Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap

[Michael Collinson]

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

[Stephan Schildberg]

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap

[OJ W]

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]

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

[Lester Caine]

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]

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

[Stephan Schildberg]

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap

[Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio]

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

[Chris Hill]

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
> 
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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap

[Shaun McDonald]

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