Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Simon Poole]

I replied to joosts mail here
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-February/005082.html


Am 20.02.2018 um 08:57 schrieb joost schouppe:
> This discussion shows once again how great we are at generating smart
> ideas. That definitely is not our problem. But all ideas are equal and
> will only get executed if the one who posited them executes them. As
> the project becomes more complex, that means you can either play in a
> corner by yourself, or try to effect change as an individual. It also
> means power to the devs and the time-rich, not to the community at
> large. None of which is optimal. 
> We need a way to turn a thread into competing ideas, and to turn
> winning ideas into actions. I'm not sure how we can do that, but I'm
> enthousiastic about Bryan Housel's just-do-it project of using a
> github issue tracker for that (see his position statement for the
> OSM-US elections [1]). I agree with emacsen that having such things
> run by a single developer is probably the worst possible solution, but
> I think this is a good enough idea to be worth a shot for being
> organised at OSMF level.
>
>
> 1: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Bhousel
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[joost schouppe]

This discussion shows once again how great we are at generating smart
ideas. That definitely is not our problem. But all ideas are equal and will
only get executed if the one who posited them executes them. As the project
becomes more complex, that means you can either play in a corner by
yourself, or try to effect change as an individual. It also means power to
the devs and the time-rich, not to the community at large. None of which is
optimal.
We need a way to turn a thread into competing ideas, and to turn winning
ideas into actions. I'm not sure how we can do that, but I'm enthousiastic
about Bryan Housel's just-do-it project of using a github issue tracker for
that (see his position statement for the OSM-US elections [1]). I agree
with emacsen that having such things run by a single developer is probably
the worst possible solution, but I think this is a good enough idea to be
worth a shot for being organised at OSMF level.


1: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Bhousel
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Maarten Deen  wrote:

> On 2018-02-17 10:56, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:
>
>> This article is on the front page of the Slashdot today:
>>
>> Fri 16 February 2018 "Why OpenStreetMap is in Serious Trouble"
>>
>> https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2018/02/16/osm-is-in-trouble/
>>
>
> Interesting that he mentions that "the proprietary mapping world has
> continued to improve in data quality".
>
> In the Netherlands I see the opposite for google maps. Sure, they may have
> improved their coverage in areas that were badly mapped of old (Africa,
> Asia) and I'm sure this can be contributed to OSM, but where Google starts
> to go haywire is in the properly mapped areas.
> New roads appear weeks even, months after they are finished (Netherlands
> A5 or the roundabout at Joure where Google even now gives you an option
> over the roundabout that does not exist anymore) but also in names of
> places. Google has started to use very quaint and hardly used translations
> for cities abroad.
> For instance, Ljubljana is now displayed as Laibach, Maribor is Marburg an
> der Drau, both German translations at best and not used in the Netherlands.
> Or a few even weirder ones in france, a place called Oz just north of
> l'Alpe D'Huez is now called Oostzijde (eastside) or Oradour-sur-Glane which
> shows as "Bloedbad van Oradour-sur-Glane" (bloodbath of Oradour-sur-Glane)


 It's just as bad in most of the US.  I covered this extensively on Reddit

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Tobias Zwick]

I also read this article and I found it identifies some areas in which
(the central infrastructure of) OpenStreetMap could improve.

What I do not like about this article is the deeply pessimistic and
resigned tone of it, like clickbait. It reads like "OSM needs to change
from the core up or else it will be doomed!".

Yeah, I don't think so.

And I do not think that this mode of appeal is that productive. It's
good if it sparks discussions about what we can and want to improve, but
I do not think that it is going to inspire anyone to "save" OSM by
innovating things. This is not how it works in FOSS, and not how
innovation works. AI detections of features from pictures/drone videos
for example is not going to happen because someone writes that we
_really_ need this now to keep up, but because someone is enthused about
the concept (and is able to capture others with that).
Also, Serge maybe doesn't know
https://blog.mapillary.com/update/2015/01/27/traffic-signs.html

That there might be a conflict of interest regarding pulling more
technology and services into the core OSM toolset is an interesting
thought that did not cross my mind before and that may very well be
true. Though on the other hand, I consider the fact that OSM runs on a
"shoestring budget" as something that contributes to OSM's
sustainability: I.e. I observe with concern that Wikimedia apparently
requires more and more money every year to survive.
OSM's minimalistic organizational structure is simply a different
concept than WP.

