Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 11:55 2020-08-22, Volker Schmidt đã viết:



On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 19:31, > 
wrote:

I've
even encountered signs that threaten people who attempt to use their
driveway as a U-turn.


This seems to be the rule in England, UK. When I took my driving license 
many years back (1978) there, I remember that the driving instructor 
reminded me explicitly that that a U-turn backing the car into a 
driveway would mean my failing the test (I am from Germany where that is 
the preferred approach as it's safer than the the 3-point-turn which 
they tought me in England).
So there are places in the world where the driveways are implicitly 
"private" without any additional sign.


I was referring to signs that threaten that the owner will come out and 
pull a gun out on you if you back into the driveway. Fortunately, these 
signs are relatively rare in the U.S. But they are quite different than 
the usual rule against backing into a driveway that would fail a driving 
test, hence my preference for making this distinction in the database.


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Import WestCOG building footprints in south-west Connecticut

[Martin Machyna]

Thank Julien for pushing this forward!

yeah, I tried to get addresses from here:
http://geodata-ctmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/bfa7da83da384c2aa809882179369dc4_0/features/305004
and add them on top of the westCOG buildings.

The data is a big mess because it's a join_table of like 30 different
address databases. I lost a bit of motivation there, but I could have a
look at it again.

Martin

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 2:19 PM Julien Lepiller  wrote:

> Le Sat, 22 Aug 2020 13:30:02 -0400,
> Yury Yatsynovich  a écrit :
>
> > Hi Julien,
> > The following communication that I've had recently with a CT official
> > might be of interest to you:
> >
> >
>
> Oh, great! I think we already saw this data (I tried to contact them
> too, but never got a reply :/). From what we saw (I think it was in
> February?) the footprints have simplification issues (see
> https://files.slack.com/files-pri/T029HV94T-FTDGDHXTM/image.png for
> instance) where they are too detailed, not square enough, etc. Some
> buildings also have holes in them, when there's none in the imagery.
>
> So I think it's too bad to be used directly, without a lot of manual
> effort to simplify, square and redraw the shapes. However, the address
> data is very interesting, so maybe we could extract from it? Or we
> could use a separate dataset if they have addresses separately.
>
> ___
> Imports mailing list
> impo...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Re: [Tagging] [Talk-transit] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

The answer by Clay Smalley was public and visible on mailing lists.
Personally I was not answering because someone started
mailing list thread under badly chosen title and spammed
it to [Talk-us] AND [Tagging] AND [Talk-transit] AND [OSM-talk]

Why not also to [Imports] and [Talk-pl] and [Talk-diversity]
And [talk-ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]?


Aug 22, 2020, 21:48 by talk-us@openstreetmap.org:

> ever time this person answers, no one else will talk because he is addressing 
> it to me and not the grope.
>  
> i have never id him as he has me, what about the rules ?
>
>
>  Forwarded message 
> From: Clay Smalley <> claysmal...@gmail.com <>> >
> To: 80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru, Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics 
> <> talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org <>> >
> Cc: t...@openstreetmap.org, tagg...@openstreetmap.org, OSM Talk US <> 
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org <>> >
> Date: Saturday, August 22, 2020 2:33 PM -05:00
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] [Talk-transit] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: 
> Re: VANDALISM !)
>  > Everyone knows who you're talking about at this point, and nobody cares. 
> Use the remaining day or so of your temporary ban to work on some hobbies 
> outside of OpenStreetMap. 
>  
> And be careful about who you say isn't local. I'm moving to Northern Indiana 
> next week and I'll certainly get the chance to survey many of the estimated 
> stop positions I remotely mapped. I hope to see you around as we continue 
> working on the same things.
>  
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 12:21 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-transit <> 
> talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org 
> > 
> > wrote:
>
>>> it was one person in CA adding 400 unverified tags to rail service in 
>>> chicago.
>>>  
>>> one just 818 m, away from my home.
>>>  
>>>
 SATURDAY, August 22, 2020 12:32 PM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer < 
 dieterdre...@gmail.com  >:

 sent from a phone
  
 > On 22. Aug 2020, at 10:15, pangoSE < pang...@riseup.net <> > 
 > wrote:
 >
 > Here is yet another example of bad data in our database:

 fix it ;-)

 Of course OpenStreetMap contains errors, just like any other source, and 
 probably more, given that most contributors are laymen and have very few 
 experience (few total edits, often just 1).

 On the other hand, we may be very fast when something changes, very 
 flexible in emergencies (think Haiti), and have interesting niche data 
 that commercial and public data providers don’t care for.

