Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Hi Paul, I hope you are well. As you have seen my responses at [1] and [2], it will come as no surprise that I oppose this move. I have set out my reasoning below: == Reason 1: Open Historical Maps (OHM) is not an entirely separate project to OSM == I will start by providing a bit of background for those on the talk-gb list who may not be aware. The editor-imagery-index is a list of background layers that appear in the main OSM editors (for example the bing aerial imagery). It is designed to be a single list that can be used by all editors (Potlatch, JOSM, iD, etc..), that is the purpose of editor-imagery-index is to make it easer to share new background layers. In my opinion creating a second version of this list (called historic-imagery-index) was silly as it will lead to confusion (more on that later). When you created the historic-imagery-index it was because some of the background imagery that has been licensed for use in OpenStreetMap has not been approved for use in Open Historic Map (which in your view is entirely separate from OSM). My proposal to add a OHM-Approved field to the existing editor-imagery-index was rejected on the basis that: Adding project-specific stuff to another project's documents doesn't really make sense. It's kind of like saying there should be a flag in the XLSX format specifying if the document can be opened by LibreOffice. This comparison seems over the top to me. Yes, OHM is currently not an official OpenStreetMap Foundation project, but many people in our community do see it as a sister project. After all, much of what is in OSM in town centres now, will become historic data in 50 years time. As such we should make more effort to be inclusive of Open Historic Maps. == Reason 2: What is historic? Who decides? == This point stands on its own, by which I mean, ignore that Open Historic Maps even exists. The point here is that who decides what counts as Historic and of no value to current day mapping. In my opinion all the layers you have proposed to remove are of current value. They include names of hills, valleys, rivers, etc that may be difficult to survey elsewhere. They also show us where Rights of Way may exist (note that due to the odd legal situation in the UK, a right of way may exist but not have been recorded by the Local Authority on current maps). Lets look at another example. Is a 1:5000 Town Plan from 1960 historic? It has 1960 in the title, so does that mean I should add it to your historic-imagery-index? Hang on, it contains detailed building outlines, many of which will still exist. Okay then we put this 1960's map in the current editor-imagery-index. But then what about a 1950s map, a 1940's map etc.. Where is the cut off? And why does the power to decide this lie with the very few people who can accept new contributions to editor-imagery-index and historic-imagery-index? Oh and lets be clear. At the moment this is a removal as the editors only pick up those background layers listed in editor-imagery-index. == Reason 3: It damages our community == We have been working hard to build up a relationship with our Archives and Libraries here in the UK. The current relationship with National Library of Scotland (NLS) is quite good. They even spoke at State of the Map Scotland 2013 [3]. The Bartholomew Half Inch layer is a new one only just added, and I know that (NLS) are delighted that we have made it available to OSM contributors. Removal of historic layers, sends a negative message to these wider OSM community members and suggests that we do not appreciate their work. You may not like the current layers very much, but many of these Archives hold some really detailed maps (e.g. Town Plans that have only just fallen out of copyright) and we need to work with them to make those layers available (for the joint benefit of OSM and OHM). In a related note, we are aiming to attract a more diverse community to OSM. As OHM and OSM use exactly the same tools, it is not beyond belief that someone who starts in OHM can also edit in OSM. We should work together, not apart. === I hope some of this makes sense, and you can see that the drawbacks far outweigh any benefits. To answer your original question: Yes, I still use these layers when I am mapping the countryside. I tend to flick back and forth between them and believe that I can make better maps if they are all available to me. Regards, Rob [1] https://github.com/osmlab/editor-imagery-index/pull/25 [2] https://github.com/osmlab/editor-imagery-index/issues/27 [3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsTeyAuBoqE ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
On 09/11/13 11:58, Rob Nickerson wrote: As you have seen my responses at [1] and [2], it will come as no surprise that I oppose this move. I have set out my reasoning below: Hi Rob, hi Paul, I'll not venture into the how of this only the what... Let's think about it from the perspective of the new mapper. Let's imagine that they've decided to add something to OSM and they've ventured into iD for the first time. There's a nice walkthrough, but if I recall it doesn't mention much about background imagery, but there's an entry on the help that says there's some imagery in addition to the default Bing layer. When the new mapper clicks the imagery button at the right they currently see ALL of the geographically available layers from https://github.com/osmlab/editor-imagery-index (currently the bottom of the menu is cut off - see https://github.com/systemed/iD/issues/1929 - but that issue is fixed pending release). Let's not kid ourselves - not all of those layers are like the others. In GB, the Bing imagery layer, Local GPX file, GPS traces and OS OpenData StreetView are likely to be the most useful, and probably in that order. A Bartholomew 1/2 inch from the Victorian era is likely to be ... less so. We need to provide new mappers with relevant information, sometimes even if that means less information. No-one's proposing restricting what mappers can choose as a background in JOSM, and the background layers in Potlatch 2 aren't going to change any time soon, but in the instance of iD that new mappers see when they select edit from the menu on osm.org it does make sense NOT to offer them an OS 7th series that isn't even available everywhere in GB as the top option in the menu. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Hi Andy, We are mixing up two issues here. One is as to whether historic layers should be removed from the default menus (and determining what counts as historic of no value to current mapping) and the second issue of how iD presents the list. Please do not let an iD bug direct the future direction of these image indexes. ID can be improved. Damage to the community is harder to repair. Regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Are there any *non*-historical uses for NLS - Bartholomew Half Inch, 1897-1907; NLS - OS 1-inch 7th Series 1955-61; or OS New Popular Edition historic. Of course there are. Historical maps are a huge source of meta data for the landscape, much of which cannot be obtained in any other way. The whole purpose of making the OOC OS maps available is because they contain information that is entirely relevant for today's map. Having spent many many hours scanning and rectifying OOC OS mapping for OSM (not any other project such as OHM) I hope that my efforts and those of the others who have gone before with NPE etc have not be wasted. Of course like all sources its necessary to understand the context. When referring to old data sources you need to take a view on whether the information is still likely to be relevant or indeed if it's still present on the ground, but using old sources with modern BING and other open data means that we can enrich OSM mapping. Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
On 09/11/2013 13:14, Rob Nickerson wrote: We are mixing up two issues here. One is as to whether historic layers should be removed from the default menus What exactly do you mean by the default menus here? There are no default menus in OSM, only menus in different instances of different editors. Please do not let an iD bug direct the future direction of these image indexes. ID can be improved. Damage to the community is harder to repair. In what way exactly with the default instance of iD on osm.org NOT providing a victorian map that is, being polite, less relevant than e.g. Bing or OSSV damaging the community? No-one is suggesting that we make historic imagery layers unavailable and plenty of people have said that they use them - but in all cases they are likely to be not the target market for the iD edit option on osm.org or capable of using the custom option. What would absolutely be damaging to the community would be to make the default edit option on osm.org not suitable for new users until they've learnt a whole bunch of arcane unwritten stuff about the relevance of various sources. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 3:03 PM To: 'SomeoneElse'; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD It's worth pointing out that iD doesn't actually have an imagery list. It inherits its from the editor-imagery-index project at http://osmlab.github.io/editor-imagery-index/, which is for OpenStreetMap editing, not historical mapping or a general list of all possible imagery. There is now https://github.com/osmlab/historic-imagery-index, an imagery index that takes its own list of historic layers and combines it with the layers in editor-imagery-index. To use it in JOSM all you need to do is modify imagery.layers.sites in advanced preferences to add http://osmlab.github.io/historic-imagery-index/imagery.xml I've added some layers that appear have value purely for historical mapping to it and opened the pull request https://github.com/osmlab/editor-imagery-index/pull/35 to remove them from editor-imagery-index. Are there any *non*-historical uses for NLS - Bartholomew Half Inch, 1897-1907; NLS - OS 1-inch 7th Series 1955-61; or OS New Popular Edition historic. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
From: SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 4:44 AM To: Paul Norman; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD Paul Norman wrote: It's worth pointing out that iD doesn't actually have an imagery list. It inherits its from the editor-imagery-index project at http://osmlab.github.io/editor-imagery-index/, which is for OpenStreetMap editing, not historical mapping or a general list of all possible imagery. Thanks Paul - that's something that I hadn't realised. From the comments above, presumably the open historical map people are using the same list rather than one tailored to historical mapping though? They shouldn't be. The editor-imagery-index project is targeted at the needs of OpenStreetMap, not of other projects. With how the index is setup with each layer being its own file it is trivial to automatically copy in additional files before running make. In fact, there are layers in editor-imagery-index which can't be used outside of OSM. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Paul Norman wrote: Paul Norman wrote: It's worth pointing out that iD doesn't actually have an imagery list. It inherits its from the editor-imagery-index project at http://osmlab.github.io/editor-imagery-index/, which is for OpenStreetMap editing, not historical mapping or a general list of all possible imagery. Thanks Paul - that's something that I hadn't realised. From the comments above, presumably the open historical map people are using the same list rather than one tailored to historical mapping though? They shouldn't be. The editor-imagery-index project is targeted at the needs of OpenStreetMap, not of other projects. With how the index is setup with each layer being its own file it is trivial to automatically copy in additional files before running make. In fact, there are layers in editor-imagery-index which can't be used outside of OSM. Well since OHM is simply a part of OSM created to placate the complaints of a few, it IS part of OSM ... but making background layers locally selectable is a facility that many of us would benefit from. More and more material is becoming available which while not relevent to a 'current' map is essential in completing the historic development of the maps. In 50 years time the current view of the map will be 'historic' and we need to design for that fact today rather than simply hiding the data in the change logs :( -- 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 Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Paul Norman wrote: It's worth pointing out that iD doesn't actually have an imagery list. It inherits its from the editor-imagery-index project at http://osmlab.github.io/editor-imagery-index/, which is for OpenStreetMap editing, not historical mapping or a general list of all possible imagery. Thanks Paul - that's something that I hadn't realised. From the comments above, presumably the open historical map people are using the same list rather than one tailored to historical mapping though? Dealing with it from a UI perspective is difficult, and I get the impression that's the main issue, not the coding once the UI is figured out. Happy to make suggestions there, but that's a bit beyond the scope of the issue that I was originally trying to raise (that a menu started half-way down a screen and finished below it), and well into suggested enhancement rather than bug territory. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Andrew Hain wrote: Is there a useful distinction between the two 1:25000 layers? In the area that I was looking at (just south of Kirk Ireton in Derbyshire) they appear to be different original maps, and it appears that coverage of each layer is slightly different. On the subject of the other layers, has anyone ever used e.g. Bartholomew 1/2 inch as a background layer? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Rob Nickerson wrote: 2). iD is a general purpose editor. It can be used for OpenHistoricalMap too. Indeed - perhaps I should have been clearer that I'm talking about the instance in use on the OSM site used to edit the OSM map, not any other instance which presumably could feature any layers that it liked. So how do we deal with an overload of map layers? I think it's a tool issue. Indeed - and I'm sure that the iD developers would say patches welcome at this point! So to conclude, I wouldn't remove any layers right now. We know that the Mapbox layer is likely to improve as they acquire and process more data (see their blog), but similarly the old OS layers hosted by OSM provide an alternate to the NLS versions (they may use different year sheets in some places) and keepping them online will help motivate people to scan more historic sheets in. We are thinking of having a scanning party here in the West Midlands! I don't think anyone's suggesting removing them altogether, but it seems senseless to me to feature old inaccuate maps in an editor instance targeted at new users above GPS traces. When I select edit in iD on the main site (on a laptop PC with a larger than average number of vertical pixels) I don't se any options below custom - so I don't see that I can add a GPS layer, and I don't see that I can align imagery where it is misplaced, but I am invited to use the e.g. Bartholomew 1/2 inch from 189x as a source! Do you actually use e.g. the Bartholomew 1/2 inch layer as a source for updating non-historical information in OSM? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
On 28/10/2013 19:28, SomeoneElse wrote: series, Mapbox Satellite or Mapquest Open Aerial, and if anyone's using NPE, Bartholomew 1/2 inch or OS 1 inch as backgrounds they probably shouldn't be using iD to do it (if for no other reason due to alignment issues). Am I maligning these sources and is there actually a valid reason why someone might want to trace from, say, NPE when more recent better aligned data is now available? NPE was great in its day, and a big thank you to all involved in providing it, it was a fantastic help in getting a rural map of Wharfedale up. Now, for OSM mapping per se, I never use it. Bing for GPS adjusted tracing and the OS 25K layers are almost completely a superset when it comes to looking for names, such as farm houses. As posters later in this thread point out, there is still some separate value for historic use, a number of mineral lines, for example, appear on NPE but not on either of the 25K layers due to survey dates. I have no strong views, but there may be value in removing it from editing OSM per se. I really wish that person who traced all those streams (me) hadn't because the alignment is terrible and a lot of the footpaths are way off even if they actually exist now. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Hi Andy, I get all of your points on this one, but just as we generally don't go and remove other peoples custom tags, I think it would be a shame if we remove available layers. Having historical background layers can attract people to other projects (Open Historical Map). I've even used historic layers to apply for new rights of way. As noted it's a problem with the tool (iD in this instance) and hopefully any fix will include ability to filter by date. This would be the perfect solution, as it would be of huge benefit to the Open Historical Map team. I encourage you to add this to your bug entry. I'll end by noting that the introduction to OSM on the wiki home page does not make any distinction between current and historic geographic data: Welcome to OpenStreetMap, the project that creates and distributes free geographic data for the world. We started it because most maps you think of as free actually have legal or technical restrictions on their use, holding back people from using them in creative, productive, or unexpected ways. Best wishes, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
