On Dec 17, 2021, at 2:46 PM, Phil Wyatt wrote: > I have found one example where the Australian aboriginal flag looks to have > been mapped as flag:type=cultural Yes, see, I don't wholly disagree with flag:type=cultural, as that is "also" true. What seems to happen (quite often with First Nations' issues) is that OSM attempts to "shoehorn" things (admin_level values, flag:type values...) into a "one or the other" or "one and done" singular value, and, well, it simply isn't that easy. Good luck, mates. We do have virtually identical issues here (in North America). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] First Nations flags?
Whoops, I made a mistake: I meant to say that Navajo "Chapter Houses" are over a hundred years old, not that there are over a hundred of them. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] First Nations flags?
On Dec 17, 2021, at 1:52 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Sat, 18 Dec 2021 at 06:27, stevea wrote: > My goodness, there are hundreds of them! > Thought there would have been! > > Do you know if many have been mapped, & if so, as what? > > I can see that most of those listed are for towns or villages, which would be > =municipal, but how about the "Nation" flags - Hopi Nation, Navajo Nation etc? > > There's been a few suggestions for =indigenous for the two Aussie flags, but > so far, that tag has only been used twice, both near Sydney! I'm (still?) not quite sure under exactly what circumstances OSM "maps a flag," though I have been watching this thread with some curiosity. And I participated by saying more-or-less "very pretty" about the two Aussie Indigenous flags that were linked: I'm no vexillologist, but these two really are beautiful flags. I'd guess an OverpassTurbo query can be constructed to look for the "flags tags" you're seeking, but I'd be a bit reluctant to do this over the whole of the USA, lest we dim the lights at the server farm where OT is located (or pop a circuit breaker! — I do tongue-in-cheek exaggerate here). Nationwide searches across vast, geographically large areas like USA or Australia are better done in "state-sized chunks." (Or something like that, eating the elephant one bite at a time). So, it could be done. I simply don't know "for what tags." I do not speak for these nations/peoples. I'm not sure that these are "for towns or villages" (and hence WHAT "=municipal"), as they seem to represent an entire "nation" (what the Canadians and maybe Australians call "First Nations"). So, while, for example, a Navajo Nation flag might fly at one of their "Chapter Houses" (there are over a hundred of these "local administration" kinds of "town halls" — that's a very loose interpretation of the phrase), I'm not sure whether this use case (and what tag, again?) would be "municipal" (sounds about right for a Chapter House, I'm not sure, as all the admin_level stuff is a long way from being worked out, as indeed it likely CAN'T be worked out because of how native Americans and the federal government in the USA share "parallel sovereign administration"). So, "something" might be "municipal," OK, and "something" might be akin to "national" (because we describe these as "native people's nations" or similar). But I really don't know what, it is distinctly complicated, and as OSM often wants to make something "one or the other" (sometimes even with tag collisions that force a choice), the real-world administrative relationships between "native peoples" and "USA" often end up with "the answer is, BOTH." I do find the flags beautiful, though! (Maybe I am a secret vexillologist and don't even know it). What I might say I can glean from this thread that applies to Australia AND the USA is that in those contexts where OSM needs to distinguish between a national flag and an "indigenous" flag, yes, saying flag:type=indigenous on Native American flags appears to be the correct tag. Again, I'm not sure what these contexts are, but it does appear they exist. My apologies if it seems I'm wishy-washy here: the topic is nuanced and quite complex. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] First Nations flags?
On Dec 16, 2021, at 2:19 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Stevea, what do you have up there? Are there Apache & Navajo or any other > First Peoples flags? My goodness, there are hundreds of them! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States (there are a lot of "TBDs" here, so blank, but dozens and dozens of beautiful flag can be seen) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] First Nations flags?
Such stunningly beautiful flags you have in your corner of our globe! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] boundary=aboriginal_lands ( Was Re: admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?)
Looks like the issues are well-at-hand and being discussed. Cheers, ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?
On Nov 29, 2021, at 10:39 PM, Ewen Hill wrote: > Indigenous nations/country > I have a strong belief that we should allocate an entry around level three to > six for indigenous country. There will be discussion on fuzziness of > boundaries and ownership, a number of these have been resolved already by the > Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAP) for an area however I don't see that > being a huge issue. My key issue is appropriation of the country and area > polygons for the ability for others to commercialise this or reduce the > purchasing of indigenous materials. > > I don't see that all RAPs and others would update the map, however I see > having the ability to add this data and be able to index it, is important to > OSM in Australia. "Um," (he begins timidly)... This is REALLY going to be different in Oz than USA, but please consider boundary=aboriginal_lands. This tag is widely used, was voted upon with great acclaim and really "seems correct" (to my parochial view of things there). It renders in Carto (same as boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24, but don't use that, please!) with a light tan color and a thicker outline at its edge, looks quite nice actually. Also, this is QUITE complicated in the USA and I'm not sure if it applies there, but if even a whiff of it seems familiar, please consider this. What we say in the USA about these lands is: "Wikipedia states 'tribal sovereignty is a form of parallel sovereignty within the U.S. constitutional framework, constrained by but not subordinate to other sovereign entities,' where a map of the contiguous US (lower 48 states) with reservation lands excluded displays. In that light, admin_level=2 or even no admin_level=* may be appropriate on these (called "First Nations" in Canada, to give a neighboring flavor to the semantics). Several tagging solutions have been proposed, though many have challenges." So, if there is anything like that in Australia's aboriginal_lands, the challenges to OSM's admin_level scheme are great, and so far, not completely "solved." On the other hand, if these are indeed "sovereign," then you're in better luck than we are! Really, this can be a challenging problem to solve (where there are "overlapping" or "shared" political areas and it isn't "neat, clean and easy" to delineate one from the other). Best, SteveA ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] admin_level, suburbs and rendering; should the order be updated?
I will and do (cautiously, as an "outsider" from the USA, but as an "insider" being one who seriously coordinated the USA [1] getting our 4-10 admin_level table(s) [2] about as hammered-into-submission-and-consensus as is humanly OSM-possible, over months and years and sweat and tears) say one thing: Assigning admin_level=8 to Postcode Borders simply isn't correct. Mail delivery areas are not administrative boundaries. They might be convenient, but they should be boundary=postal_code, not boundary=admin_level (see, that is a direct collision in the key boundary for exactly the right reason: one is not the other). (In the USA, postal_codes, what we call ZIP Codes — Zone/Improvement/Plan — are more like routing algorithms for efficient mail delivery. They absolutely do not describe geographic regions and it is essentially geographically impossible to make them do so). The other proposed changes to Australia's table? I step aside, good Australian OSM Contributors. SteveA [1] https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level [2] https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Boundaries ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways
I've seen the solution Warin notes here in USA, too. "Walk along the beach" (somewhat lengthily) yet the tide removes all the sandy footprints of any implicit or explicit "trail." It's a route, though one that is invisible upon the ground. But not among people who say "yep, mate, I'm walking from here to there" (or there to here). Because of that, it's a path, even though it can't be seen. > Same problem where a bushwalking route uses a beach. I was told IIRC it is ok > to use highway=path with trail_visibility=no. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Lots of identical changesets for toll roads (possibly incorrect).
I'm mixed in this reply and not quite able to invest the time right now on the necessary research to revert. On the one hand, the changeset is 3 months old and that's plenty of time for a snarl to result from revert, because of temporal drift. On the other hand, the geographical area is pretty small and possible side effects are a "bite sized chew." My mouth is full right now (literally and figuratively, it's Thanksgiving, a holiday of big meal eating here). I have much on my plate, though I'm sure others can take a look and say "that's a right-sized problem I'd be happy to chew on." And...swallow. Yup, I went there. Good on ya to pick up on this. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Use of pedestrian streets to imply route hierarchy
I repeat something I have said a number of times, say for example, about bicycle infrastructure / routes. Although it can be said about "pedestrian infrastructure / routes" pretty much one-for-one (as bicycle infrastructure / routes). It is this: There is "infrastructure" tagging, like highway=footway, highway=pedestrian, highway=track, highway=cycleway... and these are not in any particular "hierarchy," they simple "are" what they "are" (on the ground, validated and verified by eyeballs). There is "route" tagging, which is putting elements of (roadway, cycleway, sidewalk, track, pedestrian walkway...) into a route relation. If walking route, and part of the "local" network of routes, it's network=lwn. If exactly these concepts are unfamiliar or the words DO NOT seem like they "fit" what you are trying to do, stop. Back out and think a bit more. There is infrastructure, and it doesn't really / necessarily / always / even usually "imply" routes. THEN, there is route tagging, because a route is clear, and / or signed and / or assigned by a government or organization and is clearly marked on the ground (or is going to be once they get a crew out there with shovels and cement and erect the right signs). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."
I'm not sure I agree with you about "restatement," nor whether these are analogous, nor whether guns and maps overlap like this. People use tools (and technology, a broad "modern tool") to make wise (if they are wise) or foolish (if they are foolish) decisions. Recently in the USA, managers of a very sensitive natural reserve complained (to OSM) that OSM's trail mapping (and subsequent rendering withOUT access=private or access=no tags) "gave rise" to hikers on closed and dangerous trails. Trails where simply a boot trample can destroy the sensitive crystallizing proto-soil and where a treacherously steep (yep, up OR down!) and highly technical climb / descent is required, sometimes forcing rescue of what are essentially foolish hikers. (Hikers who can't read a map properly, read a map that wasn't rendered properly, both, or more). OSM can improve, but it can't be responsible for foolishness. I'm not talking about morals, nor am I characterizing decisions of foolish hikers/bikers/off-road-motorcyclists... as moral (though, it seems you are) — maybe, in fact, they are. I agree we want OSM to be utilitarian AND we want people to pay attention to [gun laws, gun safety locks, keeping guns away from children, map renderers, map renderings that display trails that are CLOSED to YOU, the hefty invoice for helicopter rescue you might find yourself receiving to save your life from your own stupidity...] so that tragic accidents don't happen. Accidents can be prevented, certainly reduced, though most would agree, not to perfection (zero). Humans engaging in foolish behavior resulting in accidents, well, we put the safeties in place, but you didn't pay attention. And now you are upset we didn't coddle you? Let's act like adults rather than expecting some nanny to take care of us. Many (real-time, GPS-based) maps have warnings at boot-up time which not-always-effectively state "use your common sense and don't be a dork slavishly following the instructions of what is a software device, because software devices, including human-created databases, are notoriously error-prone." There are the Darwin Awards. How much [bad navigation where the driver plunged her car into the lake, senseless gun violence...] should we "pretend away" by not attributing human stupidity where it is due? Devices are stupid, too, and safety, QA, post-mortem analysis (like in software debugging) and much else are good due diligence, but there is no substitute for good old responsibility. Maps and guns are powerful. Don't be stupid using them. This is true of every single technology. Though, some people might wish this away by locking up tech to be used only by the anointed. OSM's first name is Open, not "provide maps (and guns) only to those who meet special strict controls." Instruct and train users in the use of maps (and guns). Don't make maps (and guns) more stupid or put them in the hands of "special people." I want to live in a world where maps are "nuanced" as well, unless by that you mean "censored." I'm not OK with censorship. If you read (or even write) "samizdat" or "how to make a bomb" or "this is how to get to the totally-closed-off-to-most-humans-the-sacred-native-peoples-ceremonial-site-in-the-desert-you-must-not-visit" and then do something stupid with that knowledge, is it because you read a book or map? No, it isn't. Hm, maybe there is overlap. And that means there is something to be said for people taking responsibility for using technology (like maps), not expecting it to be "closed shut." Let's fix how people (and software, like routers) read our map, if there is something broken or deficient about that. Let's not censor our map. SteveA ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Fwd: : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."
I've said this in other contexts and places and times:
> Displaying a closed trail on a map (like OSM) does NOT cause people to
> navigate that trail. Such behavior is completely up to the individual who
> "concludes" from reading said map "hey, I'm going to hike that closed trail
> anyway." (Bzzzt; fail, human logic).
>
> OSM is not responsible for human foolishness, scofflaws or illegal (stupid,
> dangerous...) behavior. You simply can't say "the map made me do it."
