Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
At 10:22 AM 5/17/2008, Steve Hill wrote: Peter Miller wrote: I agree. I think we need to adopt a Wikipedia concept of 'notability'. For example... A wood is notable, a large established solitary tree in a park might be notable, but a nettle is not. Is a rare plant notable? I would suggest it is not notable in OSM itself. I'm afraid I see the notability criteria as one of Wikipedia's biggest problems so I would hate to see OSM go the same way. I've seen too many genuinely useful articles get blown away because someone decided they covered non-notable subjects, to the point that I gave up editing Wikipedia. The point is: why should anyone care about notability so long as the data is useful, accurate and maintained? +1 to Steve's Wiki comment and point. Unlike Wiki, we have the advantage that it is the renderer that controls what folks finally see - and at what zoom level - , not the database. I feel certain, though, that we will *eventually* have a core OSM database and then things like a multiple and/or read-only coastlines database plus optional specialist databases for history, plants, geology, geomorphology, school projects, art projects ... . But we need to be really sure we have got our basic structures how we want them before adding another layer of complexity for our hard-working sys admins and software writers. I suggest Masterly Inactivity be the current strategy. Meanwhile, let folks add what they want. Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
Peter Miller wrote: I agree. I think we need to adopt a Wikipedia concept of 'notability'. For example... A wood is notable, a large established solitary tree in a park might be notable, but a nettle is not. Is a rare plant notable? I would suggest it is not notable in OSM itself. I'm afraid I see the notability criteria as one of Wikipedia's biggest problems so I would hate to see OSM go the same way. I've seen too many genuinely useful articles get blown away because someone decided they covered non-notable subjects, to the point that I gave up editing Wikipedia. The point is: why should anyone care about notability so long as the data is useful, accurate and maintained? Wikipedia's deletion policies are deeply flawed: There are a group of users who make it their mission to delete articles. When they nominate an article for deletion, most of the people who vote either wrote the article, or one of the group who's sole mission is to delete stuff - no one else cares enough about the deletion procedure to take part. So the majority of the time, well written articles get deleted purely because of the massive bias in the quorum who vote on deletions. I sincerely hope OSM doesn't decide to go down a similar route. -- - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
Steve Hill wrote: Peter Miller wrote: I agree. I think we need to adopt a Wikipedia concept of 'notability'. For example... A wood is notable, a large established solitary tree in a park might be notable, but a nettle is not. Is a rare plant notable? I would suggest it is not notable in OSM itself. I'm afraid I see the notability criteria as one of Wikipedia's biggest problems so I would hate to see OSM go the same way. I've seen too many genuinely useful articles get blown away because someone decided they covered non-notable subjects, to the point that I gave up editing Wikipedia. Same here The point is: why should anyone care about notability so long as the data is useful, accurate and maintained? Wikipedia's deletion policies are deeply flawed: There are a group of users who make it their mission to delete articles. When they nominate an article for deletion, most of the people who vote either wrote the article, or one of the group who's sole mission is to delete stuff - no one else cares enough about the deletion procedure to take part. So the majority of the time, well written articles get deleted purely because of the massive bias in the quorum who vote on deletions. I sincerely hope OSM doesn't decide to go down a similar route. I would possibly be nice to have something equivalent to 'namespaces' where material could be ring fenced and managed as a package of data. I suppose I am thinking laterally here again. With the growing volume of data I still see the need to perhaps slice it up so that mirror servers can be managed that provide a local subset of the raw data. A plant directory or something like that could then be provided on that local mirror, with the data being replicated back to the master copy only if approved. This is in essence how the nlpg database works, each council has it's own local copy, and agreed data is replicated to the national copy. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
Steve Hill wrote: Peter Miller wrote: I agree. I think we need to adopt a Wikipedia concept of 'notability'. For example... A wood is notable, a large established solitary tree in a park I'm afraid I see the notability criteria as one of Wikipedia's biggest problems so I would hate to see OSM go the same way. I've seen too many Please, the two are not comparable. To my own surprise, I have turned into a supporter of deletions on Wikipedia. Not indiscriminate, of course, but in certain cases, and they are more frequent than I had thought at first. But the same reasons are not present in OpenStreetMap. Instead of the keep/delete issue, it would be useful for OpenStreetMap (in the API and JOSM) to clearly indicate when an object was last edited. If I look at a part of a city and ask myself, whether this crossing really is a roundabout, then it would be useful to know if that information was added in 2008 or 2006. This is a problem we didn't have in 2006, because we had no areas that were mapped two years earlier. Now we have that. It could also be useful to be able to validate (check, confirm) older map features, e.g. this motorway was drawn by SteveC in 2006 and was validated (timestamped but not altered) by LA2 in 2008. It could be as simple as adding a tag validated=2008-05-17/LA2. Then we could have people go around and validate all objects that haven't been touched in, say, five years. The point is: why should anyone care about notability so long as the data is useful, accurate and maintained? In our case, the point is that it's hard to know (or will be in a few years) whether data is maintained or not. How can you tell? -- Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Lars Aronsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It could also be useful to be able to validate (check, confirm) older map features, e.g. this motorway was drawn by SteveC in 2006 and was validated (timestamped but not altered) by LA2 in 2008. It could be as simple as adding a tag validated=2008-05-17/LA2. Then we could have people go around and validate all objects that haven't been touched in, say, five years. Previous discussion on this idea: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Checked_by ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