Regarding the "area" type, I agree that it would be a good improvement
to introduce a more fixed notion of areas in OSM data. To introduce
another data type has quite the ramifications on backward compatibility
but there may be other options. Right now, every single piece of
software needs to maintain an area detection based on tags like this:
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/blob/master/app/src/main/java/de/westnordost/streetcomplete/data/meta/OsmAreas.java#L13-L28
Naturally, it is different, thus inconsistent, for any piece of software
- and needs to be updated for any tagging scheme that comes up.

If I were to name the biggest challenge for us, it would be the
maintainability of the map data, a topic that he never mentions directly.

Tobias

On 17.2.2018 10:56 AM, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:
> This article is on the front page of the Slashdot today:
> 
> Fri 16 February 2018 "Why OpenStreetMap is in Serious Trouble"
> 
> https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2018/02/16/osm-is-in-trouble/
> 
> 
> "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps"
> 
> https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/02/16/2216228/the-future-of-free-and-open-source-maps
> 
> 
> 
> I actually read the article, and though it has got insightful
> information and interesting ideas, I have doubts about some suggestions.
> 
> For instance, reviews. I hope it will not come to what there is at some
> commercial maps, when one adds say a building and then has to wait for a
> month that an almighty moderator approves it, so that it appears on the
> map.
> 
> I also skeptical of massive imports from governments' databases. These
> databases were created in the last century, with outdated tools,
> sometimes by disinterested underpaid clerks, probably in a climate of
> secrecy of that era. And such an import may replace the quality data
> from modern satellite imagery, GPS traces, surveys, etc.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> O.
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


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

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Milo van der Linden]

"but where Google starts to go haywire is in the properly mapped areas."

As someone who lives remote in the Netherlands, I can agree to that. DHL,
UPS, even ambulances; they are still unable to find my house although I am
living here 7 years now.

But, I think OSM is also going haywire in the Netherlands, where we've all
been blinded by imports and lack true numbers of mappers to keep the entire
country acurate and actual. I have been using maps.me to route from my
house to Delft, Leiden, Utrecht and all the way up to Den Helder and I have
collected screenshots of strange routing errors that, in my personal
opinion, are due to nobody being involved in the road-routing quality in
the Netherlands. As routing is one of the basics for self driving cars,
this is (and on this I DO agree with the author of the blog) troublesome.

I still think (and I actively tried to send out this message between
2008~2012) that an inclusive community and growing such a community should
be one of the focus points of the OSMF.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-02-17 22:02, Jakob Mühldorfer wrote:

> Thanks for pointing it out to us!
> 
> I too have some thoughts on points in the article.
> One I agree with, one not
> 
> Let me start with this one:
> "No Support For Observational, or Other Datasets"
> This is the point I agree with.
> OSM is missing out on some valuable information due to this strict 
> "verifiable on the ground" policy.

The rule would better be expressed as "verifiable from public sources",
so that any member of the public can verify its correctness without
being privy to any secret or confidential knowledge. Admin boundaries
are a case in point; there is no dotted line across the fields, but the
route of the boundary is (usually) a matter of public record and
therefore verifiable without privileged access.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Jakob Mühldorfer]

Thanks for pointing it out to us!

I too have some thoughts on points in the article.
One I agree with, one not

Let me start with this one:
"No Support For Observational, or Other Datasets"
This is the point I agree with.
OSM is missing out on some valuable information due to this strict 
"verifiable on the ground" policy.
There is much more to a location, that the things that are currently 
there to see and easy to check.
I spent a long time browsing "atomic bomb text explosion sites" that are 
currently in OSM, a few people not interested in OSM were also really 
excited to see where they happened. But you would hardly be able or want 
to verify these?
Same goes for shipwrecks, they are accepted in the database, but how 
many people can first hand confirm the Titanic is really at this location?
I myself would also have liked to add a few locations or buildings used 
in movies, whoever dislikes such information could just ignore it.
Generally people who are experts in certain fields or have certain 
interest could generate a lot of highly interesting information, that 
others could learn from and that could also amaze "non OSM" people and 
get their interest in the project.