>
> On the other hand, I do hear loud and clear the "natural preserve" areas
> which ARE open to human recreation, DO have "closed trails" (often with
> fragile and easily-human-damaged natural resources) and people, stupidly and
> ignorantly I might say by way of being candid, decide to hike (or bike, or
> motorbike...) there anyway. This is not the fault of a map, any map,
> including OSM.
>
> OSM does its best to map "what is." Period. It doesn't "make people" engage
> in activities people shouldn't engage in. Anybody who says so hasn't got it
> right, but MIGHT be worth listening to at how the map can be improved. This
> includes better instructions to end-users ("downstream apps...") when
> warranted.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Vic State Forest Boundary Files
A simple observation that statewide GIS databases of millions of people and millions of land parcels and all the teething pains that come with that...you Down Under seem to be doing fine. These don't sprout up overnight like mushrooms after rain. Good to see the gears turning. From conversations I see here, good people are talking to good people and from my view of seeing these things evolve in the states here (over decades of GIS development) you are ahead in some regards and everybody is catching up with each other. I've seen three, four, five, ten iterations in GIS systems between "state agencies" (or pretty close to that with state data) and while the county does one thing and the state does another (even though the former is a division of the other) the way all the data blend (and can even be compared to, say, railroad companies or highway departments of transportation...) things DO slowly "watch each other" and blend into a harmony. It can take a decade, or forever. It unfolds as it unfolds, including here and now. Good on ya; keep up the great work. That Yank SteveA ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Source material.
Wow, thank you, Ian, that makes these particular circumstances absolutely crystal-clear. Well-stated and paints a bright light forward. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Source material.
That's what I'd say about starting up using JOSM again, Andrew: "start small." If you've already got it up and running (proper Java runtime environment installed, a good command-line to start it, if that's how you do it...), yes, it can be intimidating: like piloting a jet plane or an aircraft carrier! But really, what you want to do is find the few "pedestrian" kinds of things you might do: like splitting a way (select the node on the way, press p), doing a Find command for tags and all the other fancy syntax you can do in JOSM's Find dialog (find ways only, find things by their OSM identification #, exclude things you find from other things you INclude...), displaying "everything that is currently selected" (press the 3 key), shift-clicking to multiply-select, using more than one layer at a time (learn how simple it is to learn those checkboxes and "eyeball" icons in the Layers pane...) and so on. A little bit at a time. Just what you need to know to do a simple edit. Then a slightly more complex edit with a new skill (keypress or menu selection...). And so on. You'll "ladder up" your skills just fine, it takes a bit of time and practice, like all things worth learning how to do. Good luck, have fun, be resourceful (ask, read wiki...). Mapping in OSM is meant to be FUN! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
On Oct 12, 2021, at 11:08 PM, Adam Horan wrote: > Is this something that could be pushed to maproulette? Not as reversions, but > tasks to validate or update OSM entries that match a pattern - eg edited by > this user and now has bicycle=no, highway=footway etc? I don’t want to say “absolute no” but the subtle skills that are required for “revert” are poorly suited (imo) for MapRoulette. I like your thinking (crowdsource it!) but this is detailed, slow, careful work and not something easily “mechanized." ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
I did my best to help Sebastian, but near the point where we got the first launch of JOSM (he DID install Java, he DID have to move the .jar file to his Applications folder, he apparently was NOT using a capital A in Applications...) he suddenly went "radio silent" on me and didn't answer any more email ping-pongs. I had all primed my next email how to install a reverter, but didn't send that because it seems he remained in a low gear, and running a JOSM reverter is for those who are, um, "in a higher gear." Good luck getting your data in shape, there, mates. SteveA (where it is getting to be bedtime Tuesday night) > On Oct 12, 2021, at 9:06 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > > Adam > >> Spotting these >> and knowing how far back to revert to might be tricky I guess? >> eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47771844/history > > Yes. I have never been involved in a reversion so complex and it worries me > too. I presume they should be reverted in reverse date order, ie most recent > first. And acting in a timely manner is important, before others do edits on > the same objects. > > Taking your example, the first reversion is important and the following two > swapping between path and footway make little difference. > > Tony > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths
Sebastian, I'd be willing to help you off-list get your (alas, Intel-based only) macOS running JOSM. It starts with downloading a JRE (Java Runtime Environment) from here: https://java.com/en/download/apple.jsp After success with that, please send me an email and we can go from there (California and Australian time zone differences notwithstanding!) It's not that difficult at all. Steve > On Oct 12, 2021, at 7:09 PM, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: > > Hi > > Sebastian wants to assist with correction of his tagging errors, I > recommended the JOSM reverter plugin. However at > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 he writes: "I tried to > install JOSM but itâs not signed for the latest Mac OSX so wonât let me > install it" > > Can a Mac user please assist him? > > Tony > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] FYI Public Records VIC - Map Warper
Apologies to any / all who got my missive twice. (Mailserver glitch on my end). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] FYI Public Records VIC - Map Warper
Apologies to any / all who got my missive twice. (Mailserver glitch on my end). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] FYI Public Records VIC - Map Warper
"Orthorectification" is the cartographic process here. This means "stretching" an image to remove distortion so it will match (or closely match given mathematical constraints) the spatial accuracy of a given map (like OSM's data) so that a close-enough match between the image and the existing map data occurs, furthering additional editing which is reasonably accurate. OSM's Java-based editor JOSM has a plugin (this software is a bit "early" although it has been around for years) called PicLayer [1]. This allows orthorectification of numerous image types via scaling, rotating and the like so that the image can be overlaid upon OSM data in a layer that furthers additional editing.Orthorectification can "breathe new life" into old, archived map data at a different scale (or with skew or terrain-blocked or horizon-view distortion) by "bringing them into topological harmony" with the present dataset.SteveA[1] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Plugin/PicLayer ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Import vs filtering query
To be clear, Ian, I'm not saying this use of data is an import, as you have said and as it appears to me and others, it is / would be using the data as a "filtering process" in a workflow. As such, I'm good with that. The points I was making are that 1) data drift over time and 2) there are some in OSM who say that "verified on the ground" data are superior to other forms of "published" data (via satellite or by governments). A corollary could be that one of the more strong rebukes you might receive (and I haven't heard any here yet) is that you are using government data, rather than "ground-truthed" data. Fine. Again, I'm OK with what and how you are doing this, I think you are getting a lot of "green lights" as feedback. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Import vs filtering query
Hi Ian: There are government data, which if they make their way into OSM, is the very definition of an import. Sometimes these data are of such importance, quality or both, the community nods our head and we say, "yes, import these data" and it happens. It is acknowledged that data sources, including these, are a snapshot in time, and do age, requiring updates for our map to be a realistic and accurate-today representation of reality. There are satellite / aerial imagery, of various vintages, these sources are used to add data to our map database frequently, we might even say "constantly." That is also a methodology the community finds acceptable; imagery layers (and new ones we have the rights to use, and technical instructions on how to enable them in the editor of your choice...) truly abound in OSM. It is acknowledged that data sources, including these, are a snapshot in time, and do age, requiring updates for our map to be a realistic and accurate-today representation of reality. There are "ground-truthed" (verified by humans in the real world) data, completely independent of data published by a government (whether written or electronic) or satellite / aerial imagery. Many (most? all?) consider these data to be a superior form of input into our map. It is acknowledged that data sources, including these, are a snapshot in time, and do age, requiring updates for our map to be a realistic and accurate-today representation of reality. I realize I'm not directly answering your question. I find your spirit and intention to be earnest and good, but I haven't looked at either dataset (existing or to-be-presented-and-entered), so I don't make a judgement about their suitability or quality. So as you ask whether it's "OK to pursue," I hope I've given you feedback which you find valuable to consider about might next be best. You might also consider making a MapRoulette [1] task, which crowdsources the effort across many Contributors, possibly reducing any propensity of yours to "go bonkers." I wish you the best in your efforts to enter high-quality, "fresh" data! SteveA [1] https://maproulette.org ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Strange friend request?
Andy, thank you for those excellent instructions. I've had an off-list conversation about these "honey-traps" (or whatever you might call a sociological spoof, a "social hack") and it is good when we have our wits about us and are wary to click on email links (and other "loose places" where we might compromise security) by cute people with tasty-looking pectoral muscles or polka-dot bikinis. Or both. Glad to see the DWG "raises an eyebrow of suspicion" when we mortals on the ground "raise an eyebrow of suspicion." It's good. Careful out there, SteveA > On Aug 29, 2021, at 1:38 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: > > I've had a few of these as well (different names to the ones mentioned). In > the one example that I got to before the user was deleted, the profile had a > link that claimed to be to a porn site. > > If anyone sees any of these, the best thing to do is to click the "report > user" button in the user profile and report it as spam. The admins tend to > delete them fairly quickly. > > If "there is no user with that name" then it means that someone else has > reported the user already and they have already been deleted. I believe that > (or the user renaming their own username) is the only way that a user can > appear as not existing. > > Best Regards, > > Andy ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Problems setting up MapRoulette Challenge
A challenge (with MapRoulette) is in correctly writing the query to return the "proper" dataset. Once you do, it's great! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Problems setting up MapRoulette Challenge
Getting a MapRoulette dataset (.json, perhaps) just right can be challenging, at least it was for me after I got the knack of these. For a while, I struggled with some "around" syntax in OT to garden my data more nicely. Even before that, the "rough cut" I started with bore a lot of fruit (it was passenger railway platforms, in my case). I'm not sure exactly how many got entered, it was in the hundreds and likely low thousands. While there are still plenty of platforms in North America which need to be added, there are enough to get a functional national network going (well, there were plenty of other activities by many others, too!). Many hands DO make light work; OSM is a great example of that. Keep mapping, Happy mapping! ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Question - farm road access tag.
