Re: [Talk-us] Cleaning up California FMMP "residential"

[Paul Norman]

> From: Bryce Nesbitt [mailto:bry...@obviously.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Cleaning up California FMMP "residential"
> 
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:
> > I've been doing some California landuse and have come across a lot of
> > landuse=residential imported from FMMP which is clearly wrong. The
> > landuse=residential covers entire cities, including commercial,
industrial,
> > retail, parks, schools, golf courses, airports, and pretty much anything
> > within city limits.
> 
> Those landuse polygons are so hard to edit, so much clutter, interfere
with 
> editors.  Ugh.  Thanks for dealing with this.

It's worth noting that when these areas are properly mapped there will
actually 
be more ways, but they'll not be encompassing thousands of square km. As an 
example, the Sutter Buttes region
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.22&lon=-121.78&zoom=12&layers=M) has
more ways after I mapped some trees, whereas before 
it was tagged as just one large meadow.

Some of the multipolygons I've been cleaning up have been particularly hard 
to edit as they cover multiple separate areas. I'd hate to handle them in 
P2 or iD, fetching a small area from the API returns these giant ways and 
getting the full MP is troublesome in JOSM which deals better with areas 
larger than the API can comfortably deal with.

When I get more cleanup done I will issue a bunch of re-render requests
(/dirty). 
The region will be less colorful on the map, but the data will actually be
right.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cleaning up California FMMP "residential"

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

On 15/giu/2013, at 00:28, Paul Norman  wrote:

> To this end, I propose removing v1 imported ways/multipolygons from FMMP
> with FMMP_modified=no, FMMP_reviewed=no, landuse=residential, and either
> description=other land or description=urban land, starting with ways > about
> 500 000 square Mercator meters (exact value subject to change).


remove landuse=residential and add place=* ?

cheers,
Martin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Cleaning up California FMMP "residential"

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

On 15/giu/2013, at 11:13, Paul Norman  wrote:

> Some of the multipolygons I've been cleaning up have been particularly hard 
> to edit as they cover multiple separate areas. I'd hate to handle them in 
> P2 or iD, fetching a small area from the API returns these giant ways and 
> getting the full MP is troublesome in JOSM which deals better with areas 
> larger than the API can comfortably deal with.


IMHO to keep osm easily modifiable and maintainable it is the best to keep 
complexity as low as possible and to map landuse as atomic as possible. Don't 
make multipolygons for landuse, or only to share common borders, but don't cut 
holes or make them overlap.
For a detailed mapping I wouldn't include public streets in the landuse, if 
this seems too much work start with splitting the polygons on bigger streets 
like primaries etc.

cheers,
Martin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

On 15/giu/2013, at 08:06, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

> But if you insist :-) here's a way to ensure they don't overlap.


actually my point is they should overlap in some of the cases that were 
discussed here

cheers,
Martin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Removing US Bicycle Route tags

[Greg Troxel]

Paul Johnson  writes:

> Again, I'm still not hearing a suggestion that would keep this valuable
> information in OSM, or a compelling reason not to keep it.

It's not clear that it's valuable.   If you want to propose a scheme for
desired corridors by only-slightly-authoritative organizations, feel
free.  The compelling reason is that there is information in the
database which is incorrect.  That's always a good reason to simply
outright remove it.

> We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer.  It still
> sounds like the core issue is some proposals are mapped more
> specifically than they are on paper.

The present issue is that there is are specific routes in the db as
proposed when there is no actual proposal, but instead merely a desired
corridor by a only-slightly-authoritative organization.

> I don't think this is an insurmountable problem to fix within the
> boundaries of not tagging for the renderer.

It's straightfoward: delete the bogus data.

> With that in mind, I would love to hear ideas how to tackle the
> proposed corridor issue so that they may be more properly mapped, not
> outright excluded over cyclemap rendering issues.

It's not about cyclemap rendering issues.  The problem is that the
database has incorrect information.   If someone added polygons that
said "aca_desired_corridor", and that was checkable because they
published that desire, I don't think there'd be any issues, other than
the larger issue of "X wants Y - so what?  Who is X and why does anybody
care?"

It sounds like you are conflating "how to (and whether) should we
represent desired corridor by only-slightly-authoritative organizations"
and "fixing the database by removing items that are incorrect".  It's
not reasonable to ask anyone to refrain from fixing the database without
solving some other problem.


pgp85XfpYFsMU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Clifford Snow]

I wonder if it time to accept that we are unable to reach a consensus. Can
we agree to let the local community decide which way to proceed? They are
in the best position to know the issues surrounding neighborhood borders.
 There didn't seem to be any show-stoppers in the arguments for
nodes/polygons.