The thing I disagree with is
"OSM's Lack of Layers"
First concern is, that it would really restrict us.
How are you going to connect a highway to a building entrance? Have the 
entrance node on one layer, the building layer on another, the highway 
on a third, and then have some "relation style" super link across 
layers? Same for a ford on a highway over a river, and many more.
Second concern is, that it does not seem to be working in other maps 
that have it. Sure, it might more simple to write a few tools, but for 
example the map of the big G has illogical collisions of these layers in 
almost all parts of the world. Human editors would still need to work in 
the context of all layers to avoid these illogical "two features in once 
place" errors, and on a software level you would need a whole new set of 
complex validation software checking across all layers.


My thoughts on the issues



Am 17.02.2018 um 10:56 schrieb Oleksiy Muzalyev:

This article is on the front page of the Slashdot today:

Fri 16 February 2018 "Why OpenStreetMap is in Serious Trouble"

https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2018/02/16/osm-is-in-trouble/





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

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Colin Smale]

Java and Javascript have only those four letters in common. They are
completely unconnected in all other respects.

On 2018-02-17 19:54, john whelan wrote:

> JAVA script is used by web sites.  It does not require JAVA to be installed.
> 
> JAVA itself may or may not be a security risk the issue is that it has been 
> declared one by the US government in the past and that means many 
> organisations will not permit it to be installed.
> 
> Relevant because it is a constraint and has an impact.
> 
> Cheerio John 
> 
> On 17 February 2018 at 13:48, Nicolás Alvarez  
> wrote:
> 
>> Curiously enough those same organizations and governments then run
>> Java web apps on their servers. Java isn't a security risk, Java
>> applets running inside a browser are the problem. And that's blocked
>> by browsers nowadays.
>> 
>> I don't understand why this is relevant to the original discussion though...
>> 
>> --
>> Nicolás
>> 
>> 2018-02-17 15:27 GMT-03:00 john whelan :
>>> The JAVA issue comes up as many use work machines and since JAVA has been
>>> identified by the US government as a security risk some time ago many
>>> organisations do not permit it's installation on their equipment.
>>> 
>>> Which means in simple terms you can't use the building_tool plugin when
>>> mapping buildings and with new mappers that hurts data quality.
>>> 
>>> Cheerio John
>>> 
>>> On 17 Feb 2018 1:18 pm, "Mike N"  wrote:
 
 On 2/17/2018 11:01 AM, James wrote:
> 
> except it wouldnt be multiplatform and only run on windows 濫冷. Java is
> a better alternative as it's a popular language and is multiplatform. 
> C/c++
> is a bit more complicated and not everyone can contribute.
 
 
 That's no longer true - .Net is open source and generates multiplatform
 code and the C# language has an open source reference.
 
 That being said, Java is quite suitable for JOSM, and the security issues
 would rarely if ever surface in JOSM.  The big question is how well does
 JOSM serve as an OSM editor?   Quite well by a number of indicators.
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[john whelan]

JAVA script is used by web sites.  It does not require JAVA to be installed.

JAVA itself may or may not be a security risk the issue is that it has been
declared one by the US government in the past and that means many
organisations will not permit it to be installed.

Relevant because it is a constraint and has an impact.

Cheerio John

On 17 February 2018 at 13:48, Nicolás Alvarez 
wrote:

> Curiously enough those same organizations and governments then run
> Java web apps on their servers. Java isn't a security risk, Java
> applets running inside a browser are the problem. And that's blocked
> by browsers nowadays.
>
> I don't understand why this is relevant to the original discussion
> though...
>
> --
> Nicolás
>
> 2018-02-17 15:27 GMT-03:00 john whelan :
> > The JAVA issue comes up as many use work machines and since JAVA has been
> > identified by the US government as a security risk some time ago many
> > organisations do not permit it's installation on their equipment.
> >
> > Which means in simple terms you can't use the building_tool plugin when
> > mapping buildings and with new mappers that hurts data quality.
> >
> > Cheerio John
> >
> > On 17 Feb 2018 1:18 pm, "Mike N"  wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/17/2018 11:01 AM, James wrote:
> >>>
> >>> except it wouldnt be multiplatform and only run on windows 濫冷. Java
> is
> >>> a better alternative as it's a popular language and is multiplatform.
> C/c++
> >>> is a bit more complicated and not everyone can contribute.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's no longer true - .Net is open source and generates multiplatform
> >> code and the C# language has an open source reference.
> >>
> >>  That being said, Java is quite suitable for JOSM, and the security
> issues
> >> would rarely if ever surface in JOSM.  The big question is how well does
> >> JOSM serve as an OSM editor?   Quite well by a number of indicators.
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Nicolás Alvarez]

Curiously enough those same organizations and governments then run
Java web apps on their servers. Java isn't a security risk, Java
applets running inside a browser are the problem. And that's blocked
by browsers nowadays.

