Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-03-05 1:14 GMT+01:00 stevea :

> What I understand Martin Koppenhoefer to say are essentially the same
> things, but I'm not sure if he understands (or agrees) with Escondido
> having large areas marked as landuse=residential.  These are not simply
> zoned residential (they are), they ARE (on-the-ground verifiable)
> residential.  So it is OK for them to be tagged as they are.



Yes, I'm saying the same things. In particular, if you ask me about these
huge landuse polygons in Escondido, I don't particularily like them. I like
detailed mapping, and I believe as soon as someone starts to map the
details he'll have to split these polygons into smaller ones in order to
keep maintainability. I don't suggest to make them multipolygons and to
exclude stuff, this would become a nightmare very soon.

I would exclude (at least) the main arterial roads from the residential
landuse and also stuff like this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65592897

And when you did this, you'd already have it all split into much smaller
landuse areas.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[Stellan Lagerström]

A related problem with Escondido is that the landuse areas boundaries 
are attached to road centerlines. This vastly increases the editing 
effort needed to improve on them later.


/Stellan

On 2015-03-05 13:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2015-03-05 1:14 GMT+01:00 stevea >:


What I understand Martin Koppenhoefer to say are essentially the
same things, but I'm not sure if he understands (or agrees) with
Escondido having large areas marked as landuse=residential.  These
are not simply zoned residential (they are), they ARE
(on-the-ground verifiable) residential.  So it is OK for them to
be tagged as they are. 




Yes, I'm saying the same things. In particular, if you ask me about 
these huge landuse polygons in Escondido, I don't particularily like 
them. I like detailed mapping, and I believe as soon as someone starts 
to map the details he'll have to split these polygons into smaller 
ones in order to keep maintainability. I don't suggest to make them 
multipolygons and to exclude stuff, this would become a nightmare very 
soon.


I would exclude (at least) the main arterial roads from the 
residential landuse and also stuff like this:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65592897

And when you did this, you'd already have it all split into much 
smaller landuse areas.


Cheers,
Martin


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


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

Re: [Talk-us] Mappy hours questionnaire

[Martijn van Exel]

Hey all,

So far a good 25 folks have completed the mappy hour questionnaire which
is, in my best American English, AWESOME.

I will have a look at the results now and report back soon!

Thanks again for lending your valuable time to help make this a better
thing.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Thanks to many who have already filled out this 2 minute survey. I plan to
> use the results to make the mappy hour more attractive to more of you. If
> you haven't yet, your opinion is valuable to me. Please take 2 minutes to
> fill it out: http://goo.gl/forms/6h432K2l3L
>
> Thanks again!
> Martijn
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> We've been doing Mappy Hours on Google Hangouts for a little while now. I
>> would like to get your opinion on a few aspects such as format, theme, time
>> and day. If you could help me out by filling out this quick survey I would
>> be really grateful.
>>
>> Link to survey: http://goo.gl/forms/6h432K2l3L
>>
>> Thanks for your time!
>> --
>> Martijn van Exel
>> skype: mvexel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Martijn van Exel
> skype: mvexel
>



-- 
Martijn van Exel
skype: mvexel
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Mappy hours questionnaire

[Martijn van Exel]

Here are my takeaways:

1. The current time slot doesn't work for a about 40% of you. :( More on
that below.
2. About half of you would like a theme or a presentation for each Mappy
Hour.
3. Quite a few folks had not really heard of the Mappy Hours or don't know
what they are / what to expect.

Here's what I will do:
* On timing - there's not going to be a slot that works for everyone - but
40% is a lot. I got some feedback that earlier in the day would be better
for some. I will plan the next few Mappy Hour earlier in the day to see if
that does in fact work better.
* I will write a blog post / diary entry to spread the word about the Mappy
Hours more.
* I will be relying on y'all to submit presentation / theme ideas for the
Mappy Hours. Everyone is welcome to present something - be it mapping
progress, a tagging proposal, software you're working on, an event you're
organizing... I will include a call for presentations in each invite.
* I will send out the Mappy Hour reminder emails further in advance.

Let me know if there's anything else you would like to see happen.

Martijn

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> So far a good 25 folks have completed the mappy hour questionnaire which
> is, in my best American English, AWESOME.
>
> I will have a look at the results now and report back soon!
>
> Thanks again for lending your valuable time to help make this a better
> thing.
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Thanks to many who have already filled out this 2 minute survey. I plan
>> to use the results to make the mappy hour more attractive to more of you.
>> If you haven't yet, your opinion is valuable to me. Please take 2 minutes
>> to fill it out: http://goo.gl/forms/6h432K2l3L
>>
>> Thanks again!
>> Martijn
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> We've been doing Mappy Hours on Google Hangouts for a little while now.
>>> I would like to get your opinion on a few aspects such as format, theme,
>>> time and day. If you could help me out by filling out this quick survey I
>>> would be really grateful.
>>>
>>> Link to survey: http://goo.gl/forms/6h432K2l3L
>>>
>>> Thanks for your time!
>>> --
>>> Martijn van Exel
>>> skype: mvexel
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martijn van Exel
>> skype: mvexel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Martijn van Exel
> skype: mvexel
>



-- 
Martijn van Exel
skype: mvexel
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[stevea]

Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
Yes, I'm saying the same things. In particular, if you ask me about 
these huge landuse polygons in Escondido, I don't particularily like 
them. I like detailed mapping, and I believe as soon as someone 
starts to map the details he'll have to split these polygons into 
smaller ones in order to keep maintainability. I don't suggest to 
make them multipolygons and to exclude stuff, this would become a 
nightmare very soon.