Very nice work, Mike King. Thank you. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
On Jun 17, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au wrote: >> It's a fair point that Vicmap's own postcode field shouldn't be taken as >> 100% correct, it looks like it might have been assigned based on postcode >> boundaries so might still suffer issues because of this, but where >> addr:postcode is not already mapped, most of the time the Vicmap one will be >> correct. To be clear, I'm 100% OK with postcodes on nodes with addresses, such things belong together (as that tag on that node): it is indeed "the correct way to go." (IMHO). I'm not terribly excited (dejected) to see a suggestion that ABS' described "imprecise process" (of conflating postcodes with geographic boundaries) is glibly said as "we can still have postal_codes on admin boundaries where the vast majority of addresses within that boundary have that postcode." In the USA (in OSM) we say rather bluntly "ZIP codes are not boundaries." (ZIP codes are USA postcodes). It seems ABS agrees. Putting them on entire admin boundaries, especially where they are not 100% correct (all of them?) adds noise to our data, which I am identifying and say "in the USA, we just don't do this" (as they are simply not the same). Though, postcode tags on address nodes, sure. Good way to do it, correct way to go, et cetera. In the USA, OSM imported mid-2000s national census data to "lay down a road grid." We continue to unravel and fully "TIGER Review" these data, 15 years later. They are "noisily (though that gets better over time, with effort) mostly correct" today, but. There is a wide distribution / spectrum of such (postal) data scattered around OSM in various jurisdictions. I'm saying that at this level of conversation, pave the road smarter, rather than glibly or easily. Good planning makes better maps. Thank you for saying "fair point," too. I hope I haven't beaten it up too much, so thank you to all for patience reading. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
On Jun 17, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Andrew Harvey via Talk-au wrote: > It's a fair point that Vicmap's own postcode field shouldn't be taken as 100% > correct, it looks like it might have been assigned based on postcode > boundaries so might still suffer issues because of this, but where > addr:postcode is not already mapped, most of the time the Vicmap one will be > correct. Here, we see about how slippery the slope it is. Lots of weasel words there, no offense Andrew, but it's already "smeary" (and that's largely my point). There does come a point where we have to look ourselves in the mirror and say "even with all the fudging and hand-waving, let's do this" and wonder if we are taking ourselves seriously. I hear something like "well, mate, a postcode is a postcode, everybody knows what that is..." yet right here, right now we see that isn't quite the case. I'm not here to pick a fight, I'm sorta calling "tag, that's smeary" on the whole thing. I might have thought that "paradox" of the topic alerts that this is a prickly fence to sit, maybe not. It's messy, I agree. I merely call "a whiff in the air," (as we Yanks have these things, too) and they are odd and fit into a "not quite really mappable" box. They truly do. I suppose if you had the letter-carrier walkable-drivable routes as sub-trees in a network fully-labeled described with all postcodes (such a thing must exist, in Post offices), sure, you could "see" such a thing (is true) — and with time and permission model it in OSM. But we (OSM) don't, so we can't really say much more than "most of the time" and "suffer issues" if we are being truthful (and I thank you for being truthful). It's a smeary paradox. We have these in OSM. It's tough, I know. We do our best to model the real world. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] The Paradox of Postcodes (Was Re: Victorian Vicmap Address Import Proposal - Suburb and Postcode discussion)
I know (I know), I’m talking to the Australia list and I’m in the USA (California). I have friends from Oz, but I’ve never been (I’d love to visit as a tourist, it’s on my bucket list). In the USA, the USPS (postal service) uses five-digit “ZIP” codes (Zone, digit 1; Improvement, digits 2 and 3; Plan, digits 4 and 5) for what you call postcodes, the five-digit version generally identifies a single post office, big or small. Started in the 1960s (or so), they have grown to “ZIP+4” codes (nine digits) that seem to specify right down to a “side of a street on a block,” single apartment building, or even individual house level. I believe there are even 11-digit versions (crawling right up yer bum, it seems; with 11 digits, even my cat could have his own ZIP code). On the other hand, I have a Post Office box (identified by four digits) and the post office is identified by its five-digit ZIP code. I once test-mailed an envelope to myself with just nine digits properly hyphenated (no name, no house number, no street, no city, no state), and sure enough, it arrived in my box. (It had the usual "sprayed-on” zebra/barcode representing the ZIP+4 along the bottom to facilitate machine-reading further along the pipeline that all our other mail has, too, but was otherwise addressed with “only the ZIP+4”). Three points about ZIP codes which might be similar to postcodes in Australia (and Canada and the UK, it seems): despite what most people think, ZIP codes are NOT required for a letter to be delivered. It might take a bit longer without one, but it WILL be delivered. City, State, ZIP? (Or ZIP+4?): not really required, as City, State (only) does suffice. Secondly, I’ve discerned (and had others who should know confirm) that a ZIP code is much like a “routing algorithm” (of 5, 9 or 11 digits): it is NOT a geographic area that can be (easily) described by a polygon, even a multipolygon. I mean, plenty of cartographic gymnastics have made geographic areas OUT OF ZIP codes (or postcodes) — some relatively “successfully” (accurately?) but they are not such things (a geographic area, even as they seem as though they are). Finally, the whole thing about “these are the property of the post office and we’re going to be very non-sharing with them…” seems to be widespread with postcodes, I’m not sure why that is, but hey, if postal services want their codes to be proprietary, they can do that. But that should make cartographers like us think twice about why we’re including them in a map: what, exactly, can putting these data in OUR map “buy” us by doing so? Yes, I know there is a general attitude of “postcodes are NEEDED, else how will the mail get delivered!” (thought in our mind’s voice approaching a shrill panic). But, recall, (at least in the USA, maybe Australia, Canada, UK..., too) they aren’t strictly needed, but are more of a convenience for automation and the internal workings of how to sort and deliver mail, not really a function a map needs to provide its consumers (anyway). Things to think about, and perhaps quite non-overlapping, but I felt like typing all that, so thanks for reading. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Oz Data Catalogue
Looks like a fantastic resource, Graeme. Great work! SteveA ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Converting railway= abandoned to highway=track
No reason to get harsh. OSM has historically, does now and will into the future map abandoned rail. OHM is an interesting project, but it isn't OSM. It is neither harmful nor incorrect to "continue to include" a tag of railway=abandoned on a railway which is abandoned. It is a simple statement of fact that "wishing away" isn't going to annihilate. I think you mean "razed," Warin, not "raised." There is no delusion, merely another dimension understood of "what is there." Such tagging has its contentious cheerleaders on both sides of the argument. Abandoned railways have serious and long-lasting implications (decades, centuries) effects and on-into-the-future transformations on Earth. Just because you can't see them (or they've built townhouses on top of where they used to be) doesn't mean all of what I just typed, and more, isn't true. Piling on "we ONLY map 'what is' today..." is like slamming the barn door closed after the horse has bolted. There is too much "wild" abandoned rail in OSM (and OHM, yes) to jump up and down that one thing or another should systematically happen with them. I'm usually, in the case of rail in OSM anyway, for KEEPing data which are true (even if not exactly presently visible in the same way as when they were introduced), rather than deleting them. And especially when "a rail right-of-way" is a real thing. No, we don't map all of these, nor do we map all pipelines or power lines, yet, we do map some. And you can't see underground pipelines, either, can you? A right-of-way is a real thing, even if ephemeral in reality while logically explicit. In short, no reason to remove railway=abandoned when what you're dealing with is an abandoned railway. It's an accurate, truthful tag that represents a right-of-way which now has a particular surface or attributes (paved cycleway, unpaved track, pedestrians / equestrians / skate devices... allowed...) on it or segments of it (split and tagged accordingly). I have no idea why anybody would say this is delusional or these truthful factual data are worthy of removal from our map, but to each his own. When I see that said, I will (and do) say what I say here. Let chips fall where they may. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions
On Dec 3, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: > For those using or defending rape metaphors, shame on you. I take offense (and will not be shamed) at Mike's gross mischaracterization (after I took GREAT pains to be painstaking) of my reiteration of Frederik's analogy of offensive-to-women behavior by a politician being something we should be highly wary and suspect of in our board election. NEVER was the word "rape" used, the highly offensive behavior was called out AS highly offensive for the purpose of making an analogy: "don't be sweet-talked by people who act highly offensively while promising not to act highly offensively after they are elected." Moreover, such highly offensive behavior (certainly not rape) was NEVER condoned by neither Frederik nor myself. Wow! Frederik has no reason to be (a)shamed, he simply used strong language to say "be careful of false promises by deceptive people running for high office — you shouldn't be surprised when they remain deceptive after being elected." (Some may he say did so with a colorful, perhaps offensive example – but I am certain him offering an example of heinous behavior does not mean he "defends rape.") Wow! And, certainly I have no reason to be (a)shamed for doing my utmost to clarify that, while pointing out that such behavior of blaming the one who calls out such behavior (as, Mike, you seem to be doing to Frederik here, once again) is often exactly the same sort of abusive behavior! If we get this sort of misunderstanding from Mike mischaracterizing what happened HERE, well, I leave to this list to imagine what he might do if elected. Mike, your behavior and words — as do mine, as do Frederik's — are here on display for anybody to reach their own conclusions. Yes, you have a lot of work in OSM to your credit, but you certainly made a mess of this. You might say Frederik "baited" you (I disagree), but it is the mark of a true leader who can understand someone making an analogy versus twisting it (repeatedly!) into something that it isn't, "blaming he who calls out bad behavior." Especially when you denigrate him with something he didn't say. Some might say this is a misunderstanding, though in light of what I wrote earlier about blame-shifting, please understand this behavior is often deeply entrenched, often not being seen for what it is in the eye of the beholder. I would love for this list to get back to topics which are much more cool (literally and figuratively), as once again, I type my words here to generate light, not heat. While I give Mike one (single) point in his favor for recently replying and (at first, generally) sticking to topics, the one-line "zinger" he ends with that I quote above rather rudely wipes all the nice pieces off the board, subtracting far, far more than his one, single point. So, really, shame on you, Mike. Please, let's keep it civil and honest here. SteveA ___ 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
Mikel: I’m disappointed to see you characterize Frederik’s characterization of behavior as “garbage;” to do so is a red herring (intentional distraction). While I don’t want to put words in Frederik's mouth (indeed, I said I fully understand why he used such colorful language — to vividly identify what he sees as actual or perceived disingenuous or deceitful behavior), Frederik did so to identify hypocrisy and aggressive abuse. This is because identifying and calling out abuse is the first step is tamping it down when it (or even its potential) is seen in any group — whether a family or a foundation. A sad but true fact about people who abuse is they frequently “project,” blame-shifting and deflecting their own atrocious behavior (abuse of women, abuse of power, aggressive power plays…) onto the very person who is victimized or who calls out and identifies this behavior. This (bullying) can be a devastatingly effective tactic that actually re-victimizes the target of the abuse, making him or her appear to be the crazy (weak, abusive…) one in these actively aggressive acts. It also intimidates “good (people) who say nothing and do nothing about those who perpetrate bad or evil acts” (I paraphrase) into CONTINUING to do nothing. This allows the perpetrator to continue to get away with the abuse, effectively silencing many who would defend not only the single victim (target, survivor…) but those in the greater group (family, congregation, company, foundation, organization, country). The entire point of using such strong and colorful language is not to “make a point with garbage, further promulgating garbage.” It is to highlight abuse as abuse — raw, difficult and uncomfortable as those facts are. Pointing out that somebody else engages in atrocious behavior (and using strong language to do so) does not make the one pointing that finger a “slinger of garbage.” This is an old (yet sadly, quite effective) trick from the playbook of nasty, aggressive people, especially as they put on a public face of charming “nice guy.” This often results in one who identifies dangerous perpetrators of aggression, simply in their quest to call it out, becoming suspect themselves: “look at the histrionic, crazy drama-queen behavior by this unfortunate, name-caller” (but he won’t say “victim,” as that would identify the psychosocial dynamics of what is truly going on). This ruse has existed forever in the history of people who exercise power with terrible acts of aggression while remaining covert as they do so, pointing to others as “garbage slinging, accusatory, overly dramatic / histrionic, name-calling, unstable people.” It’s a sad, old trick, and the only way to stop it is to identify it and have it recognized by “good people who do (or say) SOMEthing” about it, rather than perpetrating the evil themselves with their silence. In many years of often close and intimate interaction / collaboration with Frederik in OSM, I have never, not one single time, even had a HINT that he “evokes violence against women.” That is a highly inflammatory statement, especially as you offer no evidence of it in what appears to be blame-shifting, when all Frederik did (it appears to me) was to make an analogy of one leader’s atrocious behavior having the potential for similar bad havior to infect our Board. We should call that out as we see it, and that is what is going on here, nothing more. Blame-shifting in the face of identifying bad behavior is something I (and others who have experienced this first-hand for what it is) find this behavior of yours highly suspect. I apologize to the list for going into the deeper and darker aspects of human behavior here. Sometimes, it is required to do so. SteveA On Dec 3, 2020, at 3:32 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: > 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 ___ 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
While I have travelled widely, I call California home (and have for several decades) so I unapologetically have a parochial perspective from the USA. Clifford, I deeply respect you, Frederik and many others in OSM: it is a global project about all of Earth (and its humanity, among other things). I agree with you about being exhausted at relentlessly hearing a shadowy US president repeatedly lie and bluster his way through the most embarrassing period of “leadership" in our country’s history. We (indeed, all of humanity) will eventually heal from these wounds. However, sometimes, as when we have abusive, naked aggression inside of (sometimes at the very top of!) institutions, we must call out such atrocious behavior. We call it out to say “we will not stand for this.” Sometimes, colorful language is used to draw attention to this. Sometimes, because people either are not fully aware of this in their experience, wish to turn away from looking at evil, or because they are part of those who "say nothing about bad men” (in the sense of John Stuart Mill’s quote, while "good men...look on and do nothing") the very nature of nasty, disingenuous people who mislead, lie, deceive, do not recuse, demand unwarranted loyalty, refuse to play by the rules, “stack the (court, Board)," slander… must be so vividly brought to light that strong and colorful language IS required. I understand why Frederik used strong language. It is (usually) not pleasant to countenance what either is or looks like underhandedness, attempts to mislead or disingenuous behavior. Yet among friends, families, groups, institutions, companies, societies, facing any ugliness which might rise from within is a necessary chore. Figuratively put a clothespin on your noise at the whiff of stink if you must, but let us not censor as “completely inappropriate” what are topics of critical importance to the present and future of OSM as we discuss the supremely important topic(s) of conflict of interest (among others). These are “front burner” issues and we must not shy away from candid discussion about them. If strong and colorful language must be used (and indeed, sometimes it must), let us remain respectful, not make personal attacks and offer our very best to keep (national, parochial, partisan…) politics out of it, remaining as objective as possible. These are difficult times. Let us retain good senses of our humanity, lest we devolve from even being human. OSM has what it takes to make good decisions. Every day, today included, we put that to the test. SteveA > On Dec 2, 2020, at 5:14 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > Frederik, > I've had it with four years of listening to Trump. Not only don't I want to > hear it on OSM but it's completely inappropriate for a mailing list. Can you > please respond in a constructive manner. > > Thanks, > Clifford > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:45 PM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 12/2/20 23:09, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: > > FB’s attribution to OSM is available to any viewer in a place that > > is commonly associated with attribution. > > > > Barely visible icon that must be clicked is not a standard place for > > attribution. > > Agree with Mateusz, and I'm just flabbergasted how someone can kick our > license in the groin and have the audacity to ask for the community to > thank them for it with a board seat, where they will be tasked with > upholding values they apparently don't share. > > If Mike Migurski at least had the decency to say: "Yeah, my employer > sucks with attribution, I know, and I'm trying to get it fixed." I > wouldn't believe him but at least he'd say something that is ok. But > instead he says "y'all suck with your baseless ideas of attribution, > please vote for me." > > Anyone who thinks that, once elected, Mike will put OSM's interests > before those of Facebook because that's his job as a board member, think > twice. People have thought the same about Donald Trump - yeah, this > whole grab-them-by-the-pussy talk is just showmanship and once elected > he'll be more presidential. But don't be fooled. Mike is going to grab > our licence by the pussy just as he promised he would, and he's being > paid a fine salary for that from one of the most disturbing mega-corps > on the planet. > > 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 > > > -- > @osm_washington > www.snowandsnow.us > OpenStreetMap: 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: [Talk-us] Railway Wiki
(Answered off-list). SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] finding city boundary info?