I don't understand why this is relevant to the original discussion though...

-- 
Nicolás

2018-02-17 15:27 GMT-03:00 john whelan :
> The JAVA issue comes up as many use work machines and since JAVA has been
> identified by the US government as a security risk some time ago many
> organisations do not permit it's installation on their equipment.
>
> Which means in simple terms you can't use the building_tool plugin when
> mapping buildings and with new mappers that hurts data quality.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 17 Feb 2018 1:18 pm, "Mike N"  wrote:
>>
>> On 2/17/2018 11:01 AM, James wrote:
>>>
>>> except it wouldnt be multiplatform and only run on windows 濫冷. Java is
>>> a better alternative as it's a popular language and is multiplatform. C/c++
>>> is a bit more complicated and not everyone can contribute.
>>
>>
>> That's no longer true - .Net is open source and generates multiplatform
>> code and the C# language has an open source reference.
>>
>>  That being said, Java is quite suitable for JOSM, and the security issues
>> would rarely if ever surface in JOSM.  The big question is how well does
>> JOSM serve as an OSM editor?   Quite well by a number of indicators.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[john whelan]

The JAVA issue comes up as many use work machines and since JAVA has been
identified by the US government as a security risk some time ago many
organisations do not permit it's installation on their equipment.

Which means in simple terms you can't use the building_tool plugin when
mapping buildings and with new mappers that hurts data quality.

Cheerio John

On 17 Feb 2018 1:18 pm, "Mike N"  wrote:

> On 2/17/2018 11:01 AM, James wrote:
>
>> except it wouldnt be multiplatform and only run on windows 濫冷. Java is
>> a better alternative as it's a popular language and is multiplatform. C/c++
>> is a bit more complicated and not everyone can contribute.
>>
>
> That's no longer true - .Net is open source and generates multiplatform
> code and the C# language has an open source reference.
>
>  That being said, Java is quite suitable for JOSM, and the security issues
> would rarely if ever surface in JOSM.  The big question is how well does
> JOSM serve as an OSM editor?   Quite well by a number of indicators.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[James]

You would need to install mono to run it and not everyone has mono or wants
it installed(thats the problem with Virtual Machine languages). We would
also have to rename it to Cosm. Doesn't have a nice ring to it ;).

On Feb 17, 2018 1:19 PM, "Mike N"  wrote:

> On 2/17/2018 11:01 AM, James wrote:
>
>> except it wouldnt be multiplatform and only run on windows 濫冷. Java is
>> a better alternative as it's a popular language and is multiplatform. C/c++
>> is a bit more complicated and not everyone can contribute.
>>
>
> That's no longer true - .Net is open source and generates multiplatform
> code and the C# language has an open source reference.
>
>  That being said, Java is quite suitable for JOSM, and the security issues
> would rarely if ever surface in JOSM.  The big question is how well does
> JOSM serve as an OSM editor?   Quite well by a number of indicators.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Mike N]

On 2/17/2018 11:01 AM, James wrote:
except it wouldnt be multiplatform and only run on windows 濫冷. Java is 
a better alternative as it's a popular language and is multiplatform. 
C/c++ is a bit more complicated and not everyone can contribute.


That's no longer true - .Net is open source and generates multiplatform 
code and the C# language has an open source reference.


 That being said, Java is quite suitable for JOSM, and the security 
issues would rarely if ever surface in JOSM.  The big question is how 
well does JOSM serve as an OSM editor?   Quite well by a number of 
indicators.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Nicolás Alvarez]

El 17 feb. 2018, a la(s) 06:56, Oleksiy Muzalyev  
escribió:

> This article is on the front page of the Slashdot today:
> 
> Fri 16 February 2018 "Why OpenStreetMap is in Serious Trouble"
> 
> https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2018/02/16/osm-is-in-trouble/
> 
> 
> "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps"
> 
> https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/02/16/2216228/the-future-of-free-and-open-source-maps
> 
> 
> I actually read the article, and though it has got insightful information and 
> interesting ideas, I have doubts about some suggestions.
> 
> For instance, reviews. I hope it will not come to what there is at some 
> commercial maps, when one adds say a building and then has to wait for a 
> month that an almighty moderator approves it, so that it appears on the map.