 It all depends on the local community in the end. If you have reached a 
 critical mass to have locals everywhere, it will work great and bugs will 
 wash out. Otherwise the data might get stale just like any other data. 
 Also using the data is essential to find the problems, for example the 212 
 story garage is likely fixed now ;-)

 I tend to agree with Steve A.

 Cheers Martin
 ___
 talk mailing list
 t...@openstreetmap.org <>
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> ___
>> Talk-transit mailing list
>> talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org 
>> 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> tagg...@openstreetmap.org <>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>

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

[Talk-us] Fwd: Re: [Tagging] [Talk-transit] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

[80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us]

ever time this person answers, no one else will talk because he is addressing 
it to me and not the grope.
 
i have never id him as he has me, what about the rules ?


 Forwarded message 
From: Clay Smalley < claysmal...@gmail.com >
To: 80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru, Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics < 
talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org >
Cc: t...@openstreetmap.org, tagg...@openstreetmap.org, OSM Talk US < 
talk-us@openstreetmap.org >
Date: Saturday, August 22, 2020 2:33 PM -05:00
Subject: Re: [Tagging] [Talk-transit] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: 
Re: VANDALISM !)
 
Everyone knows who you're talking about at this point, and nobody cares. Use 
the remaining day or so of your temporary ban to work on some hobbies outside 
of OpenStreetMap. 
 
And be careful about who you say isn't local. I'm moving to Northern Indiana 
next week and I'll certainly get the chance to survey many of the estimated 
stop positions I remotely mapped. I hope to see you around as we continue 
working on the same things.
 
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 12:21 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-transit < 
talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org > wrote:
>>it was one person in CA adding 400 unverified tags to rail service in chicago.
>> 
>>one just 818 m, away from my home.
>> 
>>>SATURDAY, August 22, 2020 12:32 PM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer < 
>>>dieterdre...@gmail.com >:
>>>
>>>sent from a phone
>>> 
 On 22. Aug 2020, at 10:15, pangoSE < pang...@riseup.net > wrote:

 Here is yet another example of bad data in our database:
>>>fix it ;-)
>>>
>>>Of course OpenStreetMap contains errors, just like any other source, and 
>>>probably more, given that most contributors are laymen and have very few 
>>>experience (few total edits, often just 1).
>>>
>>>On the other hand, we may be very fast when something changes, very flexible 
>>>in emergencies (think Haiti), and have interesting niche data that 
>>>commercial and public data providers don’t care for.
>>>
>>>It all depends on the local community in the end. If you have reached a 
>>>critical mass to have locals everywhere, it will work great and bugs will 
>>>wash out. Otherwise the data might get stale just like any other data. Also 
>>>using the data is essential to find the problems, for example the 212 story 
>>>garage is likely fixed now ;-)
>>>
>>>I tend to agree with Steve A.
>>>
>>>Cheers Martin
>>>___
>>>talk mailing list
>>>t...@openstreetmap.org
>>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> 
>  ___
>Talk-transit mailing list
>talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
___
Tagging mailing list
tagg...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
--
 
 
 
 
 ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Talk-transit] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

[Clay Smalley]

Everyone knows who you're talking about at this point, and nobody cares.
Use the remaining day or so of your temporary ban to work on some hobbies
outside of OpenStreetMap.

And be careful about who you say isn't local. I'm moving to Northern
Indiana next week and I'll certainly get the chance to survey many of the
estimated stop positions I remotely mapped. I hope to see you around as we
continue working on the same things.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 12:21 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-transit <
talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> it was one person in CA adding 400 unverified tags to rail service in
> chicago.
>
> one just 818 m, away from my home.
>
>
> SATURDAY, August 22, 2020 12:32 PM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com >:
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 22. Aug 2020, at 10:15, pangoSE  wrote:
> >
> > Here is yet another example of bad data in our database:
>
> fix it ;-)
>
> Of course OpenStreetMap contains errors, just like any other source, and
> probably more, given that most contributors are laymen and have very few
> experience (few total edits, often just 1).
>
> On the other hand, we may be very fast when something changes, very
> flexible in emergencies (think Haiti), and have interesting niche data that
> commercial and public data providers don’t care for.
>
> It all depends on the local community in the end. If you have reached a
> critical mass to have locals everywhere, it will work great and bugs will
> wash out. Otherwise the data might get stale just like any other data. Also
> using the data is essential to find the problems, for example the 212 story
> garage is likely fixed now ;-)
>
> I tend to agree with Steve A.
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-transit mailing list
> talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