Please tag boundary=census on census tracts. These are distinct from boundary=administrative + admin_level=8 (for city or town boundaries, at least in California). See United States/admin_level for what works out to be all fifty states and six "other things" like Territories and Commonwealths. Another (easy-to-use) wiki is United States/Boundaries. Both of these are linked in the "United States" row of admin_level's "10 levels" table. The reason that administrative and census collide in the boundary key (making you choose one or the other) is because they really are things distinct from one another. Choose the correct one, especially true when making the distinction between boundary=census and boundary=administrative. It is not correct to include an admin_level=* key on objects tagged boundary=census. Thank you and please let the community know if either (or both) of the wikis noted in the first paragraph above do not explain this to your satisfaction for tagging these things in the USA. (There may be yet-to-add details to those wikis, though they are believed to be largely correct and current). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes
On Oct 23, 2020, at 6:14 PM, Greg Lauer wrote: > I have not seen any apps that, for example, display any attribute (or > graphic) to show a track is closed. Try Carto (Standard) on a web page, how most users see OSM’s data as a map. When tagged access=no, for example, a highway=path does not show as red dots, but rather as faint grey dots. > So the tagging of trails is not visible to most users, and we have the issue > of maintaining the tags as they are usually fluid (open, closed etc), Mmmm, “false” (see above) and “usually false” (as closed trails usually stay closed trails, rather than be “fluid"). OSM maps “what is,” not “what we wish the world to be." > The real world example for me is riding in the local forest in SE QLD and > seeing other riders blindly following MapsMe on tracks that are closed (and > tagged as such but not visible on the map). They are not blind if they are riding. They are not blind, but let’s agree foolish if they are riding on closed trails which are signed as closed trails (so signed on the ground), regardless of what MapsMe says, because MapsMe doesn’t make people ride on closed trails, people foolishly choosing to ignore signs that say “Closed Trail” are what make people ride on closed trails. Their choice, not MapsMe “making them.” Let’s remember that OSM is a data project, not one to curate a specific renderer to display with specific semiotics: getting data correct is paramount. > I am not suggesting a 'tagging to render' regime but just tagging a trail as > closed is not having the effect we think it does. Short of adding an > attribution to the trail name I am not sure how we resolve? Example xyz trail > [Closed] It sounds like you are suggesting ’tagging to render’ when you suggest something contrary to our wiki, which admonishes us to put into the name key “the name only.” I ask “what effect DO you hope to have by tagging a trail as closed?” If it is to “cause” potential users of a trail not to, I’d say you need to lower your expectations, as that is not what OSM either does or is designed to do. When in the real world, pay attention to its signs. Maps strive to be a good representation of the real world, but please do not confuse the map for the territory. SteveA___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes
Note: we do have important tags like access=no / access=private that I consider a super-important tag to include on things like closed trails. “A trail IS here, but this trail is CLOSED to you.” That’s good mapping, in my opinion. SteveA ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes
Whoops, 11.5 years. SteveA ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes
Perhaps I am out of bounds as a just-joined-this-list-today guy-from-the-USA. But. (I have had similar conversations before in OSM and Ive been a volunteer here for 12.5 years). I have mixed feelings when people say OSM shouldn’t map real things in the real world. I see the argument for women’s shelters and closed mountain bike trails being destroyed by mountain bikers through erosion and overuse. However, if the “guard at the door” or the “enforcement on the land” isn’t “good enough” for the owner / proprietor of the property, it isn’t the fault of OSM simply stating “there is a ’this’ here” if any negative consequences arise. Why is this? Because maps don’t make people trespass, enter places they shouldn’t, sneak onto military bases, violate sacred sites uninvited or a host of other nefarious activities: people choose to do these things. “The map made me do it” simply doesn’t fly. Especially in an open data project, “things that shouldn’t be mapped” is a strange concept for me to get my head around: why not? It is there. It exists in the real world. Sure, “keeping the location secret by not putting it on the map” is a longtime practice in mapmaking, I’ll agree that this has been done since, well, maps. But does OSM want to continue this? If we do, who gets to decide what gets mapped and what doesn’t? Individual mappers? Local law? OSM-community consensus? These are tricky and seemingly intractable questions and I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to decide. But the only way we might do so is to talk about it, so here we are. I wish us luck. There are plenty of us who say “if it exists in the real world, map it” and “maps don’t make people do foolish things, foolish people do." That’s one person’s opinion, anyway. Thanks for reading. SteveA California, USA ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How is the word "park" meant in Australian English?
Thank you for a representative data sample, Greg! I find a couple / few things things interesting that shake out so far: > I will leave the nuances of tagging National parks and protected areas to > those much more experienced than me Most interesting, maybe even revealing: we shouldn’t need to be “more experienced” to tag all of our parks. Right now, in some countries, doing that for a lot of parks is, um, less than clear as it might be in those not speaking British, Australian or New Zealand dialects of English w.r.t. “park.” Namely, US English, possibly others. That does rise up as a bump on the fabric that lots of us (certainly in the USA) can feel as a bump. Smoothing out these bumps is a desirable goal, but elusive sometimes. Nuances exist on ‘park' in the real world, sure, can we capture these with tagging that isn’t “nuanced,” but crystal-clear? I think so, it’s harder in some places, this seems at least partly due to what you mention as a “well-understood (connection) between ‘park’ and ‘public land.’” We might agree that connection is frequent, and is understood to encompass lots of kinds of (public) land, but well-understood w.r.t. how to tag it in OSM seems it could use a bit of “improved or improving syntax construction," at least in some parts of the world (USA). We’ll get there. > It does seem that leisure=nature_reserve is common. This tag is another wrinkle (at least) if not bump in the fabric. In the US, we find this tagging (whether on a named "park" or more often on a named “preserve” or “reserve”) is sometimes correct, sometimes not. It is indicative some sharper focus could help achieve more accurate and harmonious tagging worldwide. These can be difficult topics when cultural and linguistic differences are sometimes less visible (but still there) and “calling them out” yields what looks like a large can of worms. We’re finding “pay attention to one worm at a time” helps, to the extent they can be isolated and wrangled. > So it seems there is reasonably consistency across the english speaking world > with regards to ‘Parks' Yet, there can be a propensity to “punt” on saying on those “in the middle” Parks (not leisure=park, not national park, nature_reserve maybe…) and that’s the range where more-precise, more-correct tagging can be elusive. This is quite educational, thank you again for your valuable “down under” perspective! SteveA ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] How is the word "park" meant in Australian English?
Not muddy at all, your clarifications are excellent. Much obliged, mate! SteveA On Oct 22, 2020, at 6:25 PM, Greg Lauer wrote: > Good question > > To be clear I am a Kiwi (New Zealand) who lives in Australia (and has spent > many years in the US) so my interpretation may be slightly muddled > > In general I consider a 'Park' to be a local area, generally managed by the > city or shire (county). Playgrounds, gardens, dog walking etc. Generally it > is for some form of recreation and/or green space in a city or urban area. > For example I would ask the kids to walk the dog in the park. > > In terms of county parks, state parks, etc we have slightly different > terminology. Part of this is related to a much smaller layer of government > and ownership (City/Shire, State, Commonwealth). We don't have the multitude > of Federal agencies (USFS, NPS, BLM etc) or layers of city, country, state, > federal government. In most cases 'National Parks' are managed by State > authorities (equivalent to State Parks in US parlance) , and several (IIRC) > National Parks managed by Commonwealth (Federal) Authorities (like NPS). > States Forests are managed by State Authorities (although some are > privatised). > > That said the use of 'park' to describe any public land is well understood in > AU. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] How is the word "park" meant in Australian English?
Hi, it's stevea from California. Some of us in the USA are crafting a proposal (https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Park_boundary), may be two or three staged proposals, intended to better express the wide inclusive semantic "we" (OSM-wide, but including US English-speakers) mean for the word "park." In US English, this is "spoken of" (in vernacular) to include county parks, state parks, all kinds of things we call parks. (And OSM seems to have difficulty expressing around the world with consistent tagging). Is this also how the word "park" is used in Australian English vernacular? A likely answer might be "what we mean is not EXACTLY the same as how you Yanks might mean it, here are some similarities and differences from an Aussie perspective." I have taken a brief look at existing rendered data in OSM, though, there's nothing like simply asking local people "how do you talk about this?" Thank you. This might become a spirited discussion! Stevea (in our wiki) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-us] Reference numbers to use for hiking trail route relations
On Oct 15, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Many of the old "pack trail" labeled features near my home-town are now > overgrown and barely usable. I would be skeptical about the utility of this > tag - mappers will need to survey the trail in person before suggesting that > it is currently suitable for horse, mules or other pack animals. Right: many "trails" labelled "Pack Trail" are either from a long time ago and/or mapped a long time ago. I would be wary of the utility of this label on many maps, but that can be said of many labels on many maps, especially when they are older or specify an "older" aspect of a map label such as "Pack Trail." This has an old-fashioned sense about it, as while pack animals on trails are certainly still used, it's safe to say far, far less than they were in the 20th (and 19th and previous) centuries. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Reference numbers to use for hiking trail route relations
brad wrote > I think I've seen old usgs topo maps, or perhaps FS maps with trails labeled > as pack trails. Not quite sure what it means, probably nothing anymore. > Perhaps the OSM person just used the info from the old map. A "pack trail" is suitable for pack animals, such as donkeys or horses for carrying "in" supplies, building materials or hauling "out" garbage, ore waste or the like. It is more substantial than a "single-track" trail for a bipedal human, but may or may not be suitable for an off-road vehicle like an off-road motorcycle, all-terrain-vehicle / four-runner or other high-clearance, two-axle vehicle. It is a common phrase seen on maps of the 19th and 20th centuries, but has fallen somewhat out of favor, though is still seen and used. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Recent Trunk road edits
Albert Pundt wrote: > It seems another editor by the name of Fluffy89502 is going around doing > similar edits all over the US, even demoting divided, multi-lane roads. Other > users have commented on his changesets and he cites the wiki's wording. Ugh, I don't like to complain about specific Contributors, but for Fluffy89502, I'll make an exception. He seems to be based out of the Greater Los Angeles area (based on what appears to be decent work under the same name in Wikipedia) and changes road classifications in a way that makes it sound like a religious sermon (based on some federal standard, which to me seems both obscure and not-living-in-this-reality). He also made an unholy mess out of landuse around the Mojave Desert with landuse=heath in a way that was more like "pollution" instead of "vandalism." His changeset comments are MOST unhelpful, being very generic like "landuse" (and that's all he wrote). I have written to him several (many?) times in changeset comments and via missive, yet I think I've only received two responses, both rather curt and smug. One was "I guess I better not do that anymore" (after I admonished him for vast natural=heath and natural=scrub messes that I redacted) — and then he went right ahead and started doing it again, the other was a sort of chapter-and-verse "sermon" on how certain (obscure) federal highway standards "absolutely" apply on roads I frequently drive (no, they don't). He'll only map something if it renders: he's much more interested in "seeing" his work than he is in getting it right. I'm very heartened to see the greater community talking about "problem editors" in a larger (and louder) context. While I'm no fan of edit wars, let's keep up the vigilance and good work to remain as civil as we can with these folks. Sometimes, with patience and a sort of mentoring-while-not-appearing-to-be-mentoring, they can be shaped into great contributors, other times, they are stubborn and don't really belong in our project. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?