-- 
Clifford

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Clifford Snow  wrote:
>
> I wonder if it time to accept that we are unable to reach a consensus.

On what issue are we unable to reach a consensus? The original
proposer, Martijn, after reading the arguments put forth, has decided
he agrees with both Ian and myself.

> Can we agree to let the local community decide which way to proceed?


They are in
> the best position to know the issues surrounding neighborhood borders.
> There didn't seem to be any show-stoppers in the arguments for
> nodes/polygons.

There were several issues brought up. The issues brought up were:

1. The idea that in many neighborhoods around the country, everything
about these neighborhoods is subjective, and largely driven by opinion
and real estate agents.

2. Neighborhoods don't have clear boundries, so polygons were a poor fit.

3. OSM is not a good place for non-observable data of any sort.

4. There is not a way to have "consensus" on a neighborhood boundary
because of its subjective nature. Two individuals may share entirely
differing views and both have equal "correctness", since it's a matter
of opinion.

5. Places can, and often are part of multiple neighborhoods, and OSM's
place classification system doesn't handle this.

6. Nodes are bad substitutes for polygons because one can only assume
that a node's idea of an "area" corresponds to a radius, which isn't
the case in  many cases.

7. There are wonderful tools and existing datasets which OSMers can
use to capture this same information.


OSM is not entirely built around consensus, but I'm concerned because
I don't know how you can measure "the local community" in its opinion.

I'm also a bit concerned when the idea of community consensus is
thrown out the window for total localism. While I agree that sometimes
things should be done without every single member of the community
approving, we should strive for larger community building when
possible.

- Serge

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Clifford Snow wrote:

>
> I wonder if it time to accept that we are unable to reach a consensus. Can
> we agree to let the local community decide which way to proceed? They are
> in the best position to know the issues surrounding neighborhood borders.
>  There didn't seem to be any show-stoppers in the arguments for
> nodes/polygons.
>

Maybe not a "show stopper", but that trivializes the debate.

The OSM convention of "verifiable mapping" is an important one, I think the
project deviates from this to short term gain but long term detriment.
 Encouraging mapping of a invisible boundary is problematic.  Often that
boundary will be unverifiable, fluid and opinion-based.  Encouraging yet
more mapping clutter of large areas is a problem due to poor tool support
(we've got landuse, administrative, watersheds, and now neighborhoods).
 The best one can hope for is that neighborhoods would finally break things
so bad that editing software would start to hide those layers for most
editing purposes.

There IS a wiki talk page on this
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Neighbourhood

And here is sample node that I feel "works", even though the aera is fluid.
 It hits the majority of the use cases I've heard of for OSM, and links to
a proper description of a concept that's just not as simple as a polygon:

place=neighbourhood
name=SoMa
name_1=South of Market
website=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_of_Market,_San_Francisco
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Bryce Cogswell]

Your entire argument is based on the premise that neighborhood boundaries are 
subjective and unverifiable, and while that may be true for your neighborhood 
it is not true for mine. So why shouldn't I map what I can easily verify on the 
ground?

Bryce

On Jun 15, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Clifford Snow  
> wrote:
>> 
>> I wonder if it time to accept that we are unable to reach a consensus.
> 
> On what issue are we unable to reach a consensus? The original
> proposer, Martijn, after reading the arguments put forth, has decided
> he agrees with both Ian and myself.
> 
>> Can we agree to let the local community decide which way to proceed?
> 
> 
> They are in
>> the best position to know the issues surrounding neighborhood borders.
>> There didn't seem to be any show-stoppers in the arguments for
>> nodes/polygons.
> 
> There were several issues brought up. The issues brought up were:
> 
> 1. The idea that in many neighborhoods around the country, everything
> about these neighborhoods is subjective, and largely driven by opinion
> and real estate agents.
> 
> 2. Neighborhoods don't have clear boundries, so polygons were a poor fit.
> 
> 3. OSM is not a good place for non-observable data of any sort.
> 
> 4. There is not a way to have "consensus" on a neighborhood boundary
> because of its subjective nature. Two individuals may share entirely
> differing views and both have equal "correctness", since it's a matter
> of opinion.
> 
> 5. Places can, and often are part of multiple neighborhoods, and OSM's
> place classification system doesn't handle this.
> 
> 6. Nodes are bad substitutes for polygons because one can only assume
> that a node's idea of an "area" corresponds to a radius, which isn't
> the case in  many cases.
> 
> 7. There are wonderful tools and existing datasets which OSMers can
> use to capture this same information.
> 
> 
> OSM is not entirely built around consensus, but I'm concerned because
> I don't know how you can measure "the local community" in its opinion.
> 
> I'm also a bit concerned when the idea of community consensus is
> thrown out the window for total localism. While I agree that sometimes
> things should be done without every single member of the community
> approving, we should strive for larger community building when
> possible.
> 
> - Serge
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Ian Dees]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Bryce Cogswell  wrote:

