Re: [Talk-us] Mappy Hour tomorrow (monday) night
OK On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 3/23/15 8:32 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: I may need access to the US chapter page to do it without screwing over who's gonna be running it from recording. i think only Martijn can add managers. i'll try wrestling with event interface again in a little bit. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mappy Hour tomorrow (monday) night
On 3/23/15 8:32 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: I may need access to the US chapter page to do it without screwing over who's gonna be running it from recording. i think only Martijn can add managers. i'll try wrestling with event interface again in a little bit. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mappy Hour tomorrow (monday) night
I may need access to the US chapter page to do it without screwing over who's gonna be running it from recording. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 3/23/15 4:14 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: Should I make the G+ event for it or will that trip things up? i was a little mystified by the current G+ interface so i didn't do so. if you can figure it out, more power to you. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mappy Hour tomorrow (monday) night
On 3/23/15 4:14 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: Should I make the G+ event for it or will that trip things up? i was a little mystified by the current G+ interface so i didn't do so. if you can figure it out, more power to you. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
Greg, 3. It is my belief and experience that the ground observable rule is something that only applies to Europe or older metropolitan areas. I think there's a misunderstanding here. Of course even in European metropolitan areas there will *not* be a sign bearing the name of every stream that you drive across! That doesn't keep Europeans from mapping the stream (the fact that there *is* one is at least observable), or naming it according to common knowledge or whatever the locals will tell you the name is. We usually draw the line when it is about features that cannot be seen on the ground; these should be in OSM only in exceptional cases (for example we do map administrative boundaries and post code areas even if they're invisible; the discussion about how much of a railway must still be there to map it as abandoned is going on elsewhere; the mapping of airways is strongly discouraged; some people map long-distance radio links but that is not likely to catch on). Your remark that OSM is different from the old GIS world with ESRI and $20k GPS receivers is correct, however it is not a suitable basis for reasoning (following the same logical path as you did, I could say they use computers; we are different, so we should not use computers). The ground observable rule kicks in most strongly when there's a dispute. If one mapper happily maps an invisible boundary and another mapper pops up and maps it differently, and they later apply to someone to mediate in their conflict, that third person will ask whether there is any proof for each mapper's version, and if there isn't any because both just map from hearsay, then the feature will have to be tagged as disputed or removed altogether. 9. Taking Serge's example of neighborhood boundaries to the logical conclusion, nothing should be put in OSM because an edit war __could__ ensue. Again, you've misunderstood Serge; because as long as we stick to observable things, the edit war can be resolved by fact-checking. This is what Serge hinted at when he talked about Alice and Bob. Crucially he also mentioned that there's a high risk that if we allow un-substantiated mapping of neighbourhoods, this might be at the expense of the underprivileged who seldom participate in OSM. For some, it might make a very big difference whether their address resolves to neighbourhood A or neighbourhood B if they live just on the border. As long as we're talking facts there's not much that can go wrong - an able-bodied, college-educated caucasian male can trace a stream through the slums from Bing without being in much danger of unwittingly applying prejudice. The same is not true for the same able-bodied, college-educated caucasian male drawing the boundary of the neighbourhood they are unlikely to ever set foot in. There's actually quite a few things apart from neighbourhoods that are not defined. For example here in Germany, if a village can advertise themselves as being in the Black Forest, that's a plus, tourism-wise. But the Black Forest is not a forest where you simply check the treeline; it's a large region with not-really-well-defined boundaries. There's places where 99% of interviewees would says clearly that's in the Black Forest, and places where 99% would say clearly not, but a grey band in between. The kind of area that is labelled with a curved, wide-spaced font on old-school maps. OSM doesn't have a good mechanism to record these; OSM only accepts precise geometries, not fuzzy ones. 7. The ground observable rule is a barrier to new mappers. I helped a new mapper at a Editathon add taco stands. She did everything wrong. I did say no you cannot add that node. We have not gone and surveyed that node exists. I let her add the node with abbreviated street names and all. She was so exited to add here research data to OSM. There's absolutely no problem with adding Taco stands from memory as they are observABLE (even if not observED) and if someone else starts a fuss about the Taco stands, we can just go there and check. People add data from memory all the time, and if it's wrong, it get fixed. But that's not the point when discussing neighbourhood boundaries. I failed to map for months because it sounded like I had to have a GPS five years ago before I could map. I think you're consistently misunderstanding the difference between observable and observed. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
Greg Morgan wrote: 2. To quote Richard Fairhurst, Seriously, OSM in the [England] s still way beyond broken. You can open it at any random location and the map is just __fictional__. Here are two random examples bing;OS StreetView [2] shape is approximate. Needs proper survey as mostly built after current BING imagery date [3] I have no idea, at all, what point you are trying to make, but I would appreciate it if you didn't make it by deliberately misquoting me. Thank you. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Retagging-hamlets-in-the-US-tp5837186p5838190.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mappy Hour tomorrow (monday) night
