Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:14:15 +0100, Martin Fossdal Guttesen wrote: > The best way to get rid of bot changes is to ensure that as fews as > possible errors get into osm Currently even if my area is error free I see errors from across the globe :( -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
On 10 Apr 2010, at 03:33, Martin Fossdal Guttesen wrote:
> Sorry i dont know Flash or ActionScript
>
> and after thinking about it. it would be better to handle it on the server
> and i dont know rails ruby or what it is called
>
> but i have looked at the source and i think i have found the spot where the
> change has to be made
> in way.rb line 189
>
> def add_tag_keyval(k, v)
>@tags = Hash.new unless @tags
>
># duplicate tags are now forbidden, so we can't allow values
># in the hash to be overwritten.
>raise OSM::APIDuplicateTagsError.new("way", self.id, k) if
> @tags.include? k
>
>@tags[k] = v
> end
>
> as i said before i dont know ruby, but a little googling i found strip
> so i think that it should be
>
> @tags[k.strip] = v.strip
>
> there should also be a check if the trimmed v and k are empty and raise
> errors accordingly
Actually you'll find that keys and values of zero length are explicitly allowed
take a look at the *_tag model validations and the relevant unit tests.
Shaun
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
Sorry i dont know Flash or ActionScript
and after thinking about it. it would be better to handle it on the server
and i dont know rails ruby or what it is called
but i have looked at the source and i think i have found the spot where the
change has to be made
in way.rb line 189
def add_tag_keyval(k, v)
@tags = Hash.new unless @tags
# duplicate tags are now forbidden, so we can't allow values
# in the hash to be overwritten.
raise OSM::APIDuplicateTagsError.new("way", self.id, k) if
@tags.include? k
@tags[k] = v
end
as i said before i dont know ruby, but a little googling i found strip
so i think that it should be
@tags[k.strip] = v.strip
there should also be a check if the trimmed v and k are empty and raise
errors accordingly
and the same changes should also be made in node.rb line 255
cheers
Martin (LiFo)
--
From: "Richard Fairhurst"
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 4:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
>
> Martin Fossdal Guttesen wrote:
>> it should be a nobrainer to automaticly remove surrounding
>> whitespace in potlatch when a user enters one
>
> I agree. Since it's so easy, I look forward to your patch. :)
>
> cheers
> Richard
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n2.nabble.com/xybot-edit-area-size-tp4863523p4877907.html
> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
The best way to get rid of bot changes is to ensure that as fews as possible errors get into osm no errors = no need to correct some of the corrections made by xybot are possible to avoid by making the editors a little smarter foreksample "Removing surrounding whitespace and empty tags" i checked one node and it was a trailing whitespace made in Potlatch 1.3e it should be a nobrainer to automaticly remove surrounding whitespace in potlatch when a user enters one -- From: "Frederik Ramm" Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 3:15 PM To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" Cc: Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size > Hi, > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> Isn't there some option to osmosis that bot operators could easily use >> to convert their huge .osc files into something that's split by either >> 10km^2 or 1000 changes, whatever comes first? > > Neither option exists, and the first one you mention is not even > possible since osc files do not necessarily have spatial information for > ways and relations. > > Bye > Frederik > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
Martin Fossdal Guttesen wrote: > it should be a nobrainer to automaticly remove surrounding > whitespace in potlatch when a user enters one I agree. Since it's so easy, I look forward to your patch. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/xybot-edit-area-size-tp4863523p4877907.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
The best way to get rid of bot changes is to ensure that as fews as possible errors get into osm no errors = no need to correct some of the corrections made by xybot are possible to avoid by making the editors a little smarter foreksample "Removing surrounding whitespace and empty tags" i checked one node and it was a trailing whitespace made in Potlatch 1.3e it should be a nobrainer to automaticly remove surrounding whitespace in potlatch when a user enters one -- From: "Frederik Ramm" Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 3:15 PM To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" Cc: Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size > Hi, > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> Isn't there some option to osmosis that bot operators could easily use >> to convert their huge .osc files into something that's split by either >> 10km^2 or 1000 changes, whatever comes first? > > Neither option exists, and the first one you mention is not even > possible since osc files do not necessarily have spatial information for > ways and relations. > > Bye > Frederik > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
Hi, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > Isn't there some option to osmosis that bot operators could easily use > to convert their huge .osc files into something that's split by either > 10km^2 or 1000 changes, whatever comes first? Neither option exists, and the first one you mention is not even possible since osc files do not necessarily have spatial information for ways and relations. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
Isn't there some option to osmosis that bot operators could easily use to convert their huge .osc files into something that's split by either 10km^2 or 1000 changes, whatever comes first? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:57:37 +, Valent Turkovic wrote: >> It would be ideal if it would use small areas of only few square km >> around each edit, idea beeing so that xybot edits don't show in history >> tab when looking at some area that wasn't edited. > > Example of area size that xybot uses: > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/184632/xybot.png > > Ideally I would like to see bot edits in area that I'm looking at but > not ones 5000km away ;( Anybody? -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
Maarten Deen schrieb: > Oh, right. They are in the osm file but not in the element that is being > processed at that time. It would make it a tad more complicated to get that > data at that point. yep... > But what would be against starting with a osm file with a smaller bbox as > input? sources for the worldwide edits are the diff from http://planet.openstreetmap.org/hour-replicate/000/003/ in some cases xybot is using country excerpts from http://download.geofabrik.de/osm/europe/ but they are still very large and it takes geofabrik around 7-9 hours to produce them each day. > Or uploading single items in seperate changesets? as i wrote before, this would lead changesets ad absurdum frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
Hi, On 8 April 2010 12:45, Frank Sautter wrote: > normally a osm-xml file is piped through a bot (e.g. perl script). if it > stumbles upon something fishy (e.g. a multiple consecutive nodes in a > way) it will correct this problem on this entity. it does not know where > in the world this problem is. it doesn't have a big database in the > background which it could query where this entity is located and store > it until the pipe has reached EOF and then make some handy spatial > chunks of all its changes. > > the next question would be: what is the "right" size of a changeset? > 10m², 100m², 1km², 10km², 100km², 1000km² > > the only solution to really fix the spamming of the history tab the way > the history tab is implemented right now would be to put each change in > its own changeset. but that's what we had in api 0.5 and would lead > changesets ad absurdum and i believe a single bot-run should result in a > single changeset. It still wouldn't be ideal because you might be editing a long diagonal way and the changeset would be visible in history anywhere in the rectangle defined by the two ends. Really the only solution is if the tab used something like ST_Intersect on the geometries instead of on the bboxes and this is more intensive computationally. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:24:50 +0200, Frank Sautter wrote: > Maarten Deen schrieb: >> Do correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the nodes have lat/lon with them >> and >> is the location therefore known? > just have a look: http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/101/ Oh, right. They are in the osm file but not in the element that is being processed at that time. It would make it a tad more complicated to get that data at that point. But what would be against starting with a osm file with a smaller bbox as input? Or uploading single items in seperate changesets? Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