From: SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk] Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD Rob Nickerson wrote: 2). iD is a general purpose editor. It can be used for OpenHistoricalMap too. Indeed - perhaps I should have been clearer that I'm talking about the instance in use on the OSM site used to edit the OSM map, not any other instance which presumably could feature any layers that it liked. It's worth pointing out that iD doesn't actually have an imagery list. It inherits its from the editor-imagery-index project at http://osmlab.github.io/editor-imagery-index/, which is for OpenStreetMap editing, not historical mapping or a general list of all possible imagery. So how do we deal with an overload of map layers? I think it's a tool issue. Indeed - and I'm sure that the iD developers would say patches welcome at this point! Dealing with it from a UI perspective is difficult, and I get the impression that's the main issue, not the coding once the UI is figured out. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Dealing with it from a UI perspective is difficult, and I get the impression that's the main issue, not the coding once the UI is figured out. I'm not a UI designer, but I'll have a go at sketching a few ideas over the next 7 days. It would be a shame to drop background layers where they are useful for wider geographical data (be that in historical mapping, or picking up names of land features that may have been forgotten over the course of time) and have acted as a good way for us to build up a wider community. Regards, Rob p.s. I cannot hep with the coding as that is way beyond my limited skills. I am however happy to add any additional tags to the background layer .json files on the github page you linked to. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Hi Andy, I would like to see as many layers as possible in iD and other editors. The issue, in my opinion, is one of how best to present the available layers (more on that later). So why more layers: 1). More layers = more choice and more potential sources for confirming the presence or absence of something. 2). iD is a general purpose editor. It can be used for OpenHistoricalMap too. 3). We are working to build strong relationships with Local Authorities, and GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums). Often this starts with a simple map layer and builds into something more (for example one local authority has just informed me that they have collected new aerial imagery and it is their hope to make this available to the OSM community). So how do we deal with an overload of map layers? I think it's a tool issue. A). If historic map layer's include a date in their json file, then we can filter by date range. B). Similarly we can highlight the most popular layers. C). We could link in with the wikimaps database of geo-referenced maps so that it is really easy to view those map sheets in the main map editors. So to conclude, I wouldn't remove any layers right now. We know that the Mapbox layer is likely to improve as they acquire and process more data (see their blog), but similarly the old OS layers hosted by OSM provide an alternate to the NLS versions (they may use different year sheets in some places) and keepping them online will help motivate people to scan more historic sheets in. We are thinking of having a scanning party here in the West Midlands! Best wishes, Rob p.s. I'm about to drop 76 OS TownPlans for Scotland into the joint editor github page. I've included a date in their descriptive json files to make (A) above possible in the future. They all include bounding boxes so should only appear if you are editing in those towns. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
SomeoneElse lists@... writes: I logged a bug with iD regarding the non-visibility of some items in the background layer menu:https://github.com/systemed/iD/issues/1929#issuecomment-27236976 The issue that I actually logged is actually being addressed as part of a different bug, but another question span out of it. Of the available background layers: http://imgur.com/1O0KsiO are there any that can be omitted entirely? Is there a useful distinction between the two 1:25000 layers? -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD
Is there a useful distinction between the two 1:25000 layers? -- Andrew At face value, no. They both show map sheets from the Ordnance Survey 1:25k series (although the dates may differ slightly). However if we look at the hosting of these tiles we find that one of these is provided by the National Library of Scotland, the other is a result of OSM community members scanning and geo-rectifying maps that they own. The NLS version is complete so you may suggest that we drop the community version. I would caution against this as it may put other community members of buying, scanning and rectifying other useful historic map series. It would be nice to see the 1:25k tiles on ooc.openstreetmap.org and faffy.openstreetmap.org combined in some way. Regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