James Umbanhowar wrote: > Something else to consider is that even though there is a perimeter for > a fire, there can be highly variable impacts on the landcover within > the perimeter. > Some areas may have not burned, other areas only burned > the understory, some with limited burning of trees and other with full > tree killing canopy burns. The effects of these will also depend on > the specific species that burn. So to convert and entire area inside a > fire perimeter to one land cover without extensive surveying would > likely be in error. (Please take further discussion of this thread to the tagging list https://lists.osm.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-September/055496.html ). James, this is all well known and part of the intended solution (to better map) here, thank you for pointing this out. There is no intention to "convert an entire area" inside of the fire perimeter, rather careful RE-mapping of SELECTED areas which have ACTUALLY burned (e.g. a natural=wood area is shrunk to where trees remain and "no data" or "blank map" is what remains of the burned area). This will likely best emerge when newer imagery data become available. > It seems as though the perimeter tag is the most verifiable at this point. Yes, to be clear: this fire=perimeter polygon intends to delineate the area where, as they become available, newer imagery data which display fire damage should be used to update the map. In short, the polygon conveys "here is the EXTENT of the area that burned: while it isn't yet clear whether existing landcover natural=* tags need to be altered, that is likely, as there was a major fire inside of these bounds." That's all, really. This is a 140 square mile rural area, formerly heavily/primarily wooded, not a few blocks of residential or commercial landuse, as are many typical urban fires. "Huge" is about right. At least one person (a HOT technical manager, also a firefighter) said (on the tagging thread and in off-list emails to me) that such polygons can serve a historical purpose by remaining in OSM, though I see little purpose in doing so for extended periods of time, believing that after the map is updated with newer imagery, the polygon's (initial) purpose is exhausted and can be removed from OSM. His arguments for why it should remain have to do with better building polygons enclosed by the perimeter during HOT re-mapping and into the re-population and re-building phases in landuse=residential areas that happen after a major fire. As a firefighter (and HOT mapper), he finds such data helpful, as in that case, a fire=perimeter polygon remaining is valuable history. That could last years, perhaps decades, I'm certain the effects of this fire will be long-lasting: many of the millions of trees that were destroyed were several hundred years old. Either way (the polygon is long-lasting or ephemeral to the extent it aids better landcover mapping), it is a lightweight data structure, tagged with only three tags (fire=perimeter, start_date and end_date), it remains invisible to all renderers (that I know of) and is intended to aid mappers determining "should re-mapping of landcover happen HERE, in or out?" I find that balance of data vs. usefulness "worth it." SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
Thanks, Richard. That's valuable input and I've updated the USBRS wiki, which effectively puts the (informal) proposal for proposed:route=bicycle into a sort of stalemate. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?
Clifford Snow wrote: > Just a reminder, landuse is to tag what the land is used for. landuse=forest > is for areas that have harvestable wood products, ie trees. Just because > there was a fire doesn't mean the landuse changes. Landcover is a better tag > for burnt areas as well as areas just clearcut. This thread likely shouldn't have been cross-posted by me to talk-us and is now (substantially) continued at the tagging list. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
I didn't get a single reply on this (see below), which I find surprising, especially as there are currently even larger fires that are more widespread all across the Western United States. I now ask if there are additional, appropriate polygons with tags I'm not familiar with regarding landcover that might be added to the map (as "landuse=forest" might be strictly true now only in a 'zoning' sense, as many of the actual trees that MAKE these forests have sadly burned down, or substantially so). Considering that there are literally millions and millions of acres of (newly) burned areas (forest, scrub, grassland, residential, commercial, industrial, public, private...), I'm surprised that OSM doesn't have some well-pondered and actual tags that reflect this situation. My initial tagging of this (simply tagged, but enormous) polygon as "fire=perimeter" was coined on my part, but as I search wiki, taginfo and Overpass Turbo queries for similar data in the map, I come up empty. First, do others think it is important that we map these? I say yes, as this fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and might map here, both present and future. The aftermath of this fire (>85,000 acres this fire alone) will last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the map (somehow, better bolstered than a simple, though huge, polygon tagged with fire=perimeter, start_date and end_date) seems OSM "cartographically misses something." I know that HOT mappers map the "present- and aftermath-" of humanitarian disasters, I've HOT-participated myself. So, considering the thousands of structures that burned (most of them homes), tens of thousands of acres which are burn-scarred and distinctly different than their landcover, millions of trees (yes, really) and even landuse is now currently tagged, I look for guidance — beyond the simple tag of fire=perimeter on a large polygon. Second, if we do choose to "better" map these incidents and results (they are life- and planet-altering on a grand scale) how might we choose to do that? Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest or natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred? (I'm making that up, but it or something like it could work). How and when might we replace these with something less severe? On the other hand, if it isn't appropriate that we map any of this, please say so. Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT contributors who have worked on post-fire humanitarian disasters, SteveA California (who has returned home after evacuation, relatively safe now that this fire is 100% contained) On Aug 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM, stevea wrote: > Not sure if crossposting to talk-us is correct, but it is a "home list" for > me. > > I've created a large fire perimeter in OSM from public sources, > http://www.osm.org/way/842280873 . This is a huge fire (sadly, there are > larger ones right now, too), over 130 square miles, and caused the evacuation > of every third person in my county (yes). There are hundreds, perhaps > thousands of structures, mostly residential homes, which have burned down and > the event has "completely changed" giant redwoods in and the character of > California's oldest state park (Big Basin). > > This perimeter significantly affects landuse, landcover and human patterns of > movement and activity in this part of the world for a significant time to > come. It is a "major disaster." I'm curious how HOT teams might delineate > such a thing (and I've participated in a HOT fire team, mapping barns, water > sources for helicopter dips and other human structures during a large fire > near me), I've simply made a polygon tagged fire=perimeter, a name=* tag and > a start_date. I don't expect rendering, it's meant to be an "up to right > about here" (inside the polygon is/was a burning fire, outside was no fire). > I wouldn't say it is more accurate than 20 to 50 meters on any edge, an > "across a wide street" distance to be "off" is OK with me, considering this > fire's size, but if a slight skew jiggles the whole thing into place better, > feel free to nudge. It's the tagging I'm interested in getting right, and > perhaps wondering if or even that people enter gigantic fires that will > significantly change landscape for some time into OSM, as I have done. This > will affect my local mapping, as a great much has burned. Even after > starting almost two weeks ago, as of 20 minutes ago this fire is 33% > contained, with good, steady progress. These men and women are heroes. > > To me, this is a significant polygon in my local mapping: it is a "huge > thing" that is a major feature on a map, especially right now. I firmly > b
Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?
I'd like to clarify my take-aways from this discussion, hopefully yours, too. Thank you for reading and your patience. Brian says that a common (THE common) definition of "suburb" in the US is (roughly) "a smaller city next to or near a much larger one as part of a conurbation." I agree that is a very frequent understanding of how the word "suburb" is both used and understood in the USA, even most or almost all of the time. I also assert that there is a (much less-common, agreed) usage for "suburb" in the US that is more in line with how OSM tags with place=suburb, as a kind of "district of a larger city." Magnolia (in Seattle) is tagged place=suburb, believed correctly as to how that tag should be used, even though Magnolia is CALLED a "neighborhood" in local vernacular. It seems these two usages of "suburb" can co-exist simultaneously (OSM tagging and local vernacular) while disagreeing slightly, though with some confusion unless and until this clarification is understood. OK, we've discussed it, I hope it is less confusing. (In the USA, we tend to CALL someplace like Bellevue a "suburb," though we correctly TAG it a place=city in OSM. Such differences between "call" and "tag" are the source of much of the confusion about "suburb" and "neighborhood" or place=neighbourhood). I fully support the use of place=neighbourhood tagging on nodes or polygons in the USA where it makes sense to do so. In a previous post, I said the logic of using place=neighbourhood in Seattle makes less sense, as there is a hierarchy with using place=* (city, suburb, neighbourhood, among other values if greater granularity exists). So, with what are CALLED neighborhoods being actually TAGGED place=suburb, there is "excess room" in that hierarchy: with Seattle tagged "city" and Magnolia (and other so-called neighborhoods) tagged "suburb," tagging Magnolia (and others) with place=neighbourhood (because it is "called" that) would leave a gap between neighbourhood and city: what suburb would Magnolia be a part of? Yes, as it was said somewhere that Seattle's "neighborhoods" have specific boundaries, it could be a small OSM project to restructure Seattle from nodes-tagged-suburb to polygons-tagged-neighbourhood. That could happen, though I still ask what place=suburb tag, if any, would be appropriate to bridge the gap between neighbourhood and city. Perhaps none, and that is OK, I'm not sure if this is "allowed" with place=* tagging, maybe it is. In the example I gave in the city of Santa Cruz (Prospect Heights "neighborhood," now tagged with a relatively large landuse=residential PLUS smaller more-correct, "block-level" landuse=residential polygons), our county wiki outlines a strategy for the already-existing large landuse=residential polygons (older, less correct, "first draft") and the smaller landuse=residential polygons (newer, more correct, "corrections to first draft underway"): when all the smaller, more correct polygons are completed, the landuse=residential tag on the larger, less correct is changed to place=neighbourhood! Santa Cruz, a city of about 65,000, already has five nodes tagged place=suburb, (13,000 in a suburb seems about right, these suburb names are widely used), as well as five or so "smaller" (in identity) scattered place=locality nodes (slightly different than the suburb or neighborhood names). This all works both in how the real world names things and in OSM: the City (multipolygon) is tagged place=city, its five suburbs (in the less common sense) are nodes tagged place=suburb, the "residential neighborhoods" are NOW tagged landuse=residential, yet OSM is on track (and documents how) we're converting these to better-granularity "block-level" landuse=residential polygons inside of larger polygons, and these larger polygons will be changed from landuse=residential to place=neighbourhood when full "inner high-granularity" polygons are completed inside of the to-be-designated place=neighbourhood larger enclosing polygons. (Additionally, there are some scattered nodes tagged place=locality, what might be considered "the bottom of the hierarchy," which have accrued and stabilized according to local convention). Clear! May this clarify similar strategies for better place=* tagging in the USA. It is complicated when US English diverges from the more British (or Australian) English that strongly influences wiki definitions of tags, but with some discussion, we can both better understand these potentially confusing (but ultimately understandable) differences, and tag well, even in the USA. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] While we're fixing things in iterations