Maarten Deen schrieb: > Do correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the nodes have lat/lon with > them and is the location therefore known? just have a look: http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/101/ frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
Gregory schrieb: > Ban botsone!!! one of the keys on your keyboard seems to be stuck ;-) > I don't really like how they run on the whole world, and not even on > a country level. Why are they just editing one node here and there, > it could make more programmic sense to download an appropriate-sized > area, work through it (doing what ever checks these bots deem > important) and then upload the 'corrections' for that area. again: what should be the size of those "appropriate-sized areas"? > This certainly makes it easier if people implement a bots=no on areas > to flag that bots should not mess with their turf. aahh i see, some areas contain only YOUR precious data. is your middle name Gollum? alone xybot is fixing several thousand errors each day, not including all the other bots that are active, but they still leave many errors behind that could not be fixed by a peace of software... i'm curious how many errors will show up in http://keepright.ipax.at/ or http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ in YOUR "nobot" aera and how many this would be if they would not be constantly fixed by all those bots. frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:45:44 +0200, Frank Sautter wrote: > Valent Turkovic schrieb: >> But still ideal situation is that bots also use much smaller areas >> for edits so that you see if some bot has changed something in your >> area of interest, right? > most bots (and also xybot) do not have any clue about the spatial > aspects of a way or relation. > > normally a osm-xml file is piped through a bot (e.g. perl script). if it > stumbles upon something fishy (e.g. a multiple consecutive nodes in a > way) it will correct this problem on this entity. it does not know where > in the world this problem is. it doesn't have a big database in the > background which it could query where this entity is located and store > it until the pipe has reached EOF and then make some handy spatial > chunks of all its changes. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the nodes have lat/lon with them and is the location therefore known? Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
Valent Turkovic schrieb: > But still ideal situation is that bots also use much smaller areas > for edits so that you see if some bot has changed something in your > area of interest, right? most bots (and also xybot) do not have any clue about the spatial aspects of a way or relation. normally a osm-xml file is piped through a bot (e.g. perl script). if it stumbles upon something fishy (e.g. a multiple consecutive nodes in a way) it will correct this problem on this entity. it does not know where in the world this problem is. it doesn't have a big database in the background which it could query where this entity is located and store it until the pipe has reached EOF and then make some handy spatial chunks of all its changes. the next question would be: what is the "right" size of a changeset? 10m², 100m², 1km², 10km², 100km², 1000km² the only solution to really fix the spamming of the history tab the way the history tab is implemented right now would be to put each change in its own changeset. but that's what we had in api 0.5 and would lead changesets ad absurdum and i believe a single bot-run should result in a single changeset. in my eyes there are three solutions for the problem of history spamming: * evaluate the "bot=yes" flag in changesets in the history tab. in consequence all bots should set this tag. drawback will be, that there could be malicious bot changes! * add a bot-flag to bot-accounts and filter those changeset in the history. same drawback as above. * replace the history tab with something like on ito-world osmmapper (including the rss-feed of changes) frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
Ban botsone!!! I don't really like how they run on the whole world, and not even on a country level. Why are they just editing one node here and there, it could make more programmic sense to download an appropriate-sized area, work through it (doing what ever checks these bots deem important) and then upload the 'corrections' for that area. This certainly makes it easier if people implement a bots=no on areas to flag that bots should not mess with their turf. On 7 April 2010 13:15, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > On 7 April 2010 21:50, Valent Turkovic wrote: > > On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:41:22 +0200, Frank Sautter wrote: > > > >> maybe this service could also be implemented on the openstreetmap.org > >> website, as the ito osmmapper is frequently offline (as it is at the > >> moment) > > > > I agree we shouldn't depend on 3rd party service for such important > > feature like watching for malicious activity. > > > > If other bots implement "bot=yes" tag then it would be trivial to filter > > them, right? > > I'm using bot=yes on some bigger, bot-like, edits often. > > > > > But still ideal situation is that bots also use much smaller areas for > > edits so that you see if some bot has changed something in your area of > > interest, right? > > That would be good but on the other hand lots of very similar changes > should be grouped together in one changeset for convenience, if our > tools can't cope with it then let's fix the tools. Otherwise you > might get 10k changesets in on run, each changing a single node, just > for the sake of not generating too big bboxes. > > The ideal situation would be having infinite processing power etc. :) > > But with the existing limitations, I think the "show bot edits" check > boxes is a fair approximation. Frederik said it wouldn't be a > complete solution to the problem of easy monitoring changes in your > area, I think, because sometimes the bot edit is just the one you're > interested in. But it is a nice feature if we don't claim that it's a > solution to this problem. It would be a nice feature on its own. > > On a different note, Frederik, you said you wouldn't put the "history" > tab on the website and didn't think it was a good thing. Is that > precisely because of the bboxes problem (i.e. that the edit needs not > intersect the current view, just its bbox), or is there another reason > you said that? > > Cheers > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
On 7 April 2010 21:50, Valent Turkovic wrote: > On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:41:22 +0200, Frank Sautter wrote: > >> maybe this service could also be implemented on the openstreetmap.org >> website, as the ito osmmapper is frequently offline (as it is at the >> moment) > > I agree we shouldn't depend on 3rd party service for such important > feature like watching for malicious activity. > > If other bots implement "bot=yes" tag then it would be trivial to filter > them, right? I'm using bot=yes on some bigger, bot-like, edits often. > > But still ideal situation is that bots also use much smaller areas for > edits so that you see if some bot has changed something in your area of > interest, right? That would be good but on the other hand lots of very similar changes should be grouped together in one changeset for convenience, if our tools can't cope with it then let's fix the tools. Otherwise you might get 10k changesets in on run, each changing a single node, just for the sake of not generating too big bboxes. The ideal situation would be having infinite processing power etc. :) But with the existing limitations, I think the "show bot edits" check boxes is a fair approximation. Frederik said it wouldn't be a complete solution to the problem of easy monitoring changes in your area, I think, because sometimes the bot edit is just the one you're interested in. But it is a nice feature if we don't claim that it's a solution to this problem. It would be a nice feature on its own. On a different note, Frederik, you said you wouldn't put the "history" tab on the website and didn't think it was a good thing. Is that precisely because of the bboxes problem (i.e. that the edit needs not intersect the current view, just its bbox), or is there another reason you said that? Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:41:22 +0200, Frank Sautter wrote: > maybe this service could also be implemented on the openstreetmap.org > website, as the ito osmmapper is frequently offline (as it is at the > moment) I agree we shouldn't depend on 3rd party service for such important feature like watching for malicious activity. If other bots implement "bot=yes" tag then it would be trivial to filter them, right? But still ideal situation is that bots also use much smaller areas for edits so that you see if some bot has changed something in your area of interest, right? -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com schrieb: >>> It would be ideal if it would use small areas of only few square km >>> around each edit, idea beeing so that xybot edits don't show in history >>> tab when looking at some area that wasn't edited. xybot and its siblings have implemented a "bot=yes" tag in each changeset they create. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4346988 this could be a way to add a checkbox on the history tab "don't show bot edits" on the other hand... i think it was an error to add the history tab. the itoworld osmmapper website and it's rss-feeds are a much better way to monitor malicous edits in a given area. maybe this service could also be implemented on the openstreetmap.org website, as the ito osmmapper is frequently offline (as it is at the moment) frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Valent Turkovic wrote: > On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:45:58 +, Valent Turkovic wrote: > >> It would be ideal if it would use small areas of only few square km >> around each edit, idea beeing so that xybot edits don't show in history >> tab when looking at some area that wasn't edited. > Ideally I would like to see bot edits in area that I'm looking at but not > ones 5000km away ;( What about the edit history only showing edits to elementsinside the view box, not just edits that contain view box, Sounds like a feature request for trac. http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2867 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot edit area size
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:45:58 +, Valent Turkovic wrote: > It would be ideal if it would use small areas of only few square km > around each edit, idea beeing so that xybot edits don't show in history > tab when looking at some area that wasn't edited. Example of area size that xybot uses: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/184632/xybot.png Ideally I would like to see bot edits in area that I'm looking at but not ones 5000km away ;( -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, MSN: valent.turko...@hotmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
f...@rfc822.org [mailto:f...@rfc822.org] wrote: >Sent: 11 April 2009 7:00 AM >To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) >Cc: 'OSM Talk' >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] xybot > >On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:24:51PM +0100, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) >wrote: >> >> That would be tagging for the renderer, which is not the OSM way. The OSM >> way is to tag what the object logically is as you see it. >> > >Based on common understanding of the meaning of the tags. > >> >Its a matter of common understanding - landuse=forrest and natural=wood >> >are in use and have been defined >> >> Hold on there. Defined? defined by whom. If you mean its in map features >> then that's cool because I put them there :-D >> On the other hand Map Features isn't a rule book or a prescribed >standard. >> Its guidance on how you might like to tag. landuse=wood is perfectly >correct >> in English. It means it's a piece of land been used for managed woodland >to >> my mind. That's not the same as forest. It might not translate the same >for >> you but that's cool. I wouldn't be asking you to accept the tag is >correct >> in your eyes, but I am asking you to respect it could be in mine. > >It might be that for you landuse=wood is managed woodland. The >wiki says the opposit and thats what people use to understand >the tags. And i am not talking about any translation in the wiki, >i am talking about the english version and what it says in the >description of key and value usage. > >landuse=forest > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse > > "For areas of land used by people. For natural areas, see >Key:natural." > > [...] >landuse forest Managed forest or woodland plantation >(Other languages). See also natural=wood. > [...] > >natural=wood > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural > > "This key is used to describe natural features, mostly in > terms of habitats and geological features. For man-made > and -managed features, see Key:landuse" > > [..] >natural wood Natural woodland (trees). See also >landuse=forest. > > >> >And in the above case there are a bunch of people who disagree with >> >using landuse=wood. And it doesnt even fit the keys definition by >> >which landuse means PEOPLEs use - Wood is not peoples use by definition >> >of the value. So landuse cant be used with wood as from whats in the >> >key and value description in the wiki. >> >> Well, we can agree to disagree on that point. > >You not only disagree with me but with the wiki and probably with >loads of mappers who tried to tag according to the description >of the tags in the wiki. Well, the wiki changes with time. Look back through the history of the page and you will find it has changed over the last 3 years. The wiki is only guidance, not a set of rules/standards. I appreciate 100% that mappers will use what it says there today and that's cool, I have no problem with that. What I disagree with is that any alternative view is wrong. It's not wrong its just different. Cheers Andy > >Flo >-- >Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org +49-171-2280134 > Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little > security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
Hi, Jason Cunningham wrote: > Regarding Wood & Forest. [...] I've tried to track back and find how these > two unique and > confusing definitions for Woodland came about, and it seems to lead to the > talk-de list (I cant be sure though). No you can't. The discussion is quite old and was not started by the Germans, this time. If you check http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2006-September/007294.html and the following posts in that thread, you will find that people had all sorts of ideas back then: That wood was something to do with hunting; that forest/wood meant different predominiant tree types; that forest/wood differ in canopy cover, and so on. The current consensus seems to be that anything "natural=..." means little human controlling intervention, while anything "landuse=..." means humans manage most aspects of it. So a tree plantation would be landuse=forest and a jungle would be natural=wood but in between it is a mess. Germany, for example, simply doesn't have unmanaged forests; even the natural reserves are managed somehow. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
Regarding "The Bot". An excellent tool to to correct spelling errors (brigde to bridge), but it must stay clear of tagging blunders. A Bot can have no idea whether Landuse=Wood should be Landuse=Forest or Natural=Wood, and therefore should stay clear, but could add something like a note so local users can check. I think very few of the "mapping pairs" should be changed using a bot. "The Bot " changes Natural=Meadow to Landuse=Meadow. User:Class Augenr has added Landuse=Meadow to Map Features with the justification it is used by Mapnik. We dont tag for the renderer, and therefore a Bot definitely should not edit for a renderer. Regarding Landuse & Natural. It's clear people are confused. I find the whole concept of Landuse=* confusing, because all land has a use. Many area tags could come under Landuse. Why do we have Landuse=Recreation_Ground, and Leisure=Nature_Reserve? A recreation ground is an area set aside for public leisure, many Nature Reserves ban people from entering and are a Landuse Designation. Regarding Wood & Forest. I've more interest in mapping natural habitat than any street. A lot of my time is spent working in Woodland and I find it very frustrating to see Woodland separated with two tags which give poor consideration to meaning or use. Its clear in the UK these two "unique" definitions for Woodland are being ignored, which is significant when we have a "soft" convention that we should try to use British English when defining tags. I've tried to track back and find how these two unique and confusing definitions for Woodland came about, and it seems to lead to the talk-de list (I cant be sure though). Its something I'd like to try and sort out in the summer with a new Woodland=* tag, but its looks like I'll ironically be too busy working in "Woodland". In the meantime it appears I can simply edit the wiki definitions for Wood and Forest. Jason user:Jamicu ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:24:51PM +0100, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > > That would be tagging for the renderer, which is not the OSM way. The OSM > way is to tag what the object logically is as you see it. > Based on common understanding of the meaning of the tags. > >Its a matter of common understanding - landuse=forrest and natural=wood > >are in use and have been defined > > Hold on there. Defined? defined by whom. If you mean its in map features > then that's cool because I put them there :-D > On the other hand Map Features isn't a rule book or a prescribed standard. > Its guidance on how you might like to tag. landuse=wood is perfectly correct > in English. It means it's a piece of land been used for managed woodland to > my mind. That's not the same as forest. It might not translate the same for > you but that's cool. I wouldn't be