I appreciate the feedback, Martin.  Your "don't particularly like 
them" is duly and respectfully noted by me and others here.


I like detailed mapping, too.  I also accept correct mapping, even if 
it might only be mediocre or even crude, though it must be correct, 
where that is a little bit fuzzy (yes, it is, in a project with 
consensus).  I accept mediocre as a "good first draft" or "acceptable 
early version."  Others, less so.  I have found satisfaction (perhaps 
"an approach") to this is to improve such data myself, especially 
with wider discussion.  I have fixed messy map from "no, quality is 
much too low, I must do something about it" (and do) to "excellent 
map."  So, here we are again, perhaps.


We (in the USA) also see significant areas of our map remain 
"desert," (sparsely mapped) perhaps (and only partly, among vast 
other reasons) because of how much effort it is to map in a detailed 
manner.  I don't wish deserts to remain if someone can make them 
bloom.  However, this doesn't mean spilling buckets of paint in 
sloppy mechanical fashion because a "kiddie" (novice editor, 
especially w.r.t. OSM community standards) wants to "run a script." 
We have seen this and it is not pretty.  Teachable moments occur here 
if we insist upon high quality and make instruction accessible and 
workable -- tenets of OSM.


This can be as big an OSM topic as we might like.  We can and should 
keep open ears as to good, better and best methods of "we have only 
rough data now, here are steps to improve them."  Done clearly, this 
is proven to be a helpful approach to a better map.


High quality data are often an artful edge between "as simply as is 
needed to describe them" and "as detailed as we might like them to 
be."  High quality is to be strived for, and when not achieved, an 
opportunity to improve.  We can grease the skids of mediocre data 
being improved with some effort.  Nobody wants "nightmare" data, but 
even if you shudder at mediocre data, it is opportunity.  First 
somebody comes along and plows the field, then somebody comes along 
and plants some seeds and then somebody comes along and tends the 
garden.  It doesn't always work like that everywhere, but it does 
work like that.  Detailed mapping truly is "longer" work, and we 
shouldn't discourage "early" work if quick and crude, though 
accurate.  Or should we?  What have we learned from TIGER?


In the case of landuse= (residential) polygons, we might agree that a 
novice volunteer using a more entry level editor like iD who draws 
such a polygon around her neighborhood in a crude but accurate 
fashion is acceptable.  We might also importantly add, going forward 
(as areas get peer-reviewed -- what happens) "helpful hints" that 
nodes of this polygon shouldn't be merged in with highways, that if 
an edge "goes along a road" to exclude the road and other such good 
OSM data entry practice as makes sense in the overlap of folks doing 
this sort of editing.  There could be more of that, but it can be 
difficult to make that magically appear in the mind of a novice 
editor as it might be presented.


There could be a lot more of such magic in OSM, yet OSM works right 
now.  I look forward to more, good design coming to fruition.  I like 
to think that some discussion of how happens here, at least in a 
cursory way.


I've seen truly detailed residential mapping where each edge of each 
outer parcel boundary stops exactly at the polygon tagged 
landuse=residential -- right down to highly accurate beautiful 
geometry around a cul-de-sac (for example).  Welcome in OSM with open 
arms!  Let's ask ourselves:  do we want to encourage Vicki Volunteer 
to draw a landuse=residential polygon around her neighborhood, if she 
has good knowledge of it (and imagery, and editing facility and hints 
whispered in her ear where it makes sense...) to enter it?  I do, 
even if results are mediocre or even crude (I wince, I accept). 
Only, however, if we agree they are correct.


I don't want to miss capturing that because she is daunted by 
perfection of detail.  OSM is stepwise.


These can be difficult:  to discuss, to agree, to disagree, to reach 
consensus, to improve the map, to judge quality, to build good 
context-sensitive editor tools... but we must do them anyway.


Let's make more paths for curious novices to become intermediates 
(and intermediates experts -- even harder!), emphasizing quality data 
entry:  skills and knowledge required.  We do so now, certainly.  And 
we grow the map as we build 

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[stevea]

I add that another, vital, and even preferred approach towards 
mediocre or crude data is to contact the editor and offer help 
(instruction) in improving them.  This really grows the project, too, 
when and as it "takes."  Fixing something myself (and/or with others, 
too) can remain as a last resort.


SteveA
California

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

Re: [Talk-us] Why?

[SomeoneElse]

On 05/03/2015 21:47, stevea wrote:
I add that another, vital, and even preferred approach towards 
mediocre or crude data is to contact the editor and offer help 
(instruction) in improving them.  This really grows the project, too, 
when and as it "takes."  Fixing something myself (and/or with others, 
too) can remain as a last resort.


SteveA
California


Amen to that!

It's more work in the short term but encouraging new mappers is the only 
way OSM will grow in the longer term.


Cheers,

Andy


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