here is an event link which i hope works ok: https://plus.google.com/b/113331273824393211883/events/cnsbqt4rtjjcekl2hcgc53josj0?authkey=COK7xau86urZ6gE i may need to send invitations to people on a case by case basis; if you have a g+ account but can't get access, send me an email and i'll try to sort it out. note that i teach class at UAlbany from 5:30pm to 7:05pm, so i will be ignoring all messages until about 7:40pm, but that gives me nearly an hour to sort things out after i get home. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Greg Morgan dr.kludge...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Every time this boundary debate or accuracy debate comes up, I image that I am supposed to have $20,000 of GPS equipment[1]; post process the data so that it is accurate; before I dare put the data in OSM. I agree with you that things which you can't verfiy without thousands of dollars of equipment doesn't belong in a generalized dataset like OSM. 3. It is my belief and experience that the ground observable rule is something that only applies to Europe or older metropolitan areas. Then you're going to have problems with all of OSM, since we use that rule to handle virtually any dispute. I am curios what river or wash I just drove over. It is not posted. I had to go to the US government sites to find the information because it is useful in OSM. It's entirely possible that the names the locals use for that river differ from the government dataset, in which case, OSM would prefer you use the local name as the primary name, and not the official one. Ground observable in this case is Local knowledge. Of course that requires consensus, but this is why we have so many tags related to names 6. The ground observable rule is trying to take over the more important rule: Mappers with local knowledge of their area add valuable data that commercial mapping companies cannot always afford to add to the map. This is based on a misunderstanding of your understanding of what the ground observable rule is. A person who lives in an area and can talk about it will actually trump most other sources, including signage, but that requires that we get lots of people involved and working in a diplomatic way. 7. The ground observable rule is a barrier to new mappers. I helped a new mapper at a Editathon add taco stands. She did everything wrong. I did say no you cannot add that node. We have not gone and surveyed that node exists. I let her add the node with abbreviated street names and all. She was so exited to add here research data to OSM. Why not help her ensure that her data be in OSM by being a teaching resource? Also, what does sign names have to do with ground surveying? 8. The ground observable rule is a barrier to new mappers. Most of the new mappers I know started mapping by signing up and adding data. Adding data they surveyed or adding data they got from another source? 9. Taking Serge's example of neighborhood boundaries to the logical conclusion, nothing should be put in OSM because an edit war __could__ ensue. This is quite the stawman argument you've build in my name, but it's not my argument. OSM has a long history of encouraging surveyed data. 11. The ground observable rule fails to acknowledge that not every feature is observable but still is useful to OSM. I had to talk the rent-a-cops out of arresting me for taking pictures around Chase Field [8]. I could not see around the building or under the 7th street bridge via satellite imagery. In this post 911 world, the ground observable rule is an unrealistic requirement. I've never encountered a problem with law enforcement officials when mapping, so I can't speak to your experience. 12.I am passionate about what I do with OSM and the out reach that I do. I am game to survey and map my city, county, and state. It feels like this growing number of people believes that every mapper has to map just like Steve Coast did ten years ago. Congratulations Serge! It is my growing belief that your growing number of people has stymied growth in new and different valuable ways of mapping data. I failed to map for months because it sounded like I had to have a GPS five years ago before I could map. Last year (or was it the year before) at SOTM US, there was discussed with Ian Dees leading the discussion about using municipal data in a separate dataset, and yet I don't see you being as viscous against him. Whether it's deliberate or not, please stop misquoting me to further your arguments. - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
I agree 100% with Bryce. - Serge On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: The nice thing about mapping a neighborhood name as a point feature is: a) It helps people locate the neighborhood b) it completely sidesteps the question of the exact, possibly fuzzy, boundaries. For 10% of the hassle you map 90% of the benefit. ___ 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 Hour tomorrow (monday) night
Should I make the G+ event for it or will that trip things up? On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: in the traditional 8:30pm ET slot - Martijn is traveling so i get to pick the time. i'll post a link here when i have it. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ 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] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us wrote: tl;dr: I'm against a blanket rule when it comes to administrative boundaries. They're really nuanced, and so should we. On 2015-03-22 04:32, Serge Wroclawski wrote: Imagine if Bob and Alice conflict on where a neighborhood boundary is inside OSM. The issue escalates to an edit war and the DWG is called in to resolve the conflict. Let's say that Frank is our DWG member. How is Frank supposed to resolve the conflict between Alice and Bob? Often neighborhoods don't have administrative recognition, or administrative recognition is not in alignment with the people. I imagine this would be especially an issue with neighborhoods where lots of the under-represented populations live. This is an important consideration. As I mentioned in a footnote earlier, even a city with strong neighborhood organization can have boundary disputes. However, the problem exists for administrative boundaries in general, all the way up to admin_level=2 boundaries that cut right across ethnic fault lines. My point was that we should map neighborhood boundaries in cities where doing so requires little editorial judgment, thanks to signage, distinctive lamp posts, etc. And we are quite clear (via the tag value administrative) that this isn't the only way by which a community can be delimited. As numerous threads have pointed out, the USPS has very different ideas of location (ZIP codes), but that's OK. When it comes to all our discussions around *administrative* boundaries, I like this two-point test as a rule of thumb: 1. Are people or property governed differently on one side versus the other? 