asking you to accept the tag is correct > in your eyes, but I am asking you to respect it could be in mine. It might be that for you landuse=wood is managed woodland. The wiki says the opposit and thats what people use to understand the tags. And i am not talking about any translation in the wiki, i am talking about the english version and what it says in the description of key and value usage. landuse=forest http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse "For areas of land used by people. For natural areas, see Key:natural." [...] landuse forest Managed forest or woodland plantation (Other languages). See also natural=wood. [...] natural=wood http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural "This key is used to describe natural features, mostly in terms of habitats and geological features. For man-made and -managed features, see Key:landuse" [..] natural wood Natural woodland (trees). See also landuse=forest. > >And in the above case there are a bunch of people who disagree with > >using landuse=wood. And it doesnt even fit the keys definition by > >which landuse means PEOPLEs use - Wood is not peoples use by definition > >of the value. So landuse cant be used with wood as from whats in the > >key and value description in the wiki. > > Well, we can agree to disagree on that point. You not only disagree with me but with the wiki and probably with loads of mappers who tried to tag according to the description of the tags in the wiki. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org +49-171-2280134 Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
f...@rfc822.org [mailto:f...@rfc822.org] wrote: >Sent: 10 April 2009 6:00 PM >To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) >Cc: 'Frederik Ramm'; 'OSM Talk' >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] xybot > >On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 03:37:07PM +0100, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) >wrote: >> >Sure - i just wanted to make the point that landuse=wood is a valid >> >point for dissussion as its either landuse=forest or natural=wood - >> >but landuse=wood is a "illegal" combination of key and value which the >> >original poster either missed or didnt know. >> >> Illegal?? Who's law? > >Have you seen the quotes? Law is usage and definition - and not YOUR >definition >but definition on bases of common understanding. > >I think you agree that its bullshit when i start mapping residentials >as motorway and motorways as residential because i like the fat >blue things more in my neighbourhood. That would be tagging for the renderer, which is not the OSM way. The OSM way is to tag what the object logically is as you see it. > >> Any tag is valid in OSM so if someone wants to use landuse=wood that's >their >> entitlement. That doesn't stop someone later adding a landuse=forest or >> changing the original to natural=wood but I wouldn't dream of doing >either >> unless I knew exactly what the feature on the ground was. > >Its a matter of common understanding - landuse=forrest and natural=wood >are in use and have been defined Hold on there. Defined? defined by whom. If you mean its in map features then that's cool because I put them there :-D On the other hand Map Features isn't a rule book or a prescribed standard. Its guidance on how you might like to tag. landuse=wood is perfectly correct in English. It means it's a piece of land been used for managed woodland to my mind. That's not the same as forest. It might not translate the same for you but that's cool. I wouldn't be asking you to accept the tag is correct in your eyes, but I am asking you to respect it could be in mine. > >landuse=wood mixes those two up ... > >You are free to put any tags in the database as long as you dont expect >others to agree ... I don't, that's why we tag as we see it. Each mapper may see it in a different way, but as long as some reasonable sense can be made of it we can interpret in our own way. > >And in the above case there are a bunch of people who disagree with >using landuse=wood. And it doesnt even fit the keys definition by >which landuse means PEOPLEs use - Wood is not peoples use by definition >of the value. So landuse cant be used with wood as from whats in the >key and value description in the wiki. Well, we can agree to disagree on that point. > >Buts thats just my POV so you are free to tag as you like ... And indeed we will. That's exactly what OSM is all about. Cheers Andy > >Flo >-- >Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org +49-171-2280134 > Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little > security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Ian Dees wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Someoneelse > wrote: >> >> I see that xybot has woken up again. Would an announcement on this list >> really have been too much to ask? > > This might be a pretty drastic question to ask, but perhaps it's time to > start coming up with a community policy regarding banning or > blocking-temporarily users that damage the data by putting it to a vote. indeed. too many people are damaging the data by voting :-P > Perhaps with API 0.6 coming it will be easier to get rid of crummy edits, > but as OSM gets more popular, it'll be important for the community to at > least have thought of ways to prevent vandalism from happening. it will definitely be more possible. with changesets it'll be possible for people to write practical revert tools. also, the changesets give us a way of monitoring and controlling the number and extent of changes. it will finally be possible to enforce the community policies on unannounced bots/imports and large-scale vandalism on the server. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
Florian Lohoff rfc822.org> writes: > > And in the above case there are a bunch of people who disagree with > using landuse=wood. And it doesnt even fit the keys definition by > which landuse means PEOPLEs use - Wood is not peoples use by definition > of the value. So landuse cant be used with wood as from whats in the > key and value description in the wiki. > > Buts thats just my POV so you are free to tag as you like ... There are people like you and people who think "But thats just my POV so you are free to tag as you like ... for me it is just the same because I will drive over your poor tagging with my robot anyway." When it comes to landuse, I feel that the deal between "natural" and "landuse" is not extraordinary well defined. I would let people to play with their own tagging, or even use some existing classification, for example Corine landcover classification http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/download.asp?id=17939&filetype=.csv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 03:37:07PM +0100, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > >Sure - i just wanted to make the point that landuse=wood is a valid > >point for dissussion as its either landuse=forest or natural=wood - > >but landuse=wood is a "illegal" combination of key and value which the > >original poster either missed or didnt know. > > Illegal?? Who's law? Have you seen the quotes? Law is usage and definition - and not YOUR definition but definition on bases of common understanding. I think you agree that its bullshit when i start mapping residentials as motorway and motorways as residential because i like the fat blue things more in my neighbourhood. > Any tag is valid in OSM so if someone wants to use landuse=wood that's their > entitlement. That doesn't stop someone later adding a landuse=forest or > changing the original to natural=wood but I wouldn't dream of doing either > unless I knew exactly what the feature on the ground was. Its a matter of common understanding - landuse=forrest and natural=wood are in use and have been defined landuse=wood mixes those two up ... You are free to put any tags in the database as long as you dont expect others to agree ... And in the above case there are a bunch of people who disagree with using landuse=wood. And it doesnt even fit the keys definition by which landuse means PEOPLEs use - Wood is not peoples use by definition of the value. So landuse cant be used with wood as from whats in the key and value description in the wiki. Buts thats just my POV so you are free to tag as you like ... Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org +49-171-2280134 Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