There is a big technical problem with reviews too, which is conflicts. 
Currently you get an edit conflict if someone makes another change to the same 
objects after you download map data and before you upload your changes; but 
usually that's a short period of time.

If changes are held for review and only "merged" back to the main database 
after they were reviewed, conflicts can happen if there is an edit between 
downloading the original data and someone approving your change, which could 
happen days or weeks later. Thus, such conflicts will be a lot more frequent. 
Who will resolve the conflict? The editor or the reviewer? And will we need 
some very smart software to try to auto-resolve some kinds of merge conflicts?

The other obvious problem is: do we have enough experienced and motivated 
people to do the reviews and keep up with the rate of incoming changes?

Finally, will this need tiering of users? If experienced users can make changes 
bypassing the review process and/or only experienced users can review other 
people's changes, who decides when you get the "experienced" flag and under 
what criteria?


All this also makes me think that the individual points of the blog post may 
need to be discussed separately. It's not a single all-or-nothing proposal, 
it's a list of mostly-independent identified problems, and some are more 
feasible to solve than others.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[James]

except it wouldnt be multiplatform and only run on windows 濫冷. Java is a
better alternative as it's a popular language and is multiplatform. C/c++
is a bit more complicated and not everyone can contribute.

On Feb 17, 2018 10:56 AM, "john whelan"  wrote:

> I think that highlights the point on the limited resources available on
> the resource side.
>
> What we have sort of works.  Could it be better?  Most probably.
>
> The JOSM editor is very nice but it runs over JAVA and JAVA has been
> recognised as a security problem and it not recommended for many
> corporations.
>
> Something in Visual Basic sorry Visual Studio Express might be more
> acceptable.
>
> Most commercial coding these days is done in Visual Studio for good
> reasons.  To change the database architecture and the associated
> infrastructure is a fairly large change.  There is a lot of investment in
> what we have but on the other hand the most valuable bit of what we have is
> the data and that can moved across.
>
> Will it happen.  Probably not.  Normally what causes this sort of change
> is money.  Things like support costs, what do we do when the guys who know
> this stuff disappear?  Can we demonstrate the code is clean and reliable?
> I don't think there is anyone looking at these sort of things.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 17 February 2018 at 09:45, Eugene Alvin Villar 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:53 PM, john whelan 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Possibly a technical working group to identify areas that could be
>>> improved or even if we were to start over again how would we do it from a
>>> technical point of view?  Funding would be a different problem.
>>>
>>
>> I believe the now-defunct Strategic Working Group (
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Strategic_Working_Group) is what you
>> are looking for?
>>
>> ~Eugene
>>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[john whelan]

I think that highlights the point on the limited resources available on the
resource side.

What we have sort of works.  Could it be better?  Most probably.

The JOSM editor is very nice but it runs over JAVA and JAVA has been
recognised as a security problem and it not recommended for many
corporations.

Something in Visual Basic sorry Visual Studio Express might be more
acceptable.

Most commercial coding these days is done in Visual Studio for good
reasons.  To change the database architecture and the associated
infrastructure is a fairly large change.  There is a lot of investment in
what we have but on the other hand the most valuable bit of what we have is
the data and that can moved across.

Will it happen.  Probably not.  Normally what causes this sort of change is
money.  Things like support costs, what do we do when the guys who know
this stuff disappear?  Can we demonstrate the code is clean and reliable?
I don't think there is anyone looking at these sort of things.

Cheerio John

On 17 February 2018 at 09:45, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:53 PM, john whelan 
> wrote:
>
>> Possibly a technical working group to identify areas that could be
>> improved or even if we were to start over again how would we do it from a
>> technical point of view?  Funding would be a different problem.
>>
>
> I believe the now-defunct Strategic Working Group (
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Strategic_Working_Group) is what you
> are looking for?
>
> ~Eugene
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:53 PM, john whelan  wrote:

> Possibly a technical working group to identify areas that could be
> improved or even if we were to start over again how would we do it from a
> technical point of view?  Funding would be a different problem.
>

I believe the now-defunct Strategic Working Group (
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Strategic_Working_Group) is what you
are looking for?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[john whelan]

I think there are some valid points but change is hard and needs a lot more
resources than we have available at the moment.