[80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us]

>it was one person in CA adding 400 unverified tags to rail service in chicago.
> 
>one just 818 m, away from my home.
> 
>>Saturday, August 22, 2020 12:32 PM -05:00 from Martin Koppenhoefer < 
>>dieterdre...@gmail.com >:
>>
>>sent from a phone
>> 
>>> On 22. Aug 2020, at 10:15, pangoSE < pang...@riseup.net > wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is yet another example of bad data in our database:
>>fix it ;-)
>>
>>Of course OpenStreetMap contains errors, just like any other source, and 
>>probably more, given that most contributors are laymen and have very few 
>>experience (few total edits, often just 1).
>>
>>On the other hand, we may be very fast when something changes, very flexible 
>>in emergencies (think Haiti), and have interesting niche data that commercial 
>>and public data providers don’t care for.
>>
>>It all depends on the local community in the end. If you have reached a 
>>critical mass to have locals everywhere, it will work great and bugs will 
>>wash out. Otherwise the data might get stale just like any other data. Also 
>>using the data is essential to find the problems, for example the 212 story 
>>garage is likely fixed now ;-)
>>
>>I tend to agree with Steve A.
>>
>>Cheers Martin
>>___
>>talk mailing list
>>t...@openstreetmap.org
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
> 
> 
> 
>  
 
 
 
 ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Volker Schmidt]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 19:31,  wrote:

> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 10:14:00 -0700
> From: Minh Nguyen 
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove
> access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH
> I've
> even encountered signs that threaten people who attempt to use their
> driveway as a U-turn.
>

This seems to be the rule in England, UK. When I took my driving license
many years back (1978) there, I remember that the driving instructor
reminded me explicitly that that a U-turn backing the car into a driveway
would mean my failing the test (I am from Germany where that is the
preferred approach as it's safer than the the 3-point-turn which they
tought me in England).
So there are places in the world where the driveways are implicitly
"private" without any additional sign.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Import WestCOG building footprints in south-west Connecticut

[Julien Lepiller]

Le Sat, 22 Aug 2020 13:30:02 -0400,
Yury Yatsynovich  a écrit :

> Hi Julien,
> The following communication that I've had recently with a CT official
> might be of interest to you:
> 
> 

Oh, great! I think we already saw this data (I tried to contact them
too, but never got a reply :/). From what we saw (I think it was in
February?) the footprints have simplification issues (see
https://files.slack.com/files-pri/T029HV94T-FTDGDHXTM/image.png for
instance) where they are too detailed, not square enough, etc. Some
buildings also have holes in them, when there's none in the imagery.

So I think it's too bad to be used directly, without a lot of manual
effort to simplify, square and redraw the shapes. However, the address
data is very interesting, so maybe we could extract from it? Or we
could use a separate dataset if they have addresses separately.

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

Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Import WestCOG building footprints in south-west Connecticut

[Yury Yatsynovich]

Hi Julien,
The following communication that I've had recently with a CT official might
be of interest to you:


*

Hi Yury,



At this point, yes, I think that’s correct. Obviously, we’d like if you
cite the state, but we don’t have set guidelines for that. I forwarded the
other issue with downloading data and will let you know what I hear.
Hide quoted text



Thanks,



Scott



*From:* Yury Yatsynovich 
*Sent:* Monday, August 3, 2020 8:53 AM
*To:* Gaul, Scott 
*Subject:* Re: Request for permission to import data into OpenStreetMap



Thank you,  Scott!

The above mentioned terms describe mostly (lack of) liabilities of the data
provider, but don't mention any constraints on who and how can use the
data. Does it mean that there are no such constraints? There is also no
attribution requirement -- does it mean that I'm not required to cite the
source of the data?

With best regards,



On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 7:42 AM Gaul, Scott  wrote:

Hi Yury,

Thanks for asking – you can use the terms of use for the CT open data
portal, here: https://data.ct.gov/terms. That should also cover the GIS
portal. Let us know any questions.



Thanks,



Scott



*From:* Yury Yatsynovich 
*Sent:* Friday, July 31, 2020 3:57 PM
*To:* Gaul, Scott 
*Subject:* Request for permission to import data into OpenStreetMap



Hi Scott!

Are there any constraints on who and how is allowed to use the data posted
on http://geodata-ctmaps.opendata.arcgis.com

?

I'm asking this because I'm interested in importing the data on CT
buildings with addresses into OpenStreetMap (OSM) -- to do so I need to
make sure that the imported data's license is compatible with OSM.