Frank, Please make sure your work adheres to the automated edits code of conduct [1] and also I suggest adding links from your script info from that page somewhere so that users can see what the bot does and why. Automated edits annoy users who spend hours and hours mapping their area of interest. Genuine mistakes and always going to happen and pointing those mistakes out to the user is a good thing. It's not a good thing in my view to change tagging when you have no knowledge of the circumstances of the tags. Cheers Andy [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits >-Original Message- >From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- >boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Frank Sautter >Sent: 10 April 2009 11:30 AM >To: OSM Talk >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] xybot > >hallo someoneelse, > >i'm the one behind xybot. > >Someoneelse schrieb: >> I see that xybot has woken up again. Would an announcement on this list >> really have been too much to ask? >xybot is running constantly every week. it has not been woken up again. > >> I'm guessing that the rules that it's following are these: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/User_FixTypo3Euro:Xybot >yes > >> If so there are a number of potential problems, especially where the >> change is not a "straightforward typo". >> One example is way 32539831 which was changed from "landuse=wood" to >> "landuse=forest". How does it know that landuse=forest is correct as >> opposed to natural=wood? Both are on map features. >you are right, i will take out those rules where xybot is just guessing >the optimal values and ask the maintainers of >http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ or >http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php to add them to their validation >tools so a human brain can set them to the correct value. > >> Another problem is where there is: >> tag_a=value_a >> tag_b=value_b >> If it thinks that tag_a is a misspelling for tag_b it'll change the >> tagging to the following: >> tag_b=value_a >> which is just plain wrong. >no, such changes are prohibited in the algorithm. > >> If it is necessary to "validate" the data against a pre-conceived idea >> of what it should contain (and I'm not convinced that it is) wouldn't it >> be better to collect lists of "errors" by last modifying user and >> suggest via mail that they review them? >i think this would result in a massive spamming of the osm users and i >don't think that the messaging infrastructure of osm is able to handle >that. > >frank > > >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
Florian Lohoff wrote: >Sent: 10 April 2009 11:19 AM >To: Frederik Ramm >Cc: OSM Talk >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] xybot > >On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:22:33AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] xybot >> >> Hi, >> >> Florian Lohoff wrote: >>> This has been discussed hundrets of times on the talk-de list IIRC. >> >> But we do agree that if someone wants to make automated changes outside >> the area inhabited by talk-de regulars, he should discuss this on the >> appropriate lists first, right? > >Sure - i just wanted to make the point that landuse=wood is a valid >point for dissussion as its either landuse=forest or natural=wood - >but landuse=wood is a "illegal" combination of key and value which the >original poster either missed or didnt know. Illegal?? Who's law? Any tag is valid in OSM so if someone wants to use landuse=wood that's their entitlement. That doesn't stop someone later adding a landuse=forest or changing the original to natural=wood but I wouldn't dream of doing either unless I knew exactly what the feature on the ground was. Cheers Andy > >So its valid to discuss about changing/correcting this. > >Flo >-- >Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org +49-171-2280134 > Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little > security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
From: Frank Sautter > hallo someoneelse, > > i'm the one behind xybot. > Thanks - hi. (re landuse/natural=wood/forest): > you are right, i will take out those rules where xybot is just guessing > the optimal values and ask the maintainers of > http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ or > http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php to add them to their validation > tools so a human brain can set them to the correct value. Thanks. > >> Another problem is where there is: >> tag_a=value_a >> tag_b=value_b >> If it thinks that tag_a is a misspelling for tag_b it'll change the >> tagging to the following: >> tag_b=value_a >> which is just plain wrong. > no, such changes are prohibited in the algorithm. > The reason that I mentioned that was due to changes to way 16359613. xybot did highlight an error that I made here (which is good) but unfortunately resolved it the "wrong" way. Here a river (the orginal way 16359613) flows northeast into an area which is a man-made landscape - it's drained by pumping water out along a series of canals referred to locally as "drains". A later section of that river (some distance away) had been mapped as "water=drain". While you could argue that the "water=" part is wrong, the "=drain" part is certainly correct for that part that had been mapped, as would "=river" be - it's both. I added on some of the intermediate bits from NPE and joined the two sections. This resulted in "waterway=river, water=drain". Whilst accidental, this does correctly give the sense of how that stretch of water fits into the landscape. My error was to let that apply to the "natural" part of the river as well as the artificial part (and it may need someone closer to it on the ground to work out where that is), and to let the source tag that I added propagate too far west. What seems to have happened is that on April 8th way 16359613 was changed from: waterway=river water=drain to just waterway=drain I've since changed it to waterway=river, which is more correct but doesn't communicate the "draininess" of the northeastern section. Next time I'm up there I'll have a go at improving things, including adding some of the many other rivers, canals and drains that aren't currently fully mapped. >> If it is necessary to "validate" the data against a pre-conceived idea >> of what it should contain (and I'm not convinced that it is) wouldn't it >> be better to collect lists of "errors" by last modifying user and >> suggest via mail that they review them? > i think this would result in a massive spamming of the osm users and i > don't think that the messaging infrastructure of osm is able to handle that. > I don't think that telling someone that you're going to change something that they've mapped could be construed as "spamming". If you're making so many changes that OSM's messaging infrastructure would be unable to cope maybe you shouldn't be making so many changes? You could argue that trimming a space off the end of a name is always valid, and maybe certain typos (although people have argued against that on this list in the past), but beyond that there really needs to be communication. At the very least, this would enable discussion of, for example, why "notes=" isn't valid but "note=" is - if people don't know that "incorrect" tags have been changed they won't use the "correct" ones next time. The tags used in OSM should be used by consensus. If someone wants to use a tag, it's valid. If more people use it, it's more valid. If someone decides to start mapping something as X instead of Y because everyone else maps it as X, that's a good outcome - but for that to happen they've got to know about it and not have stuff "randomly" change on them behind the scenes. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:31:46AM +0100, Lester Caine wrote: >> It is correct to discuss. >> There SHOULD be a landuse tag for every area as far as I am concerned, >> and since landuse=forest is for managed wooded areas, it is incorrect to >> use that for unmanaged areas. So perhaps we just need to CORRECT the >> land use page to include unmanaged woodland in some way? >> Having a mixture of 'natural' AND 'landuse' seems to be the basic >> problem so none of the proposed fixes is correct! These areas ARE >> landuse=wood > > Currently landuse does not list a wood but only a forest and says > explicitly: > > "For areas of land used by people. For natural areas, see Key:natural. " > > So it should be natural=wood not landuse=wood. > > As you say - its an unmanaged forest so its not people usage so landuse > is the wrong tag. BOTH are wrong ... which is my point ... Woods around here ARE used by people - many HAVE been created, but they are unmanaged in the conventional 'forestry' manor. What I am 'objecting to' is the arbitrary distinction of an area being 'used' or 'unused' as implied by the split between landuse and natural. In the UK woods are most definitely used which requires that they have a landuse tag as it is currently defined - designating them as 'unused' via a 'natural tag is what is wrong? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/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/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:31:46AM +0100, Lester Caine wrote: > It is correct to discuss. > There SHOULD be a landuse tag for every area as far as I am concerned, > and since landuse=forest is for managed wooded areas, it is incorrect to > use that for unmanaged areas. So perhaps we just need to CORRECT the > land use page to include unmanaged woodland in some way? > Having a mixture of 'natural' AND 'landuse' seems to be the basic > problem so none of the proposed fixes is correct! These areas ARE > landuse=wood Currently landuse does not list a wood but only a forest and says explicitly: "For areas of land used by people. For natural areas, see Key:natural. " So it should be natural=wood not landuse=wood. As you say - its an unmanaged forest so its not people usage so landuse is the wrong tag. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org +49-171-2280134 Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:22:33AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] xybot >> >> Hi, >> >> Florian Lohoff wrote: >>> This has been discussed hundrets of times on the talk-de list IIRC. >> But we do agree that if someone wants to make automated changes outside >> the area inhabited by talk-de regulars, he should discuss this on the >> appropriate lists first, right? > > Sure - i just wanted to make the point that landuse=wood is a valid > point for dissussion as its either landuse=forest or natural=wood - > but landuse=wood is a "illegal" combination of key and value which the > original poster either missed or didnt know. > > So its valid to discuss about changing/correcting this. It is correct to discuss. There SHOULD be a landuse tag for every area as far as I am concerned, and since landuse=forest is for managed wooded areas, it is incorrect to use that for unmanaged areas. So perhaps we just need to CORRECT the land use page to include unmanaged woodland in some way? Having a mixture of 'natural' AND 'landuse' seems to be the basic problem so none of the proposed fixes is correct! These areas ARE landuse=wood -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/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/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
hallo someoneelse, i'm the one behind xybot. Someoneelse schrieb: > I see that xybot has woken up again. Would an announcement on this list > really have been too much to ask? xybot is running constantly every week. it has not been woken up again. > I'm guessing that the rules that it's following are these: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/User_FixTypo3Euro:Xybot yes > If so there are a number of potential problems, especially where the > change is not a "straightforward typo". > One example is way 32539831 which was changed from "landuse=wood" to > "landuse=forest". How does it know that landuse=forest is correct as > opposed to natural=wood? Both are on map features. you are right, i will take out those rules where xybot is just guessing the optimal values and ask the maintainers of http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/ or http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php to add them to their validation tools so a human brain can set them to the correct value. > Another problem is where there is: > tag_a=value_a > tag_b=value_b > If it thinks that tag_a is a misspelling for tag_b it'll change the > tagging to the following: > tag_b=value_a > which is just plain wrong. no, such changes are prohibited in the algorithm. > If it is necessary to "validate" the data against a pre-conceived idea > of what it should contain (and I'm not convinced that it is) wouldn't it > be better to collect lists of "errors" by last modifying user and > suggest via mail that they review them? i think this would result in a massive spamming of the osm users and i don't think that the messaging infrastructure of osm is able to handle that. frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:22:33AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] xybot > > Hi, > > Florian Lohoff wrote: >> This has been discussed hundrets of times on the talk-de list IIRC. > > But we do agree that if someone wants to make automated changes outside > the area inhabited by talk-de regulars, he should discuss this on the > appropriate lists first, right? Sure - i just wanted to make the point that landuse=wood is a valid point for dissussion as its either landuse=forest or natural=wood - but landuse=wood is a "illegal" combination of key and value which the original poster either missed or didnt know. So its valid to discuss about changing/correcting this. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org +49-171-2280134 Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
Hi, Florian Lohoff wrote: > This has been discussed hundrets of times on the talk-de list IIRC. But we do agree that if someone wants to make automated changes outside the area inhabited by talk-de regulars, he should discuss this on the appropriate lists first, right? Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 02:10:03AM +0100, Someoneelse wrote: > One example is way 32539831 which was changed from "landuse=wood" to > "landuse=forest". How does it know that landuse=forest is correct as > opposed to natural=wood? Both are on map features. This has been discussed hundrets of times on the talk-de list IIRC. landuse=wood != natural=wood landuse=wood is plain broken - the question is what to change it to. a) landuse=forest + natural=wood b) natural=wood c) landuse=forest Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@rfc822.org +49-171-2280134 Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Someoneelse wrote: > I see that xybot has woken up again. Would an announcement on this list > really have been too much to ask? This might be a pretty drastic question to ask, but perhaps it's time to start coming up with a community policy regarding banning or blocking-temporarily users that damage the data by putting it to a vote. Perhaps with API 0.6 coming it will be easier to get rid of crummy edits, but as OSM gets more popular, it'll be important for the community to at least have thought of ways to prevent vandalism from happening. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot rides again
Matt Amos wrote: > hi everyone, > > a couple of weeks ago xybot appears to have added the fairly pointless > tag addr:country=DK to all the address point information that was > imported in denmark. the information about the import is here > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/KMS but i can't find any > information about the edits that xybot did on its page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Xybot > > i thought it was considered polite for those who are running mass > automated bots to at least announce them on the wiki or here and give > a rationale? most people do, but i haven't seen anything from xybot's > owner. About as pointless as all the changes to oneway streets a month or two back, and I don't recall anyone owning up then. Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:28:45PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 04:36:30PM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: > > They certainly lend themselves to it. That's not to say it's a good idea. > > The vast majority of these things could be done instead with a much > > less intrusive auto bug-notification-system. ie: a big list somewhere > > telling you of all the higways; then someone can actually go and check > > to see whether there is another highway there, or if things aren't > > connected properly, or whether someone has attached a "note=this > > really is a way for Higs and not a misspelled highway" tag. > > I am in favour of feeding these kinds of bugs into OpenStreetBugs - or the maplint layer. I haven’t used it much personally because of the already large amount of false positives such as not in map features, maybe it could present these less‐obtrusively, or allow some “errors” to be ignored. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
> -Original Message- > From: Peter Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 24 October 2008 22:38 > To: 'Frank Sautter'; 'talk@openstreetmap.org' > Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Xybot > > > > > Peter Miller schrieb: > > > The only link from this page is one back to the xybot user page and > > there is > > > no link to the bot's page itself (is there one?) to provide > information > > > about what the bot is doing and why and what one should do if one > > disagrees > > > with the edits. > > thanks for your hint, i've just added a link on this page. > > > > > Btw, I have had xybot turning "natural=wood" into "landuse=forest". > > Where I > > > come from a wood and forest are not the same thing at all. > > can you please provide some information about that (way id). as far as i > > can say this should not happen. xybot changed "natural=forest" to > > "landuse=forest" and yes, wood and forest are not the same. > > > > As requested... > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/25101370/history > My mistake, the bot is forgiven! I have looked again and yes, it was landuse=wood not natural=wood, and it changed it to landuse=forest. Possibly changing it to natural=wood would have been more helpful, or indeed to flag is as possibly needing manual attention by putting something on OpenStreetBugs, but that is part of the wider bot discussions that I am staying out of for now. Thanks for adding the link to the xybot wiki page to the user page; that is a good step forward. Peter > > Peter > > > > frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
Frank Sautter wrote: > can you please provide some information about that (way id). as far as > i can say this should not happen. xybot changed "natural=forest" to > "landuse=forest" and yes, wood and forest are not the same. No, they aren't. And neither are natural and landuse -- natural describes what exists in an area without the actions of humans, while landuse describes the use that humans have put the area to. They're distinctly different. Jono. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