HOT has a validation process but if you look at their projects its rarely
used and when it is a new mapper has been permitted to validate.

OSM has come as far as it has with a bottom up approach.  It's worked
fairly well to get us to this point.  However it is now apparent that a
look at the architecture and funding might be worthwhile.

It's noticeable that there are a number of clean up projects at the
moment.  Place names and telephones in Canada, some work on classification
of unpaved highways by Fernando Trebien so some things are happening.

Having said that there is a lot of inertia to overcome even if we could
decide what would be best.

Possibly a technical working group to identify areas that could be improved
or even if we were to start over again how would we do it from a technical
point of view?  Funding would be a different problem.

Cheerio John

On 17 February 2018 at 06:58, Michał Brzozowski  wrote:

> The emacsen's blog post is spot on. I see it as a call for change from a
> person who genuinely cares about OSM, not a bitter rant.
>
> When you say A and the world says B, it maybe well worth considering that
> B is the way to go.
>
> I think many other people share his views, but were afraid to voice it,
> just because of being told "that's the way we do things".
>
> Sure we can't have all of what he outlined, but doing even half of it
> would really benefit us.  What was sufficient in 2008 may need to be
> adjusted in 2018.
>
> The great challenge is not of technical, but rather political nature.
>
> I see hope in local communities. They bridged the gap with their tools,
> maps and promotion efforts. But this doesn't mean OSMF has to slack off. If
> only more of talented and, most importantly, motivated people from local
> chapters would want to drive OSMF forward...
>
> Changing your mission statement is not acknowledging you were wrong. It's
> acknowledging the world has changed or maybe has different needs.
>
> All in all it's not about blaming each other, but working towards our
> common goal of mapping the world freely.
>
> Michało
>
> 17.02.2018 11:03 AM "Oleksiy Muzalyev" 
> napisał(a):
>
>> This article is on the front page of the Slashdot today:
>>
>> Fri 16 February 2018 "Why OpenStreetMap is in Serious Trouble"
>>
>> https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2018/02/16/osm-is-in-trouble/
>>
>>
>> "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps"
>>
>> https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/02/16/2216228/the-future-
>> of-free-and-open-source-maps
>>
>>
>> I actually read the article, and though it has got insightful information
>> and interesting ideas, I have doubts about some suggestions.
>>
>> For instance, reviews. I hope it will not come to what there is at some
>> commercial maps, when one adds say a building and then has to wait for a
>> month that an almighty moderator approves it, so that it appears on the map.
>>
>> I also skeptical of massive imports from governments' databases. These
>> databases were created in the last century, with outdated tools, sometimes
>> by disinterested underpaid clerks, probably in a climate of secrecy of that
>> era. And such an import may replace the quality data from modern satellite
>> imagery, GPS traces, surveys, etc.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> O.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Michał Brzozowski]

The emacsen's blog post is spot on. I see it as a call for change from a
person who genuinely cares about OSM, not a bitter rant.

When you say A and the world says B, it maybe well worth considering that B
is the way to go.

I think many other people share his views, but were afraid to voice it,
just because of being told "that's the way we do things".

Sure we can't have all of what he outlined, but doing even half of it would
really benefit us.  What was sufficient in 2008 may need to be adjusted in
2018.

The great challenge is not of technical, but rather political nature.

I see hope in local communities. They bridged the gap with their tools,
maps and promotion efforts. But this doesn't mean OSMF has to slack off. If
only more of talented and, most importantly, motivated people from local
chapters would want to drive OSMF forward...

Changing your mission statement is not acknowledging you were wrong. It's
acknowledging the world has changed or maybe has different needs.

All in all it's not about blaming each other, but working towards our
common goal of mapping the world freely.