Lars Aronsson schrieb: Steve Hill wrote: Peter Miller wrote: I agree. I think we need to adopt a Wikipedia concept of 'notability'. For example... A wood is notable, a large established solitary tree in a park I'm afraid I see the notability criteria as one of Wikipedia's biggest problems so I would hate to see OSM go the same way. I've seen too many Please, the two are not comparable. To my own surprise, I have turned into a supporter of deletions on Wikipedia. Not indiscriminate, of course, but in certain cases, and they are more frequent than I had thought at first. But the same reasons are not present in OpenStreetMap. Instead of the keep/delete issue, it would be useful for OpenStreetMap (in the API and JOSM) to clearly indicate when an object was last edited. If I look at a part of a city and ask myself, whether this crossing really is a roundabout, then it would be useful to know if that information was added in 2008 or 2006. This is a problem we didn't have in 2006, because we had no areas that were mapped two years earlier. Now we have that. It could also be useful to be able to validate (check, confirm) older map features, e.g. this motorway was drawn by SteveC in 2006 and was validated (timestamped but not altered) by LA2 in 2008. It could be as simple as adding a tag validated=2008-05-17/LA2. Then we could have people go around and validate all objects that haven't been touched in, say, five years. One information will be lost for sure with the current model which is NOT comparabel to Wikipedia. Time! If you ever wish to show map items before this moment we need old information. For plants is's obvious that you will gather data from the comparison of different times. I am not going conform with you just to concentrate on the thin layer of presence. regards, Stephan. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
Anyone involved with the National Trust? Apparently they are mapping every plant in their gardens all over Britain. Do they know they just need OSM and a few new tags (plant=nettle for example). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7395915.stm elvin ibbotson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
This data is a little bit on the specialised side for osm. I would say that it would be better to setup a separate database and site specifically for this purpose based on the current osm software and tools. Then if they want to map roads they deal with that from the osm data side. When it comes to map renders they merge the rendered maps with the help of transparency or icons/data on rendering. Shaun On 16 May 2008, at 10:04, elvin ibbotson wrote: Anyone involved with the National Trust? Apparently they are mapping every plant in their gardens all over Britain. Do they know they just need OSM and a few new tags (plant=nettle for example). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7395915.stm elvin ibbotson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
elvin ibbotson wrote: Anyone involved with the National Trust? Apparently they are mapping every plant in their gardens all over Britain. Do they know they just need OSM and a few new tags (plant=nettle for example). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7395915.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7395915.stm I saw this too. They (we - I'm a life member) want to describe and record every plant, even weeds, in some of their gardens. Positioning every plant in a garden is extreme micro mapping, far beyond the resolution of a consumer GPS. I will contact them to see if they want to put every NT property on the map though. From that they could have a list of plants at that property connected to a label layer on a slippy map. Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
Message: 2 Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:22:40 +0100 From: Shaun McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap To: elvin ibbotson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii This data is a little bit on the specialised side for osm. I agree. I think we need to adopt a Wikipedia concept of 'notability'. For example... A wood is notable, a large established solitary tree in a park might be notable, but a nettle is not. Is a rare plant notable? I would suggest it is not notable in OSM itself. Possibly we will end up with specialist versions of OSM for different purposes, for example for OpenPlantMap to accommodate details of plants. Wikipedia set up Wikia.com to hold these other datasets. These other DBs should possibly share a base layer of OSM data (roads, buildings etc) so they can build specialist stuff on top of that and not folk the core data. People would then be able to dip into OSM for core data and supplement it with data from other projects. Peter I would say that it would be better to setup a separate database and site specifically for this purpose based on the current osm software and tools. Then if they want to map roads they deal with that from the osm data side. When it comes to map renders they merge the rendered maps with the help of transparency or icons/data on rendering. Shaun On 16 May 2008, at 10:04, elvin ibbotson wrote: Anyone involved with the National Trust? Apparently they are mapping every plant in their gardens all over Britain. Do they know they just need OSM and a few new tags (plant=nettle for example). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7395915.stm elvin ibbotson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
There's something suspicious about that bbc video. Those people look like bad actors. I have the impression that they are simply trying to call some attention, just to remind us (or remind you) that the National Trust exists. In my case, it has worked. I had never heard about such institution and now I have visited their website and read a couple paragraphs. Nice website, btw. Lucas De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] en nombre de Peter Miller Enviado el: vie 16/05/2008 13:21 Para: talk@openstreetmap.org Asunto: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap Message: 2 Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:22:40 +0100 From: Shaun McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap To: elvin ibbotson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii This data is a little bit on the specialised side for osm. I agree. I think we need to adopt a Wikipedia concept of 'notability'. For example... A wood is notable, a large established solitary tree in a park might be notable, but a nettle is not. Is a rare plant notable? I would suggest it is not notable in OSM itself. Possibly we will end up with specialist versions of OSM for different purposes, for example for OpenPlantMap to accommodate details of plants. Wikipedia set up Wikia.com to hold these other datasets. These other DBs should possibly share a base layer of OSM data (roads, buildings etc) so they can build specialist stuff on top of that and not folk the core data. People would then be able to dip into OSM for core data and supplement it with data from other projects. Peter I would say that it would be better to setup a separate database and site specifically for this purpose based on the current osm software and tools. Then if they want to map roads they deal with that from the osm data side. When it comes to map renders they merge the rendered maps with the help of transparency or icons/data on rendering. Shaun On 16 May 2008, at 10:04, elvin ibbotson wrote: Anyone involved with the National Trust? Apparently they are mapping every plant in their gardens all over Britain. Do they know they just need OSM and a few new tags (plant=nettle for example). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7395915.stm elvin ibbotson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap
Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio schrieb: There's something suspicious about that bbc video. Those people look like bad actors. I have the impression that they are simply trying to call some attention, just to remind us (or remind you) that the National Trust exists. mhmm, you know Britain at all, go and persue yourself. regards, Stephan. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
