Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly
>> substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours
>> on detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged
>> and data was lost as a result.
>>
>
> Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made
> the road a trunk in the first place.
>

Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my
desktop.  jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2
style, and merged dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the
one he was trying to game.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations

[Ray Kiddy]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 07:06:33 +0200
Marc Gemis  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:56 AM, Ray Kiddy  wrote:
> 
> > It has occurred to me that there will probably need to be a
> > "boundary watcher" tool, which can let an interested group know
> > about it when a boundary gets broken in some way. And I have
> > started playing with the python libraries for accessing OSM data
> > with this in mind.
> >
> 
> There is a German team that does this. They maintain the website
> https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/boundaries/ from which you can
> download all administrative boundaries in a number of formats.
> They also have a website with all missing (or broken) administrative
> boundaries:
> https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/index.php/projekte/internationale-administrative-grenzen/missing-boundaries
>  (in German)
> 
> regards

Others had mentioned the site to me. When I was looking at it, things
did not make so much sense, but I can see it now.

Strangely, I am finding that some of the cities in California _are_ in
the system, but as ways and not as relations. This seems odd, but we
will see.

And, actually, it looks as though the missing-boundaries pages are in
both German and English. So that will help. Other parts are still in
German, but I can deal.

I will check with them about some of this.

thanx - ray

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

Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations

[Toby Murray]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Ray Kiddy  wrote:
>
> Strangely, I am finding that some of the cities in California _are_ in
> the system, but as ways and not as relations. This seems odd, but we
> will see.

Well the primary reason to use relations in boundaries is to reduce
duplication. So if two cities share a border, the same way can be used
in both relations. Sometimes people even use roads or streams or other
physical ways as part of boundary relations. I personally usually
avoid this because I like having boundary relations completely
separate from other things so that they are easier to update in the
future. So for a city that is not part of a metro area with adjoining
cities, it is perfectly fine to just used a closed way instead of a
relation for the boundary. At the end of the day, both ways and
relations generally get turned into either linestrings (if linear) or
multipolygons (if closed) in things like a postgis database or a
shapefile.

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Paul Johnson]

This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver Mall,
where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along
WA500.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence  wrote:

> It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if
> you don't believe me.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history
> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision
> 20.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history
> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted revision
> 14.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history
> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted revision 4.
>
> I could go on...
>
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>>
 I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly
 substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours
 on detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged
 and data was lost as a result.

>>>
>>> Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you
>>> made the road a trunk in the first place.
>>>
>>
>> Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my
>> desktop.  jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2
>> style, and merged dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the
>> one he was trying to game.
>>
> --
> Christopher N. Lawrence 
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Chris Lawrence]

It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if
you don't believe me.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision 20.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted revision 14.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted revision 4.

I could go on...


Chris

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly
>>> substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours
>>> on detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged
>>> and data was lost as a result.
>>>
>>
>> Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made
>> the road a trunk in the first place.
>>
>
> Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my
> desktop.  jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2
> style, and merged dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the
> one he was trying to game.
>
-- 
Christopher N. Lawrence 
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] understanding administrative boundary relations

[Ray Kiddy]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:11:26 -0500
Toby Murray  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Ray Kiddy  wrote:
> >
> > Strangely, I am finding that some of the cities in California _are_
> > in the system, but as ways and not as relations. This seems odd,
> > but we will see.
> 
> Well the primary reason to use relations in boundaries is to reduce
> duplication. So if two cities share a border, the same way can be used
> in both relations. Sometimes people even use roads or streams or other
> physical ways as part of boundary relations. I personally usually
> avoid this because I like having boundary relations completely
> separate from other things so that they are easier to update in the
> future. So for a city that is not part of a metro area with adjoining
> cities, it is perfectly fine to just used a closed way instead of a
> relation for the boundary. At the end of the day, both ways and
> relations generally get turned into either linestrings (if linear) or
> multipolygons (if closed) in things like a postgis database or a
> shapefile.
> 
> Toby
> 

So, there is nothing that a relation brings to the table that a way
does not? I mean, it is clear that for the purposes of drawing, they
are the same. But then are they really just the same?

I am tempted to try to add relations for these that refer to the ways,
moving the associated data appropriately, but then I like to do things
like re-normalizing databases and it is sometimes not such a good
idea

So, I will believe you if you say that ways are just aliases for
relations. Is this the case?

- ray

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

Re: [Talk-us] Anybody had any contact with this user?

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 04/09/2015 04:55, James Mast wrote:
...  but I've sent him two messages in the last 2 months without any 
response back from him, asking him if he could please add a 'comment' 
to his changesets after he was mass adding some data in my local area 
a few times (mostly just buildings from Bing as far as I could tell).


It's certainly possible that (for whatever reason) they just haven't 
noticed the messages.  It's happened to me - I've sometimes not noticed 
the number at the top right of the osm.org website and if they're not 
using JOSM (which this user isn't) they won't see the more prominent 
"new message" display there.