Of course, I'm not pointing fingers or placing blame on any person / human in particular. We agree: a bit of cleaning some rust off of the toolchain. Change management. Does that happen on this channel? That's OK: no need to answer that. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] While we're fixing things in iterations
Paul Johnson wrote: > Can we finally fix two other longstanding problems, then? > > 1. The wiki being incorrect about not counting bicycle lanes. That's not > reflective of how validators deal with lanes, how data consumers like Osmand > or Magic Earth deal with lanes, or how ground truth works. The whole "but > you can't fit a motor vehicle down it" argument is facile, that's what > access:lanes=* and width:lanes=* is for. If it truly is the wiki that needs fixing, I'm all for fixing the wiki here. Is there some reason the relatively low bar of making a change to the wiki hasn't been done yet? > 2. Tagging route information on ways. It's about a decade too long at this > point for ref=* on a way to be completely disconnected from the entity the > tag applies to: That's why route relations exist. Biggest problem child on > this at the moment: OSM's own tilesets. Let's drop rendering for ref=* on > ways and just render the route relations already, this and multipolygons are > why relations came to exist in the first place. Yes, 100% agreement. I think this is simply pure inertia (the kind that says "broken process") on the part of renderers. Can anybody (renderer authors included, maybe even especially) are welcome to offer reasons why "the old machinery" remains in place? Are there legacy use cases that remain unclear to the wider community? Please tell us here, if so. While I still find murky and mysterious exactly "how" to effect change in renderers (who you gonna call?), my two best efforts along these lines are to "tag well" and "wiki well." (And that can include a great deal of discussion and consensus building on its own, no doubt). Eventually, (and I've discovered it can take years), renderers do catch up. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
On Sep 22, 2020, at 8:38 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: > Excellent! I see no problem keeping state=proposed with the lifecycle. With both of us in agreement about tag "proposed:route=bicycle" (especially as it co-exists with "state=proposed") can we gain some more consensus (here, soon?) allowing us to move closer towards recommending in our wiki that we tag proposed USBRs with "proposed:route=bicycle"? I'd love to see wider agreement that these tags together are a good way to move forward, as "state" continues the legacy rendering support by OCM and cyclosm and "proposed:route" is harmonious with tagging schemes that are more modern as they grow into sensible namespaces like Lifecycle. > Another tag in that realm that I like to use is the `start_date` or in this > case the `opening_date`. The latter is for some future date, if known, when > the route would change to regular active status. Then you can add the > start_date. I find those useful when another mapper might not see something, > either on imagery or out in the world. If they see a recent start date, it > might help explain the discrepancy. I do put start_date and end_date on objects in OSM (I just did on a fire=perimeter that covers a huge portion of my county and which burned for over five weeks). But for proposed USBRs, predicting what to use as "start_date" requires predicting when AASHTO will complete the voting on its ballot for state's USBR applications during that AASHTO "round" (twice a year), and we simply can't do that. It's easier to wait until "after the fact" (OSM receives news that the AASHTO ballot has completed and published results) and then simply remove the "state=proposed" tag: that's how we've been doing it, it's well-understood, it's quite simple / straightforward and it "works" (causing OCM to render solid route lines from initially dashed route lines), but more importantly, as accurate route data in OSM as a database. So while I agree with you it would be useful to do this, we don't have a crystal ball that allows it to predictably happen in this case. I think the "state=proposed" and "proposed:route=bicycle" tags convey enough, especially as source=* tags and/or changeset comments often denote a pending USBR being part of a particular AASHTO ballot — "AASHTO Autumn 2020 round," for example. The whole idea of these entering OSM is to have enough time to enter them (sometimes they are hundreds or even thousands of kilometers of route to enter) by the time they become approved. Sometimes we "beat the clock" and end up with some dashed lines and we wait for approval, sometimes we lag a bit and they get approved first, THEN we complete our entry of them into OSM. > Annotation geekery aside, it brings me great joy that OSM holds such a vast > repository of bicycle/pedestrian related data that are virtually unparalleled > by other commercial mapping products. Keep up the good work adding and > maintaining these networks. Very kind of you to say. There ARE other (often commercial) such "repositories" (e.g. RideWithGPS) but these tend towards the ephemeral, transitory-natured "I think this a good bike ride" GPX data, rather than "these are official or quasi-official (signed on the ground)" bicycle route data contained in OSM. Happily. the Internet has room for both. Is OSM "unparalleled" when it comes to "official" bicycle/pedestrian related data? Well, that's a great goal to shoot for, I'm delighted to receive the feedback you believe we're "getting there!" SteveA Simply "one more volunteer" doing this, there are many! ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?
On Sep 23, 2020, at 10:51 AM, Brian Stromberg wrote: > A short question of a lengthy response: What is the history behind that > definition of 'suburb'? Is it a result of the term being used that way in > UK/Europe/elsewhere? Seems like an odd usage, since "suburbs" have had a very > clear definition in the United States for decades now, and it has nothing to > do with neighborhoods. I believe it is UK-derived, as are many OSM "definitions" (usually / often clarified in wiki for that key). I don't know that I agree with "suburbs have had a very clear definition in the United States for decades." To wit, some would say that a "suburb" can be an incorporated city that is smaller than, but "associated with" (and maybe even sharing a partial contiguous boundary with) a larger city, of which it "is a suburb." (For example, Bellevue to Seattle, or El Cajon to San Diego). These are quite precisely defined as incorporated cities with rather exact boundaries. Some say that a "suburb" is a subset of an incorporated city, like a district of that city. (For example, Magnolia to Seattle, or Mid-City to San Diego). These are often amorphous and imprecisely defined, though there might be agreement at a rough "center" or "town square that defines the central character of this suburb," but not always. At least in the USA, I think many would nod our heads and say "yes" (both). In short, both "definitions" (or really, "understandings") of "suburb" are correct, perhaps depending on context or a given region / locality. I don't think that (at least these two, there may be more) this is a "very clear definition in the United States." The "definition" of "neighborhood" in the USA is even less clear, though it is possible to draw the beginnings of a rough box around it. We could spend some time trying to refine this, but I believe it would be difficult and possibly contentious, but it could also bear fruit for purposes of better tagging here. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?
place=, and identify the smaller landuse areas (which are sometimes all > residential). Use place=* according to its wiki, and I have no problem. Please consider how there are data in OSM which do not strictly adhere to wiki, they might be considered "rough" or "technically inaccurate on a minor level" but they should not be called "absolutely wrong" at an informal, novice-level-mapper level. This really is how OSM gets built: at first, sometimes roughly (slightly wrong, but not absolutely), then these data are refined into adherence to specification. Sure, we'd love the high-granularity, absolutely correct data to enter the map "first, always and we're done," but that doesn't always happen. > Exactly. My rule of thumb is if you're thinking about putting a name on it, > and it's not a shopping center, apartment complex or similar large but > contiguous landuse, then landuse=* probably isn't what your polygon should be. At least initially, it MIGHT be. Let's acknowledge that and while we can absorb complaints about it, I won't redact such data, it being a first draft at completion (similar to TIGER roads and rail). We'll take decades to clean that up, as OSM is a long-term project. Let's acknowledge that, too: "the map is never 'done.'" SteveA Notes/References: [1] https://www.osm.org/relation/7071337 [2] https://www.osm.org/way/219988725 [3] https://www.osm.org/way/220344508 [4] https://www.osm.org/way/446025524 [5] https://www.osm.org/way/446025531 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?
On Sep 22, 2020, at 7:05 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > For example, in Seattle I lived in the Wallingford Neighborhood. Seattle has > defined boundaries for each of the neighborhoods. In other areas, > neighborhoods are roughly defined by people living there. In those cases > using a place= tag makes more sense. Clifford: One more thing. Several summers ago, I lived at / house sat at my sister's house in the Magnolia suburb of Seattle. I believe I mapped fairly well the little "village downtown" there (it was walking distance, as a nice suburb or neighborhood might be) as a hobby after I fed her cats, I'd have to check OSM data history I think summer of 2012. But you'll notice that suburbs (not Neighborhoods, as you call them) of Seattle are tagged in OSM as place=suburb. (And it wasn't simply me who has done that, I think I only did it once or twice for Magnolia and maybe Ballard). In a larger city like Seattle, this seems about right. I don't like disagreeing with a friend like you about where you have lived (and all I did was feed my sister's cat for a few weeks, and I do love Seattle) but I think the jury is in about Seattle suburbs in OSM, and they are tagged suburb. Does Wallingford or Ballard or Magnolia get called a neighborhood in local vernacular? Sure, I don't doubt it: you just did so yourself! But in OSM tagging, which is I think what we're trying to better agree upon, I think the tagging of place=suburb on these is correct. For the original poster's question, I think I've already stated my opinion, though there are certainly enough to go around! We do a lot of landuse=residential on "neighborhoods" in the USA, especially without any "council" or active administration at the sub-city level. Larger cities DO have these, admin_level=10 is correct on them. Smaller cities and rural areas that are "a cluster of homes/houses/dwellings?" I think a (multi)polygon tagged landuse=residential works well there. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?
Whoops, "but NOT if it isn't something like a council" SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?
Clifford: I certainly agree with you if (and likely only if) there is something like a neighborhood council that actually has some sort of "administrative" function (which could be as "lowly" as dog catcher, mosquito abatement, or "sub-municipal parks department for these three neighborhood parks." These are often found in larger cities, United States/Boundaries has a small list of examples. But if it is more like "what the locals call it between 12th and Main out to the lake" (more informal, not administrative in any way), and it IS exclusively residential (not big or populated enough to contain a commercial district, though perhaps an elementary school or a crossroads where there is a transit stop) I'd say landuse=residental fits nicely. Again, if you think place=neighbourhood works, use it, but please try to be true to other values of place (like suburb) which allow neighbourhood to be used in a sensible hierarchy. I believe you are suggesting admin_level=10 to fit into a hierarchy (and sensibly, too), but if it isn't something like a council (however tiny and local) but not political, as there seems to be a sense of wards at admin_level=9 that are purely voting / electoral districts to being better tagged administrative=political. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?
If you MUST tag place=neighbourhood (note the u) see if you agree with me that this tag makes most sense in a hierarchy where place=suburb (and perhaps quarter, if applicable, is/are above) also exist(s). I'm not strictly saying I believe that place=neighbourhood CANNOT exist without place=suburb, but it makes me wrinkle my brow a bit at it not fitting as well as a landuse=residential (multi)polygon might rather generically and innocently (without any hierarchy required) fit in. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] place=neighborhood on subdivisions?