> Peter Miller schrieb: > > The only link from this page is one back to the xybot user page and > there is > > no link to the bot's page itself (is there one?) to provide information > > about what the bot is doing and why and what one should do if one > disagrees > > with the edits. > thanks for your hint, i've just added a link on this page. > > > Btw, I have had xybot turning "natural=wood" into "landuse=forest". > Where I > > come from a wood and forest are not the same thing at all. > can you please provide some information about that (way id). as far as i > can say this should not happen. xybot changed "natural=forest" to > "landuse=forest" and yes, wood and forest are not the same. > As requested... http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/25101370/history Peter > frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
Peter Miller wrote: > Btw, I have had xybot turning "natural=wood" into "landuse=forest". > Where I come from a wood and forest are not the same thing at all. Indeed not. I'd say a natural=wood refers to where trees have self-seeded and spread naturally, while landuse=forest is a man-made, artificially planted woodland for production. Jono ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
hello peter, Peter Miller schrieb: > The only link from this page is one back to the xybot user page and there is > no link to the bot's page itself (is there one?) to provide information > about what the bot is doing and why and what one should do if one disagrees > with the edits. thanks for your hint, i've just added a link on this page. > Btw, I have had xybot turning "natural=wood" into "landuse=forest". Where I > come from a wood and forest are not the same thing at all. can you please provide some information about that (way id). as far as i can say this should not happen. xybot changed "natural=forest" to "landuse=forest" and yes, wood and forest are not the same. frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
> > >>> Take "grade" for instance, all occurances of which have now been > >>> changed to "tracktype". Which is a hell of an assumption about the > >>> use of the "grade" tag, and what people potentially might want to > >>> mark with that in the future. This isn't just typo fixing, this is > >>> going way beyond that. > > grade has been replaced by tracktype in 92 occurances on highway=track, > > where a numeric value 1-5 was in the value field. > > Where is taking into account this context documented? > I see no evidence of this on the wiki, are you just saying that so far > you've been lucky? > On the subject of xybot, I notice that xybot still has a very uninformative user profile page (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/xybot) which just says "Xylome's robot account". On Xylome's page (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/xylome) it says "mapping by bike in Schönbuch-clearance near Stuttgart, Germany. Initiator of several feature proposals. Protagonist of tracktype. Programmer of xybot a janitor robot that repairs obvious missspelling of tags." The only link from this page is one back to the xybot user page and there is no link to the bot's page itself (is there one?) to provide information about what the bot is doing and why and what one should do if one disagrees with the edits. Btw, I have had xybot turning "natural=wood" into "landuse=forest". Where I come from a wood and forest are not the same thing at all. Peter(Ito) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 04:36:30PM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: > They certainly lend themselves to it. That's not to say it's a good idea. > The vast majority of these things could be done instead with a much > less intrusive auto bug-notification-system. ie: a big list somewhere > telling you of all the higways; then someone can actually go and check > to see whether there is another highway there, or if things aren't > connected properly, or whether someone has attached a "note=this > really is a way for Higs and not a misspelled highway" tag. I am in favour of feeding these kinds of bugs into OpenStreetBugs - Possibly showing the bug as a different color knob. Having a central repository for all kinds of inconsistencys/bugs makes a lot of sense. I would propose to base the opening of bugs on the changes files which will lead to false positives showing up - but after closing on openstreetbugs to not show up again. Flo -- Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-171-2280134 Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Ed Loach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andy wrote: > >> And even with typos, there's been a number of discussions as to >> why >> automatically converting e.g. hgihway isn't necessarily a good >> idea - >> almost all of those that I've found there's another way >> correctly >> tagged close beside it. So fixing the typo in these cases is >> actually >> not appropriate - what's appropriate is to remove the mistagged >> way. > > I also think that it is a very questionable practice to automate > "tidying" of tags. But in the above example, it may lead to the > duplicated way being noticed more quickly, if it suddenly gets > rendered. Otherwise it relies on someone editing that area and > noticing it, or patrolling tagwatch and manually investigating. I > think obvious spelling mistakes like this do lend themselves to > correction. They certainly lend themselves to it. That's not to say it's a good idea. The vast majority of these things could be done instead with a much less intrusive auto bug-notification-system. ie: a big list somewhere telling you of all the higways; then someone can actually go and check to see whether there is another highway there, or if things aren't connected properly, or whether someone has attached a "note=this really is a way for Higs and not a misspelled highway" tag. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
Andy wrote: > And even with typos, there's been a number of discussions as to > why > automatically converting e.g. hgihway isn't necessarily a good > idea - > almost all of those that I've found there's another way > correctly > tagged close beside it. So fixing the typo in these cases is > actually > not appropriate - what's appropriate is to remove the mistagged > way. I also think that it is a very questionable practice to automate "tidying" of tags. But in the above example, it may lead to the duplicated way being noticed more quickly, if it suddenly gets rendered. Otherwise it relies on someone editing that area and noticing it, or patrolling tagwatch and manually investigating. I think obvious spelling mistakes like this do lend themselves to correction. Assuming this list http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/User_FixTypo3Euro:Xybot is the changes being made, then I'm particularly concerned by the changes relating to landuse=wood and natural=forest (when the features listed in map features are landuse=forest and natural=wood, with the main distinction being whether it is natural or managed). What is to say you *can't* have a natural forest or a managed wood, just because those features currently aren't in Map Features? I'll be checking the woods I added near here to see what I used and what they're now tagged as once the script completes. Oh, and I might be wrong, but won't these mappings make the script slower than it needs to be? "addr:full" => "addr:full", "addr:housenumber" => "addr:housenumber", "addr:interpolation" => "addr:interpolation", "addr:postcode" => "addr:postcode", etc (though hopefully it has sufficient sense in the script to ignore items where before=after). Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