Also, if the messages were added as changeset discussion comments then a 
user that doesn't regularly check emails (which some people don't - 
perhaps they receive mail on a computer at home and are editing OSM from 
a different one elsewhere) then it's possible that they may not be read 
immediately.  Something that's also happened to me is that after a mail 
server problem at my end has been fixed there's been a delay getting 
mails from OSM sent again.


If all other avenues are exhausted and you really wants to get in touch, 
as a last resort drop the Data Working Group (d...@osmfoundation.org) a 
message and we can send a user a message that has to be read before they 
can continue mapping (making it clear that they're not being blocked for 
any sort of "bad editing", but that we'd really like them to reply to 
messages that have been sent, or reply to changeset discussions, or 
similar).


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

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

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Jack Burke]

Paul,

He's not saying that jakeroot isn't the most recent editor. He's saying that 
the specific changes you're referring to are in changesets earlier than 
jakeroot's, and that *those* changesets appear to be yours. 

Not at a computer, so can't look myself. 

-jack


On September 4, 2015 4:44:53 PM EDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver
>Mall,
>where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along
>WA500.
>
>On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence 
>wrote:
>
>> It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself
>if
>> you don't believe me.
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history
>> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 19 and 20. You submitted
>revision
>> 20.
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history
>> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted
>revision
>> 14.
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history
>> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted
>revision 4.
>>
>> I could go on...
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson 
>wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson 
>wrote:

> I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a
>fairly
> substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good
>12-15 hours
> on detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got
>merged
> and data was lost as a result.
>

 Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when
>you
 made the road a trunk in the first place.

>>>
>>> Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my
>>> desktop.  jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map
>NE2
>>> style, and merged dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags
>except the
>>> one he was trying to game.
>>>
>> --
>> Christopher N. Lawrence 
>>
>
>
>
>
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Chris Lawrence]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly
> substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours
> on detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged
> and data was lost as a result.
>

Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made
the road a trunk in the first place.


Chris

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

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[James Mast]

Paul, 

I've tried to stay out of this here on talk-us, but being belligerent and 
claiming somebody else removed the 'lanes' tags that didn't do it is just wrong 
Paul.  You honestly owe jakeroot an apology here (and in the Changeset 33669446 
comments) since he didn't remove those tags!!!  You, yourself removed them 
Paul, back in Changeset 32790788 over 2 months ago.  The history here doesn't 
lie about it. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history  The 'lanes' 
tag was there for version 19 of that way edited by Bickendan, but gone in 
version 20 edited by you Paul.  The way is now currently on version 23.

If I was part of the DWG, I would recommend making you apologize to jakeroot 
before you could continue editing anything because of that.  If you didn't 
realize Paul, you're kinda acting like NE2 right now when it comes to this.

-James (rickmastfan67)


From: burke...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:31 -0400
To: ba...@ursamundi.org; d...@osmfoundation.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

Paul,



He's not saying that jakeroot isn't the most recent editor. He's saying that 
the specific changes you're referring to are in changesets earlier than 
jakeroot's, and that *those* changesets appear to be yours. 



Not at a computer, so can't look myself. 



-jack



On September 4, 2015 4:44:53 PM EDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:
This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver Mall, 
where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along WA500.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence  wrote:
It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if you 
don't believe me.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history- "lanes" disappears between 
revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision 20.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted revision 14.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted revision 4.
I could go on...

Chris
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence  wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly 
substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours on 
detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged and data 
was lost as a result.
Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made the
road a trunk in the first place.
Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my desktop.  
jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2 style, and merged 
dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the one he was trying to 
game.
-- 
Christopher N. Lawrence 



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


-- 

Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. 
___
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] understanding administrative boundary relations

[Richard Welty]

On 9/4/15 5:09 PM, Ray Kiddy wrote:
> So, there is nothing that a relation brings to the table that a way
> does not? I mean, it is clear that for the purposes of drawing, they
> are the same. But then are they really just the same?
i don't know about the current style, but in the past there has been an
issue
where a way was contained in a relation, and both the way and the relation
had the same admin boundary tagging. the stylesheet of 1-2 years ago
would draw the admin boundary twice.

i haven't checked to see if this problem has been fixed or  not. the correct
answer is to only tag the relation and remove any duplicate tagging from
the way, especially because the way may be in multiple relations and with
different admin levels in the different relations.

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] Anybody had any contact with this user?

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Martijn van Exel 
wrote:

> Wow, that is more changesets than I racked up in 10 years. Haven't had
> contact with this particular mapper but I can say with certainty that
> they're not with Telenav.
>

It appears most of the changesets are exceptionally fine-grained, like a
building here, a single node there, which is close to the exact opposite of
how you and I tend to edit many miles of ways in a single changeset,
Martijn.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us