I'm harmonious with Minh's comments in the changeset. The place key, with value suburb, has quite specific meanings, I don't think these are those. And as we don't or shouldn't be truly precise and especially not authoritative with "legal subdivisions," I think the "more informal" nature of OSM data entry around what a local (resident) might consider "a neighborhood" (especially as one distinct from place=neighbourhood. which also has quite specific meanings) and not necessarily one taggable with admin_level=10 (as it hasn't any administrative neighborhood council, extant, but rare in the USA) then yes, use landuse=residential (with a name=*) tag. That has worked for some time, it does work for now, and appears it will work into the future. Read https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:place (which will show this very likely shouldn't be used). Read https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level (which will show this very likely shouldn't be used). Read https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:landuse. It's a good match for "these" (roughly, "subdivisions"), especially with a name tag, since a bonus is the name tag renders nicely in Carto. Carto rendering is not the reason to do it, simply a "nice to have, since it's done correctly, Carto rewards you with an appropriate rendering." Carto does a pretty good job (maybe even always getting a bit better as time goes on) of rendering what you tag, when you tag appropriately. Tag "appropriately" and help it out: it will help you out with a pretty "blossom" of your tagging. (Unless it doesn't, but then we're out at the hairy edge of OSM and Carto...another, bigger, topic). SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
I have added a one-line addition to our USBRS wiki suggesting that some aspect of Lifecycle_prefix (with a link to that wiki) include into USBRS route proposals something like "proposed:route=bicycle" in addition to state=proposed, while welcoming further suggestions and refinements. Thanks, again, Elliott, for a great suggestion. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
On Sep 22, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: > Great work getting these into the map already Steve! I work on the MDOT bike > team (as a GIS consultant) so it is great to see this on the map so quickly. Thank you, Elliott; nice to see your reply! I agree about "so quickly:" I posted a request here and just a couple/few days later, an intrepid OSM volunteer had finished USBR 201 in Maryland before I could brew a cup of coffee! Then, when it was suggested that the route become fully bi-directional, he quickly refined it to be so (just yesterday). Wow! (OSM has some great mappers!) > A note about the *proposed* routes, they do appear in the OSM Cyclemap > already [1]. > [1] = > https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=39.5798=-76.6054#map=15/39.5798/-76.6054=C I believe what is going on here is that East Coast Greenway (ECG, a "quasi-national" bicycle route not part of the USBRS, but sometimes, like here, sharing segments with it as USBR 201) is that OpenCycleMap (OCM) is in the process of redrawing the combined / shared segments of ECG + USBR 201 (in Maryland). OCM can (and often does) take several days or even a week or two to re-render. And, Andy Allan (OCM's author/maintainer) recently upgraded OCM to vector tiles with some newer rules for how specific tags (including and especially routes tagged state=proposed) are differently-rendered than as before (before vector tiles). If I'm mistaken and somebody wants to correct me here, I welcome that, as I'm speculating a bit at what/how OCM is "currently rendering." It's a bit like watching paint dry: the colors can change a bit as it does. > Instead of using the `state=proposed` tagging [2], you might consider putting > a lifecycle prefix [3] on the network tag so as to prevent data users from > integrating it blindly. > [2] = > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11654314#map=11/39.5964/-76.2022=C > [3] = https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix The usage of state=proposed on bicycle routes is long (in my experience, going back to about 2010) and somewhat complex history, I've exchanged quite a bit (though not TOO frequent!) emails with Andy on this, he has been most helpful, especially with the switch to vector tiles earlier this year. It is also quite deliberate, as state=proposed DOES render (in OCM as dashed, not solid) but does NOT render in Lonvia's waymarkedtrails bicycle renderer, providing a contrast between seeing the routes as proposed (and dashed) or not as all, as they are "not quite yet approved nor signed (yet)." This contrast is documented in our USBRS wiki. Additionally, a newer bicycle renderer (cyclosm) has emerged which also renders state=proposed. I very much like the idea of Lifecycle_prefix in addition to state=proposed (I don't think it must be a choice between one and the other). Using both tags (state and a lifecycle prefix) somewhat "standardizes" the concept of "proposed" in a wider OSM context, while continuing use of state=proposed (as it is supported in OCM), allowing the "dashing" of routes so tagged to continue in those renderers where the tag is applied and is supported. We (OSM, ACA, a sponsor of USBRS, even AASHTO itself) have all participated in rather carefully crafting and or supporting this process and set of tags, which emerged in 2013. I gave a talk at SOTM-US / Washington, DC about this in April, 2014 and we've been using this carefully-hammered-out consensus since. Your suggestion to consider Lifecycle_prefix in addition is both welcome and excellent, imo. Thank you. If anybody wishes to contribute a suggested strategy to include Lifecycle_prefix tagging in our USBRS wiki, I welcome that and also consider doing so myself. What a great project (OSM) we have here, SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
Minor correction to my previous post: USBR 1 in Washington DC is a new route, not a realignment. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
There are at least four new national bicycle routes "pending" in the USBRS! (Ballots by state Departments of Transportation before AASHTO's Autumn 2020 round): USBR 11 in West Virginia (done in OSM), USBR 30 in North Dakota (done in OSM), USBR 50 in Washington, District of Columbia (a realignment only, done in OSM) and USBR 201 in Maryland. To help OSM "get ahead of the curve" of the Autumn 2020 AASHTO ballot, the USBR 201 application by Maryland DOT is available, allowing OSM to enter these state-at-a-time national bicycle route data. This route has been "seeded" as a route relation and still needs to be fully entered into OSM. Please visit our wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States_Bicycle_Route_System#Proposed_USBRs_in_OSM for a link to the route data ballot for USBR 201 in Maryland. OSM-US has explicit permission from AASHTO to enter these data from these ballots. Thank you for helping to build Earth's largest official cycling route network: check out our wiki, follow the links to the turn-by-turn and map data and have fun making bicycle route data in OSM more complete and better! SteveA California One of many USBRS-in-OSM folks (among other hats I wear) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Examples of good paid mapping?
On Sep 11, 2020, at 1:06 PM, James wrote: > I've been paid in the past to do mapping for someone, but I was already an > active experienced osm mapper beforehand. > > How to be successful: > Listen to osm experts/community and not fight against them > Use existing tags on the wiki, don't invent your own > Verify data accuracy as much as you can, not dump data > > When merging data, verify if data is older than yours, locals usually have a > better sense of what buildings/pois have been demolished/exist. Great question, Michał! I've been paid by clients to both map in OSM (so the database is consistent with my client's expectations at the same time it is "correct" according to OSM community standards) and using OSM to make a map (a map product that was included in a published book, for example). I'm 100% in agreement with James: listening to the greater OSM community (along WITH your client's needs) is paramount, lest your edits get redacted. Use existing tags: reading wiki and sampling existing data with taginfo or Overpass Turbo queries can go a long distance at researching "what is" in OSM (perhaps rather than what you might "wish to be"). If what you do can be considered an import or entering new data (most paid gigs are exactly that, while some smaller set improve existing data), DO verify accuracy on existing data to the greatest extent practical, best to do so both before and after your work. Actively seek and implement high quality (top-level precision, thoughtful, careful, community-accepted accuracy in tagging, keeping any required / expected communication or status reporting frequently updated...) throughout the project. Small consultancies like mine that do "paid mapping" might not seem an obvious best source to ask this, but as our answers resonate with "excellent work, pays attention to quality..." we really do "lead by example," however minor our efforts may seem. Bigger companies and tech giants that use or intend to use OSM: please respect our community (and its standards and practices) first and foremost. You are welcome — though, everybody appreciates respect. As is true in many endeavors, it takes a long time and is challenging to build up a good reputation, which is easily harmed by foolish, anti-community blunders, so avoid these! Finally, when in doubt, seek consensus: plenty of community wants to help make a better map, but only with agreement does that happen. SteveA > On Fri., Sep. 11, 2020, 3:56 p.m. Michał Brzozowski, > 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-us] Unintentional improvements in OSM data influencing / improving other databases
On September 1, 2020 at 8:07:46 AM PDT, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > In many of these cases OSM has an opportunity to improve the government data. > A mapper can analyze the conflict, sort out the different data sources, > perhaps visit the site in the field, and produce a result that is more > accurate than any of the government data sets. It's been pretty quiet, but I > know that there some corrections from OSM have flowed back into some of the > government data sets that I use. Starting a new thread. I echo this sentiment exactly as having taken place in California and in my experiences with OSM. This is most certainly a longer-term endeavor (over several, even many years), but improvements in alignments between data components which have been entered into OSM from my County GIS, GreenInfo.org's publishing its "CPAD" (California Protected Area Database, published semi-annually, see our wiki) and other sources HAVE INDEED resulted in data improvements: OSM influences CPAD, resulting in data improvements, CPAD influenced County GIS data, resulting in data improvements, later versions of these (County GIS and CPAD) data influenced OSM all over again, resulting in data improvements...and upward, upward and upward the spiral of more accurate, better-aligning data goes: both private and public. OSM gets the results, so do others. Win-win. Taking OSM out of the equation by asserting "these data don't belong in OSM" stops this improvement pipeline (wholly unintentional on my part, but certainly noticed) in its tracks. (Yes, some data belong in OSM, some don't). This is a seldom-talked about real benefit OSM offers to both non-profit based data aggregators (like GreenInfo and their CPAD) and public ones (like County GIS departments). Yes, a relatively high-degree of accuracy and careful mapping, skilled volunteers in OSM (who likely don't have the credentials of professional surveyors, but who are aware of basics like monument markers, "metes and bounds" in deeds and the like) ARE required. So, even volunteer "citizen mappers" can go a long distance at improving data, simply by doing solid mapping in OSM. And by remaining a database of high quality and careful curation, OSM earns the respect of other GIS professionals (public and private) who (over the longer-term) find the puzzle-pieces fitting together better. The examples are numerous, thank you Kevin for providing several. OSM will likely never become "authoritative" in the sense a cadastral database does for tax or land survey purposes, but as we keep our quality high, keep our mapping careful and pay attention to things like survey markers (we do), other mapping professionals will continue to look to us as "worthy enough" to include as a layer on their systems, for example. OSM does not have the goal of being so "authoritative," nor should it in my opinion, but speaking personally, I do strive to map as accurately as I possibly can. Our data being widely and deeply respected is a great result OSM can be proud to continue. I can't count the number of times I've (more recently) heard from Land Trust mapping professionals, local public GIS professionals, non-profit GIS professionals and more "OSM is a fantastic and amazing resource, there is nothing else like it and the world of mapping is a far richer place because it exists." (Or something very much like that). Bottom line: please don't scoff at the possibility that your careful and accurate mapping might influence "official" or "authoritative" GIS data. It can, it has, it does and it will continue to do so. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map
On Sep 1, 2020, at 2:46 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > 'Private' vs 'public' hits near the mark, but not in the gold. I was trying > to be precise when I said that the property line determines the protected > status and the public access constraints. A public-access nature reserve > operated by an NGO (such as a private conservancy or land trust - there are > quite a few in my part of the world) deserves the same treatment as a > government-run one. Thank you for pointing out this distinction, Kevin. It certainly exists, such as in abundance in New York state where you have mapped these distinctions extensively. As I was talking about the specific case of National Forests (and their odd "dual boundary" nature), I did not mean to exclude other (e.g. NGO) kinds of ownership in the greater realm of mapping. However, in the distinct case of National Forests, the distinction between public and private (for "smaller, actually owned" polygon components vs. "larger, potentially own-able without additional Congressional legislation" polygon components) remains true. So while I do not "hit the gold" in all cases, but I think the public-private distinction (along with the pesky "Congress has authorized further acquisitions out to HERE" outer-outer polygon) accurately captures what we're trying to better understand, better map and better render in the case of National Forests, I happy accept your "adjustment or correction." Nicely, I believe we are both correct! SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map
Here I weigh-in with what I believe to be a crucial distinction between "cadastral data which are privately owned" and "data which can be characterized as cadastral, but which are publicly owned and are often used for recreation, hiking and similar human activities." Joseph, many others in OSM, I and wide consensus agree that the former (private cadastral data, especially down to the level of individual parcels) generally do not belong in OSM. I believe we also agree there are widely-acknowledged exceptions to this, such as when polygons tagged landuse=* denote where a farm is distinct from a forested area, or where residential vs. commercial vs. industrial areas clearly follow property lines up to an edge of "difference," especially as they better characterize what we might call "zoning" (of larger areas like "neighborhoods" or "downtown's shopping district" or "the industrial zone where auto parts are manufactured by numerous industrial companies on numerous parcels") instead of individual parcels. If I am incorrect in any of my assumptions, I welcome adjustment or correction. However, with PUBLIC "cadastral data" which define national parks, large areas used for human recreation (such as state parks, county parks, national forests and similar public lands), I don't think there is any argument whatsoever that OSM wishes to map these. Yet what Joseph characterizes as "cadastral data" precisely define these. Please, let's dispense with this apparent (but not actual) contradiction: public lands belong in OSM denoted as such, and an acknowledged best method to do this is to map their boundary as the data where they are "owned by the public." What we discuss here is the particular (peculiar?) example of national forests in the USA, where there are effectively "two legal boundaries, one actual ownership, another potential ownership." We absolutely should agree (here? now?) on which of these two (or both) we enter into OSM. The current situation of data in our map is scattered between the two and still confused in the minds of many mappers who do or wish to enter these data. Since we agree they should be entered, let's better discuss how we enter them "properly" (by achieving consensus) and watch as they render according to our hammered-out-here agreements on how this should and will best take place. We really are getting closer to doing this, thanks to excellent discussion here. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trouble with getting Superior National Forest boundary to render on standard map