> Your entire argument is based on the premise that neighborhood boundaries
> are subjective and unverifiable, and while that may be true for your
> neighborhood it is not true for mine. So why shouldn't I map what I can
> easily verify on the ground?


What are you using to verify your neighborhood boundaries? Is there
literally a line on the pavement showing the boundaries?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Bryce Cogswell]

My neighborhood is West of Market. Market Street is the eastern boundary. Lake 
Washington (shoreline) is to the south and west. Juanita Bay Park, which is 
named after the Juanita neighborhood to the north, is the northern boundary. 
All these are observable boundaries and I don't believe they are subjective. 


On Jun 15, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Bryce Cogswell  wrote:
>> Your entire argument is based on the premise that neighborhood boundaries 
>> are subjective and unverifiable, and while that may be true for your 
>> neighborhood it is not true for mine. So why shouldn't I map what I can 
>> easily verify on the ground?
> 
> What are you using to verify your neighborhood boundaries? Is there literally 
> a line on the pavement showing the boundaries?
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Nathan Mills]

My city kindly places identification signs along the borders of many of the 
defined neighborhoods. Other neighborhoods are coterminous with a particular 
subdivision.

Still others like "midtown" are mean whatever the person saying it wants it to 
mean.

The former are reasonable to map. The latter is not.

Ian Dees  wrote:

>On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Bryce Cogswell 
>wrote:
>
>> Your entire argument is based on the premise that neighborhood
>boundaries
>> are subjective and unverifiable, and while that may be true for your
>> neighborhood it is not true for mine. So why shouldn't I map what I
>can
>> easily verify on the ground?
>
>
>What are you using to verify your neighborhood boundaries? Is there
>literally a line on the pavement showing the boundaries?
>
>
>
>
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[stevea]

Bryce Cogswell writes:
Your entire argument is based on the premise that neighborhood 
boundaries are subjective and unverifiable, and while that may be 
true for your neighborhood it is not true for mine. So why shouldn't 
I map what I can easily verify on the ground?


+1:  this is true for me as well, so I agree.  Well, it is verifiable 
by what our local government says (through the consensus of public 
process, like City Council meetings) via polygons, AND by the more 
vaguely-defined but still useful nodes, of which there are several in 
my city.  This both democratizes and harmonizes neighborhoods without 
making defining all of them a free-for-all (in my city, anyway -- in 
yours, well, there are both good and bad examples in OSM).


For the former, I don't need a painted line on the ground, just what 
the City GIS department publishes on the open Internet, after these 
lines/polygons/neighborhood boundaries were reached by public 
process.  For the latter, these are fluid enough that they can come 
and go, move and change name.  Once again:  OSM accommodates by 
storing, displaying (uniquely!) and indexing both types of data.


While this discussion is good, I don't think a "one polygon (or one 
node) fits all" solution will work across the very wide diversity of 
"neighborhoods" in the USA.  Accordingly, let us allow some minor 
small smears of syntax (multiple solutions) to capture multiple 
semantics.  It doesn't hurt anything, and nobody pretends there is a 
standard way to "properly map" every single thing in OSM we wish to 
map, just high-quality representations of things (which are all of 
captured in the database, rendered, and indexable).  Both polygons 
and nodes for neighborhoods do all three of those, and sometimes a 
polygon is better than a node (or vice versa), so I continue to 
believe using both is OK.