2. Is this distinction observable on the ground? Municipalities generally pass both points. Congressional districts pass #1 but not #2. CDPs generally fail both. School districts can be observed, but not with the granularity required for mapping a boundary. City neighborhoods may pass one, both, or neither. Maybe all the locals you interview can agree on the name of a neighborhood but not its shape -- in which case it should be nothing more than a POI. Which brings me to Serge's other point: First, there are a growing number of people who believe that administrative data is very useful, but breaks OSM's ground observable rule. That is, someone who is present on the ground should be able to observe the data in OSM. It's usually not possible to do that with administrative boundaries. SteveA has responded more forcefully on this point, and so have I in the past. [1] Fortunately, Alice and Bob's disagreement sounds pretty clear-cut. If the city didn't go through the trouble of demarcating any part of the boundary in some way, perhaps the general public shouldn't expect OSM to reproduce their two neighborhoods' boundaries at all. But I see no reason why such a decision would impact boundaries with very different characteristics. tl;dr: I'm against blanket rules especially when they don't reflect the realities of the world or how far we have come in ten years. These rules prevent progress and new ways of thinking about solutions. Imagine the changes OSM, OpenLayers, Leafet, MapBox have made. The ESRI rule said that we shouldn't do it that way. You should spend large amounts of money to do GIS things. Based on my ESRI analogy, the ground observable rule feels like using ArcGIS Desktop to do mapping. Is that a reality anymore? In actuality, the OSM and ESRI way complement each other and can be used together. 1. Every time this boundary debate or accuracy debate comes up, I image that I am supposed to have $20,000 of GPS equipment[1]; post process the data so that it is accurate; before I dare put the data in OSM. 2. To quote Richard Fairhurst, Seriously, OSM in the [England] s still way beyond broken. You can open it at any random location and the map is just __fictional__. Here are two random examples bing;OS StreetView [2] shape is approximate. Needs proper survey as mostly built after current BING imagery date [3] I thought Bing was so bad that it is broken. What is happening with this growing number of people is they say or imply that England, the birth place of OSM, is the bee's knees for accuracy because it was surveyed the old fashioned way. I find no difference in these two examples in England than adding an approximate area in the US based on a subdivision or some other locally named area. 3. It is my belief and experience that the ground observable rule is something that only applies to Europe or older metropolitan areas. There's a number of times that I have read on the US list that either the signs are missing, stolen, or never posted. One of the reasons I map what I do is because the signs are missing. I am curios what river or wash I just drove over. It is not posted. I had to go to the US government sites to find the information because it is useful in OSM. So what do you want
Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
The nice thing about mapping a neighborhood name as a point feature is: a) It helps people locate the neighborhood b) it completely sidesteps the question of the exact, possibly fuzzy, boundaries. For 10% of the hassle you map 90% of the benefit. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: The nice thing about mapping a neighborhood name as a point feature is: a) It helps people locate the neighborhood b) it completely sidesteps the question of the exact, possibly fuzzy, boundaries. For 10% of the hassle you map 90% of the benefit. Except when it reports you are in a different neighborhood than you actually are. When neighborhoods are not clearly defined then yes, a point is the best choice. But when neighborhoods have defined boundaries then they should be added. Just going up the admin level to city level, points work until it says you are in a different city. We can not see city boundaries but OSM has thousands of city boundaries. The simple solution is if the neighborhood boundaries are clearly defined they belong in OSM as polygons. If neighborhood boundaries are not clearly defined then they should be represented by points. For the supporters of no admin boundaries in OSM, build the case on the mailing lists instead of just saying there is a growing support for no boundaries. In some parts of the US there is a growing support that climate change is a hoax. That doesn't make it true. Build a case for removing admin boundaries (and please include landuse.) Ideally in the future we can have a fuzzy boundary. But until then I think what I proposed is an acceptable solution. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] mappy hour link
this should be it: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/event/cnsbqt4rtjjcekl2hcgc53josj0 -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] mappy hour link
Thank you Richard! That was fun. We had a good turnout today. I hope to see you all in a couple of weeks. Martijn On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: this should be it: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/event/cnsbqt4rtjjcekl2hcgc53josj0 -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Martijn van Exel President, US Chapter OpenStreetMap http://openstreetmap.us/ http://osm.org/ skype: mvexel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Boundaries and verifiability (was Re: Retagging hamlets in the US)
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: Except when it reports you are in a different neighborhood than you actually are. A point feature does not imply a radius. A governmental defined neighborhood boundary is totally mappable at the right admin level, and you would not need point features in such a case. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