Kevin Kenny wrote: > They're both 'legal' boundaries. (and more). Thank you, Kevin. Finally, this is written in a manner that allows me to understand it and I do now. Whew! THEN, there is how OSM might ultimately remedy this (by specifying — good example wiki diagrams can go miles here — mapping the "simple outer" with an "outer" role?) and how Carto (and its authors) remedy this as it renders. These remain to be seen. It's messy, but we do get closer talking about it here. It appears there are some forests which denote "legislative outer" with "outer" role and other forests which denote an outer role of land which is ACTUALLY federally owned (a smaller area, contained wholly inside of the first kind, the could-be-national-forest-without-more-legislation kind). OSM must specify correct / preferred tagging if we keep both kinds of multipolygons (MPs) in our data (I prefer the latter, as the tags in the polygon "do apply"). We may also coin a new flavor of MP (it would still BE a MP, but perhaps with special tagging, special rendering, or both) for such national forests in the USA to better characterize the "dual nature" of this odd "sort of" ownership: an "outer-outer" of "legislative possibility of ownership." But maybe that's not required: a wiki page describing this and the tagging required on one or two MPs could do it, I think. In my mind, now that these are quite distinct, it seems a straightforward solution is two MPs, maybe linked somehow (one a super-relation containing the other?). The first MP might be the (larger) "legislatively-defined outer-role possibly-owned 'limit without additional legislation.'" The second MP might be the (smaller) "actually owned, tagged outer-role, plus punched-out inner-role inholdings." Those quoted descriptions can be sharpened up, but I hope the idea is clear. Then, maybe some logic is built into Carto (maybe not, it may not be necessary). Then, we document this well in wiki (explaining as Kevin did, as I understand now clear-as-crystal, I believe others will, too). Then, we discuss whether there might be a harmonization of data across the country. Then (as usual, the final act, please pass the popcorn), we watch our hard work render. And applaud. With Kevin and Joseph talking, this feels like it can get solved! Thanks for putting on thinking caps and typing words carefully, SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)
(as in this case) come from a single definitive source or wiki entry, though wiki guidance about using good judgement USING subjective criteria can help. I don't see as a major problem in OSM "we have too many viewpoints around here because of low-bar subjectivity!" Sure, that COULD happen, but it's too much of a "what if" to seriously consider restricting viewpoint addition with strict criteria (like it must be signed, benched or on another map). OSM tends to "self-heal" if it runs away with itself like this. (Strong local volunteers who mentor and grow novice users and establish wide consensus greatly helps, too). Too long, stopping here, SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)
On Aug 30, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Brian Stromberg wrote: > I would argue that maps can only show the world as the mapmaker wants it to > be shown, and OSM should probably not be encouraging people (in any way) to > be visiting sites that are clearly marked as illegal to visit. This seems > like a bad precedent to set. I would include the bunker but not mark it as > tourism. People will find it if they want to, whatever OSM tags it as, so it > doesn't seem necessary to participate/encourage in whatever degree of > illegality the access entails. And here is where some disagree: OSM does not "encourage." OSM is data. It simply says "this is" and "these are." OSM does not encourage people (in any way) to visit a site or trespass. It is a collection of data (of "what is") expressed as a map. Full stop. Sometimes, "sites" or "roads" are marked as "private" or "permissive" or "no access." What people do from there did not happen because I, you, she, he, they or ANYBODY entered data into a map. Period. If a sign says "No Trespassing" yet it is ignored, who is responsible? A map? No, the trespasser. (And yes, to the greatest extent possible, OSM wants to not only tag such data where known, but express these access restrictions in renderings, as well. OSM has been doing this for years, quite well in my opinion). I don't believe OSM "sets precedents" as Brian describes, as OSM doesn't "encourage." Two facts: 1), tourists DO visit this site and 2), OSM uses the tourism key to denote viewpoints (and the view IS spectacular). I have no problem with "tourism=viewpoint" here, though apparently Brian disagrees. OK. I'm glad the thread includes the word "Opinions!" (Thank you, Frederik). I don't mean to sound argumentative or antagonistic, but if someone more clearly draws a line between "entered map data" and "encouraged people (in any way) to do anything illegal," I'd like to follow that line. However, nobody has been able to do that (yet). I believe "the correct" access tagging (on the path, for example) will go a long distance here. Both access=no and access=private mean the same thing to me as a "No Trespassing" sign when I see them rendered in Carto, for example. Some final notes in the realm of "legal" (I am not an attorney): there is something in California called Civil Code 1008 which expresses a method to legally prevent easements from being created on private property. One can create an easement by simply "using" (traversing, for example) said private property in a notorious manner for some number of years. To prevent this, the owner must post a sign reading "Right to pass by permission and subject to control of owner: Civil Code Section 1008." However, that's not what the sign says (which Frederik posted and I have seen personally). Speculating, I'd guess this sign was placed there by local search and rescue personnel (might be fire / paramedics) who don't wish to be burdened with rescues (or worse) at the same place for the same reason — and the local ordinance cited (San Mateo County Ordinance No. 1462) makes that actual law. With all this, I believe access=no is a correct tag (on the path, would be my first inclination). SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Opinions on Devil's Slide Bunker (San Mateo, CA)
Joseph asks good, relevant questions regarding whether the access tag should be private vs. no. But, yes, I agree Frederik, there absolutely should be one of these two tags with that sign you displayed. (I've seen it many times driving past here before the tunnel was built, it's a bit more out-of-the-way now). And if it was historically a bunker, OSM should strive to tag this, I'm not exactly sure of the right mix of military=bunker and historic=yes flavors that might be absolutely correct, but something like those if not exactly those. Though historic=ruins seems correct, too, so perhaps better than "yes." I slightly disagree with Frederik about a viewpoint necessarily being signposted or "called a viewpoint." I've tagged tourism=viewpoint on many such places, where they are absolutely a viewpoint in my opinion (and I've hiked a LOT) but are neither so noted via signpost on site, nor on a map. Many that I have so entered into OSM have a bench nearby (and so I'll tag amenity=bench on a node, too) so I'm not the only one who thinks the spot has a nice view worthy of a short sit and "take it all in." I mean, hiking trails and viewpoints go together like peas and carrots, otherwise, what's the point? (Exercise, sure — but, but the VIEWS!) What I'm saying is that I believe it's OK for an OSM mapper who enters a tourism=viewpoint tag to say "I'm asserting this to be a bona fide viewpoint here." Of course, if it is signed, benched or otherwise mapped or widely acknowledged as a viewpoint, all the better. I tire of self-declared "concerned citizens" who think they should tell us mappers what is in the world and how to tag it. What must be immediately dispensed with is that "maps make people do things." (Hike closed trails, trespass...) Nonsense: maps show the world as it is (to the extent they can). PEOPLE do things with maps. When you start there, all the right things to do follow. Let's get an access tag here, tune up "historic" and let the renderers do their magic. (As usual, but it's a good question, thank you for that familiar sign and I'm glad there is such lively participation in suggestions). SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
Not sure if crossposting to talk-us is correct, but it is a "home list" for me. I've created a large fire perimeter in OSM from public sources, http://www.osm.org/way/842280873 . This is a huge fire (sadly, there are larger ones right now, too), over 130 square miles, and caused the evacuation of every third person in my county (yes). There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of structures, mostly residential homes, which have burned down and the event has "completely changed" giant redwoods in and the character of California's oldest state park (Big Basin). This perimeter significantly affects landuse, landcover and human patterns of movement and activity in this part of the world for a significant time to come. It is a "major disaster." I'm curious how HOT teams might delineate such a thing (and I've participated in a HOT fire team, mapping barns, water sources for helicopter dips and other human structures during a large fire near me), I've simply made a polygon tagged fire=perimeter, a name=* tag and a start_date. I don't expect rendering, it's meant to be an "up to right about here" (inside the polygon is/was a burning fire, outside was no fire). I wouldn't say it is more accurate than 20 to 50 meters on any edge, an "across a wide street" distance to be "off" is OK with me, considering this fire's size, but if a slight skew jiggles the whole thing into place better, feel free to nudge. It's the tagging I'm interested in getting right, and perhaps wondering if or even that people enter gigantic fires that will significantly change landscape for some time into OSM, as I have done. This will affect my local mapping, as a great much has burned. Even after starting almost two weeks ago, as of 20 minutes ago this fire is 33% contained, with good, steady progress. These men and women are heroes. To me, this is a significant polygon in my local mapping: it is a "huge thing" that is a major feature on a map, especially right now. I firmly believe it belongs in OSM for many reasons and want it tagged "correctly." Yes, there are other maps that show this, I believe OSM should have these data, too, as this perimeter will affect much (in the real world) and much newer, updated mapping in OSM going forward. Thank you for your suggestions, SteveA California (safer now thanks to truly heroic efforts by firefighters, law enforcement and many others) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)
> operations working group and current co-maintainer of the rails website > posted this a year ago: > https://gravitystorm.github.io/osmf-infra-plans/ and this july the OSMF and > the operations working group announced hiring of a Senior Site Reliability > Engineer: https://mobile.twitter.com/OSM_Tech/status/1287395222847139846 > > This seems like a good move. We would benefit a lot from being able to easily > load balance and adjust VMs on our own or someone elses openstack > infrastructure where we can easily provision new servers for development or > testing when needed instead of having dedicated physical hardware servers > that causes availability issues if they break because of single point of > failures. Yes, Andy is a very smart and clever man, I've worked with him here and there over years. Be inspired by him, I am. > See also https://operations.osmfoundation.org/ > > BTW osm-fr already made this move and is mostly running VMs now and has moved > some of their VMs (heavy tile rendering) into the OVH cloud to manage their > hardware more efficiently. See > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Serveurs_OpenStreetMap_France That's great, a white paper about this could communicate "lessons learned" and perhaps pass the torch of knowledge about how to leverage the best of these technologies for the audience(s) who could benefit. Might you write one? pangoSE, I read your unclear proto-proposal to "change naming" (to solve what problem?) and that a Reliability Engineer will be hired by the OSMF's OWG. While the latter seems unrelated, the former still remains quite vague to me and I suspect most readers of this list. If you are going to write about this more here, can you please present a clear technical specification (tech spec) of what you wish to see built? But before you do that, please first present at least one problem it might solve. Then we will better understand what you might propose. SteveA ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] New API suggestion: Allowing contributors to easily track their OSM-objects over time
One of the best suggestions I and others have made to pangoSE regarding this
proposal is a very strong use case or solid, easily-grasped
geographically-based examples of a problem (exclusively or largely unsolvable
in OSM today, with today's data and tools) that would make for a solvable
problem getting solved. There is a great deal of effort involved from
presenting "a solution" to the larger OSM community (first, so we understand
it, second so we might reach consensus about it, third so we might implement it
with a particular method) when no underlying problem is apparent. This is what
is meant by "a solution in search of a problem." What is it that pangoSE is so
anxious to fix that significant entanglement with a new naming system (linked
semantic wrappers) is required?
Perhaps there ARE problems that cannot be solved without such radical changes
to our naming machinery. I'm simply saying I have yet to read / hear one that
has been sufficiently articulated for me to consider this proposal further.
If problems are identified and articulated, that's a good and necessary next
step. But then so would be the greater buy-in of a well-presented proposal
that engendered sufficient discussion and perhaps eventual wide consensus to
proceed with the detailed and accepted proposal. We are a long, long way from
any of this. Let's start with what might be broken or difficult or impossible
to solve with what we have now and go from there.
I'm not saying OSM couldn't benefit by such a scheme (I keep calling it "Web
3.0-flavored" and maybe I'm right, maybe not; pangoSE chiming in about whether
his proposal and elements of Web 3.0 overlap or not is very much appreciated).
I am saying, let's have it presented to the community in a way that is usual,
potentially successful, "problem first, solution second," bite-sized in a way
that makes comprehension widely accessible and solves "something" (rather than
as it appears now: a hive of snarls that looks like deliberate obfuscation by
high priests of special knowledge). Clearly-stated concepts of what this might
solve must come first. Presenting a technical solution without articulated
problems it might solve is backwards.
OSM now has an existing "history of object edits." If you "do it right," it is
technically possible to leverage this into what you are proposing ("tracking
objects" to "follow" them?) with absolutely no change to OSM's present database
model. Maybe this is a good idea, maybe not. But pangoSE has not even
identified any costs that wold be associated with changing OSM's database
model, he simply sent us a link to it (which we can find ourselves, but thanks
for the effort).
pangoSE: please stop ignoring me in these threads. I'm extending effort to
listen, your lack of reply seems disingenuous.
SteveA
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