SteveA
California

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 3:35 PM, stevea  wrote:

> +1:  this is true for me as well, so I agree.  Well, it is verifiable by
> what our local government says (through the consensus of public process,
> like City Council meetings) via polygons, AND by the more vaguely-defined
> but still useful nodes, of which there are several in my city.  This both
> democratizes and harmonizes neighborhoods without making defining all of
> them a free-for-all (in my city, anyway -- in yours, well, there are both
> good and bad examples in OSM).
>
> For the former, I don't need a painted line on the ground, just what the
> City GIS department publishes on the open Internet, after these
> lines/polygons/neighborhood boundaries were reached by public process.  For
> the latter, these are fluid enough that they can come and go, move and
> change name.  Once again:  OSM accommodates by storing, displaying
> (uniquely!) and indexing both types of data.
>
> While this discussion is good, I don't think a "one polygon (or one node)
> fits all" solution will work across the very wide diversity of
> "neighborhoods" in the USA.  Accordingly, let us allow some minor small
> smears of syntax (multiple solutions) to capture multiple semantics.  It
> doesn't hurt anything, and nobody pretends there is a standard way to
> "properly map" every single thing in OSM we wish to map, just high-quality
> representations of things (which are all of captured in the database,
> rendered, and indexable).  Both polygons and nodes for neighborhoods do all
> three of those, and sometimes a polygon is better than a node (or vice
> versa), so I continue to believe using both is OK.
>

+1


-- 
Clifford

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:35 PM, stevea  wrote:

> For the former, I don't need a painted line on the ground, just what the
> City GIS department publishes on the open Internet, after these
> lines/polygons/neighborhood boundaries were reached by public process.

There is a growing number of OSM folks in the United States (myself
included) who believe that government provided boundry data should be
used for data products such as rendered maps and geocoders, but do not
belong in OSM's core dataset (which is built around the idea of
improvements based on local, verifiable observation).

The result is that for data of the type you're talking about
(government provided polygons), I think they'd be best provided as a
third party service.

And for the more subjective neighborhood boundaries, by its nature, it
doesn't belong in OSM either.

> For
> the latter, these are fluid enough that they can come and go, move and
> change name.

Did you watch the Flickr talk on their neighborhood data that they
presented at SoTM US 2012 (last year)? In that talk, they presented
their findings which show that people's idea of place is very fluid.
The key factor for me is that two parties with vastly different views
on a neighborhood are both right, and that makes agreement nearly
impossible. There is no ground observable data to use. OSM is
predicated on ground observable data. That's why we don't support
other subjective data like restaurant ratings.

If the argument was simply that a neighborhood exists, then maybe one
could come to some sort of a consensus, but the problem is that both
the models that have been talked about are flawed, and do cause
problems. The issue with polygons has been discussed at length, so let
me address the issue with nodes.

A node as an indicator of place can generally have two semantic
meanings in OSM. Either it can be in the geographic or cultural
center[1].

The problem is that in absence of more information about an area, the
tools which consume the OSM data take a node to mean an area, which
they must then calculate via an area around. The result is often quite
messy and problematic. For example, here in New York, I've had to
address some neighborhoods which were spilling into areas they didn't
belong. But I wouldn't blame the geocoder for not realizing that the
Upper West Side is more north to south than east to west[2].

In a more extreme example of why node areas are bad, a portion of
Washington, DC was claimed to be in Fairfax City, because Fairfax was
represented by a node.

Fixing these problems is a major undertaking, one I wouldn't subject a
friend to.

> Once again:  OSM accommodates by storing, displaying
> (uniquely!) and indexing both types of data.

This has not been born out over time, though. I'm just trying to avoid
a lot of work later.

> While this discussion is good, I don't think a "one polygon (or one node)
> fits all" solution will work across the very wide diversity of
> "neighborhoods" in the USA.  Accordingly, let us allow some minor small
> smears of syntax (multiple solutions) to capture multiple semantics.  It
> doesn't hurt anything, and nobody pretends there is a standard way to
> "properly map" every single thing in OSM we wish to map, just high-quality
> representations of things (which are all of captured in the database,
> rendered, and indexable).  Both polygons and nodes for neighborhoods do all
> three of those, and sometimes a polygon is better than a node (or vice
> versa), so I continue to believe using both is OK.

I am glad you're seeing that there's no single solution, but please
consider what I'm saying about the past and let it inform your
decision making.

- Serge

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

[Nathan Mills]

On 6/15/2013 9:51 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:35 PM, stevea  wrote:


For the former, I don't need a painted line on the ground, just what the
City GIS department publishes on the open Internet, after these
lines/polygons/neighborhood boundaries were reached by public process.


There is a growing number of OSM folks in the United States (myself
included) who believe that government provided boundry data should be
used for data products such as rendered maps and geocoders, but do not
belong in OSM's core dataset (which is built around the idea of
improvements based on local, verifiable observation).


The sort of signs in the link below are precisely the sort of thing we 
put in OSM, or at least have historically.


https://www.cityoftulsa.org/community-programs/neighborhoods/neighborhood-sign-guide.aspx


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us