Michało

17.02.2018 11:03 AM "Oleksiy Muzalyev" 
napisał(a):

> This article is on the front page of the Slashdot today:
>
> Fri 16 February 2018 "Why OpenStreetMap is in Serious Trouble"
>
> https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2018/02/16/osm-is-in-trouble/
>
>
> "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps"
>
> https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/02/16/2216228/the-future-
> of-free-and-open-source-maps
>
>
> I actually read the article, and though it has got insightful information
> and interesting ideas, I have doubts about some suggestions.
>
> For instance, reviews. I hope it will not come to what there is at some
> commercial maps, when one adds say a building and then has to wait for a
> month that an almighty moderator approves it, so that it appears on the map.
>
> I also skeptical of massive imports from governments' databases. These
> databases were created in the last century, with outdated tools, sometimes
> by disinterested underpaid clerks, probably in a climate of secrecy of that
> era. And such an import may replace the quality data from modern satellite
> imagery, GPS traces, surveys, etc.
>
> Best regards,
>
> O.
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Tomas Straupis]

2018-02-17 11:56 GMT+02:00 Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:
> For instance, reviews. I hope it will not come to what there is at some
> commercial maps, when one adds say a building and then has to wait for a
> month that an almighty moderator approves it, so that it appears on the map.

  This is an expected problem with the process:
  edit->review->map*

  But a different approach:
  edit->map->review
  is already used and shows very good results when done properly:
  a) only changesets of new users are to be reviewed
  b) only reviewers can review changesets
  c) if a user has created x new objects (1000?), he/she is
automatically promoted to "reviewers" from "new users".
  d) new changests go into FIFO que which is later reviewed. After
being reviewed by at least one reviewer changeset is taken out of the
que in order to avoid double-work
  e) possibility to "subscribe" to new changesets in your region of
interest (should not be restricted to bbox, but countries, regions
etc.)

* "map" - here means objects appear in a database, on a map etc.

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Maarten Deen]

On 2018-02-17 10:56, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:

This article is on the front page of the Slashdot today:

Fri 16 February 2018 "Why OpenStreetMap is in Serious Trouble"

https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2018/02/16/osm-is-in-trouble/


Interesting that he mentions that "the proprietary mapping world has 
continued to improve in data quality".


In the Netherlands I see the opposite for google maps. Sure, they may 
have improved their coverage in areas that were badly mapped of old 
(Africa, Asia) and I'm sure this can be contributed to OSM, but where 
Google starts to go haywire is in the properly mapped areas.
New roads appear weeks even, months after they are finished (Netherlands 
A5 or the roundabout at Joure where Google even now gives you an option 
over the roundabout that does not exist anymore) but also in names of 
places. Google has started to use very quaint and hardly used 
translations for cities abroad.
For instance, Ljubljana is now displayed as Laibach, Maribor is Marburg 
an der Drau, both German translations at best and not used in the 
Netherlands. Or a few even weirder ones in france, a place called Oz 
just north of l'Alpe D'Huez is now called Oostzijde (eastside) or 
Oradour-sur-Glane which shows as "Bloedbad van Oradour-sur-Glane" 
(bloodbath of Oradour-sur-Glane)


No, I don't make these up. In my eyes these things are a lot more 
serious than a perceived general malaise in OSM. Because other than in 
OSM, as you correctly point out, I can not change these incorrect items 
in Google. I can halfheartedly issue a defect but the reporting process 
is flawed in itself and the general feeling is that noting is done with 
those reports.


No, I don't see a bleak future for OSM, instead, I the quality of (in 
this case) google maps slipping. That does not mean that the future of 
google maps is in danger, Google as more than enough money to throw at 
it. But to think that this free open thing with no money is hitting a 
dead and the the closed thing with lots of money is thriving is also not 
true.


Maarten

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

[OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

[Oleksiy Muzalyev]

This article is on the front page of the Slashdot today:

Fri 16 February 2018 "Why OpenStreetMap is in Serious Trouble"

https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2018/02/16/osm-is-in-trouble/


"The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps"

https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/02/16/2216228/the-future-of-free-and-open-source-maps


I actually read the article, and though it has got insightful 
information and interesting ideas, I have doubts about some suggestions.


For instance, reviews. I hope it will not come to what there is at some 
commercial maps, when one adds say a building and then has to wait for a 
month that an almighty moderator approves it, so that it appears on the map.


I also skeptical of massive imports from governments' databases. These 
databases were created in the last century, with outdated tools, 
sometimes by disinterested underpaid clerks, probably in a climate of 
secrecy of that era. And such an import may replace the quality data 
from modern satellite imagery, GPS traces, surveys, etc.


Best regards,

O.


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