>>> Take "grade" for instance, all occurances of which have now been >>> changed to "tracktype". Which is a hell of an assumption about the >>> use of the "grade" tag, and what people potentially might want to >>> mark with that in the future. This isn't just typo fixing, this is >>> going way beyond that. > grade has been replaced by tracktype in 92 occurances on highway=track, > where a numeric value 1-5 was in the value field. Where is taking into account this context documented? I see no evidence of this on the wiki, are you just saying that so far you've been lucky? I also apparently can't now use the tag "rail", "root", or "footpath". Whether these are actually used at the moment is quite irrelevant, as you obviously intend to keep running this bot over and over, meaning I'll /never/ be able to use these tags for anything. What's most worrying is the recklessness with which you're running this script, effectively blacklisting tags without discussion... how do I know you aren't going to keep expanding this list? BTW thank you for removing some of the more blatantly wrong tag mappings. Have you reverted all of these yet? Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:10 PM, David Groom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's the nature of OSM, anyone can edit anything without asking for > permission. There's no black and white here. I agree that it would have > been best to have had some form of discussion about this script, but there's > no requirement to do so, so no point in asking a question such as "what > makes you think you're allowed to do this without asking? " Of course. But there's a difference between "can" and "should", and the question is probably better phrased as "what makes you think you *should* do this without asking?" And even with typos, there's been a number of discussions as to why automatically converting e.g. hgihway isn't necessarily a good idea - almost all of those that I've found there's another way correctly tagged close beside it. So fixing the typo in these cases is actually not appropriate - what's appropriate is to remove the mistagged way. Hence I have an aversion to bots that aren't either discussed or well thought through. Removing "layer=0" tags completely is another example I've found - that's just destroying tags for no gain. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Frank Sautter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hello andy, > > Andy Allan schrieb: >>> I see that someone is running a bot across the entire planet, > europe > >>> I'm asking now for this person to publicly justify to all the >>> contributors to OpenStreetMap why he or she knows better than they >>> do about tagging? > >>> This bot has now effectively blacklisted a number of perfectly >>> plausible tags, including "annotation", "node", "notice", "remark", >>> "grade", "track", "water", "automate" - and has also made some >>> potentially data-corrupting assumptions. > i checked them on dirk stoeckers tagwatch, before doing this. > >>> Take "grade" for instance, all occurances of which have now been >>> changed to "tracktype". Which is a hell of an assumption about the >>> use of the "grade" tag, and what people potentially might want to >>> mark with that in the future. This isn't just typo fixing, this is >>> going way beyond that. > grade has been replaced by tracktype in 92 occurances on highway=track, > where a numeric value 1-5 was in the value field. > > frank I don't think you answered any of my questions. Thanks, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
Andy has already made the point though that just changing stuff without any notification is not appropriate at all. Anyone is permitted to tag as they see fit so you have know way of knowing if someone is using a tag for other purposes. At a minimum you should be announcing your plans and giving notice and also in my view only adding new tags, not deleting existing ones. We have a code of conduct that has evolved over the last few weeks for automated edits. Wile it is voluntary us data contributors do expect it to be acknowledged and we would argue used. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Automated_Edits Cheers Andy >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Sautter >Sent: 24 October 2008 12:02 PM >To: Openstreetmap >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot > >hello andy, > >Andy Allan schrieb: >>> I see that someone is running a bot across the entire planet, >europe > >>> I'm asking now for this person to publicly justify to all the >>> contributors to OpenStreetMap why he or she knows better than they >>> do about tagging? > >>> This bot has now effectively blacklisted a number of perfectly >>> plausible tags, including "annotation", "node", "notice", "remark", >>> "grade", "track", "water", "automate" - and has also made some >>> potentially data-corrupting assumptions. >i checked them on dirk stoeckers tagwatch, before doing this. > >>> Take "grade" for instance, all occurances of which have now been >>> changed to "tracktype". Which is a hell of an assumption about the >>> use of the "grade" tag, and what people potentially might want to >>> mark with that in the future. This isn't just typo fixing, this is >>> going way beyond that. >grade has been replaced by tracktype in 92 occurances on highway=track, >where a numeric value 1-5 was in the value field. > >frank > >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1742 - Release Date: 23/10/2008 >3:29 PM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
- Original Message - From: "Andy Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Talk Openstreetmap" Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 11:38 AM Subject: [OSM-talk] Xybot First let me make it clear that I am not User:Xybot, and I don't not know who he / she is. > > Hi All, > > I see that someone is running a bot across the entire planet, and I > don't see any discussion of it on the mailing lists. The bot is called > "xybot" and the user is apparently "xylome" > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/xylome - I believe this is the same > person who Frederik was referring to on a previous thread. > > I'm asking now for this person to publicly justify to all the > contributors to OpenStreetMap why he or she knows better than they do > about tagging? This bot has now effectively blacklisted a number of > perfectly plausible tags, including "annotation", "node", "notice", > "remark", "grade", "track", "water", "automate" - and has also made > some potentially data-corrupting assumptions. Take "grade" for > instance, all occurances of which have now been changed to > "tracktype". Which is a hell of an assumption about the use of the > "grade" tag, and what people potentially might want to mark with that > in the future. This isn't just typo fixing, this is going way beyond > that. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/User_FixTypo3Euro:Xybot > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/User:Xybot > > Who are you xylome, and what makes you think you're allowed to do this > without asking? That's the nature of OSM, anyone can edit anything without asking for permission. There's no black and white here. I agree that it would have been best to have had some form of discussion about this script, but there's no requirement to do so, so no point in asking a question such as "what makes you think you're allowed to do this without asking? " Most of the changes the script makes seem very sensible, and relate to correcting obvious spelling errors, which can only be of benefit. But as Andy says there are some which are simply plain wrong. David >What other announced and undiscussed changes are you > planning for the future? > > Thanks, > Andy > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
On Friday 24 October 2008, Andy Allan wrote: > Hi All, > > I see that someone is running a bot across the entire planet, and I > don't see any discussion of it on the mailing lists. The bot is > called "xybot" and the user is apparently "xylome" > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/xylome - I believe this is the same > person who Frederik was referring to on a previous thread. > > I'm asking now for this person to publicly justify to all the > contributors to OpenStreetMap why he or she knows better than they do > about tagging? This bot has now effectively blacklisted a number of > perfectly plausible tags, including "annotation", "node", "notice", > "remark", "grade", "track", "water", "automate" - and has also made > some potentially data-corrupting assumptions. Take "grade" for > instance, all occurances of which have now been changed to > "tracktype". Which is a hell of an assumption about the use of the > "grade" tag, and what people potentially might want to mark with that > in the future. This isn't just typo fixing, this is going way beyond > that. And there are things on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/User_FixTypo3Euro:Xybot that even remove information, like "maxspeed:forward" => "maxspeed", "maxspeed:in" => "maxspeed", I don't know what the latter means, but the first one obviously means lost information since maximum speeds can well be applicable to only one direction. Also makes me wonder why it's preferred to have :opposite instead of :backward "maxspeed:against" => "maxspeed:opposite", "maxspeed:backward" => "maxspeed:opposite", Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Xybot
hello andy, Andy Allan schrieb: >> I see that someone is running a bot across the entire planet, europe >> I'm asking now for this person to publicly justify to all the >> contributors to OpenStreetMap why he or she knows better than they >> do about tagging? >> This bot has now effectively blacklisted a number of perfectly >> plausible tags, including "annotation", "node", "notice", "remark", >> "grade", "track", "water", "automate" - and has also made some >> potentially data-corrupting assumptions. i checked them on dirk stoeckers tagwatch, before doing this. >> Take "grade" for instance, all occurances of which have now been >> changed to "tracktype". Which is a hell of an assumption about the >> use of the "grade" tag, and what people potentially might want to >> mark with that in the future. This isn't just typo fixing, this is >> going way beyond that. grade has been replaced by tracktype in 92 occurances on highway=track, where a numeric value 1-5 was in the value field. frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