With kind regards,

OSM contributor,

--

Yury Yatsynovich


On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 1:17 PM Julien Lepiller  wrote:

> Hi!
>
> With other contributors in Connecticut, we would like to import
> building footprints. We have evaluated different data sources, and
> concluded that no Connecticut-wide sources were usable without a lot of
> manual work to fix building geometry.
>
> We found that the WestCOG has very accurate building footprint data on
> its territory (south west Connecticut), available online and with a
> compatible license (CC0):
> http://data.westcog.org:8080/GIS_data/Buildings.gdb.zip
> That's 513,141 buildings, and 296,423 building parts in some of them,
> that cover this territory:
>
> https://westcog.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/WestCOG_Locus_Map-e1439920850177-790x1024.jpg
>
> Other COGs unfortunately don't share this data online. We hope that a
> successful import could be a convincing argument for other COGs to open
> their data.
>
> We have documented our current plan at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Connecticut/Western_COG_Building_Import
> on the wiki.
>
> We have contacted local mappers of this part of
> Connecticut (we are based in and around New Haven, not is south-west
> Connecticut), with no negative feedback and 2-3 positive responses. We
> have created a process to convert the data from WestCOG to OSM tags and
> files that can easily be loaded in JOSM.
>
> We have never done an import before, so we'd appreciate any advice on
> how to properly do the import. From our reading the wiki, we should use
> a separate user to import the data. Is that one shared user for the
> import, or one user for each person importing data?
>
> We have identified potential issues with this import: roads and
> waterways come from an old import and might very well cross the
> buildings we'd like to import. For now, we have a task on the osmus
> task manager to try and correct road geometry (currently finished at
> 50%) that covers Fairfield County (WestCOG is a part of Fairfield
> county): https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/193. This is not going
> very fast, so we'd like to start the import even though we haven't
> finished the tasks. We plan to fix road and water issues as we
> encounter them instead, while encouraging people to go and fix them
> independently from our import.
>
> WestCOG currently has almost no building mapped, but obviously we plan
> to keep existing buildings and only import buildings that are not yet
> mapped.
>
> What is a good way to split this import? Is there a good size per
> changeset that you could recommend?
>
> Thanks for your help!
>
> Julien
>
> ___
> Imports mailing list
> impo...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Import WestCOG building footprints in south-west Connecticut

[Julien Lepiller]

Hi!

With other contributors in Connecticut, we would like to import
building footprints. We have evaluated different data sources, and
concluded that no Connecticut-wide sources were usable without a lot of
manual work to fix building geometry.

We found that the WestCOG has very accurate building footprint data on
its territory (south west Connecticut), available online and with a
compatible license (CC0):
http://data.westcog.org:8080/GIS_data/Buildings.gdb.zip
That's 513,141 buildings, and 296,423 building parts in some of them,
that cover this territory:
https://westcog.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/WestCOG_Locus_Map-e1439920850177-790x1024.jpg

Other COGs unfortunately don't share this data online. We hope that a
successful import could be a convincing argument for other COGs to open
their data.

We have documented our current plan at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Connecticut/Western_COG_Building_Import
on the wiki.

We have contacted local mappers of this part of
Connecticut (we are based in and around New Haven, not is south-west
Connecticut), with no negative feedback and 2-3 positive responses. We
have created a process to convert the data from WestCOG to OSM tags and
files that can easily be loaded in JOSM.

We have never done an import before, so we'd appreciate any advice on
how to properly do the import. From our reading the wiki, we should use
a separate user to import the data. Is that one shared user for the
import, or one user for each person importing data?

We have identified potential issues with this import: roads and
waterways come from an old import and might very well cross the
buildings we'd like to import. For now, we have a task on the osmus
task manager to try and correct road geometry (currently finished at
50%) that covers Fairfield County (WestCOG is a part of Fairfield
county): https://tasks.openstreetmap.us/project/193. This is not going
very fast, so we'd like to start the import even though we haven't
finished the tasks. We plan to fix road and water issues as we
encounter them instead, while encouraging people to go and fix them
independently from our import.

WestCOG currently has almost no building mapped, but obviously we plan
to keep existing buildings and only import buildings that are not yet
mapped.

What is a good way to split this import? Is there a good size per
changeset that you could recommend?

Thanks for your help!

Julien

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

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 12:01 2020-08-16, Alex Weech đã viết:

Hello all,
I'm planning a mechanical edit to remove the access=private tag that 
Amazon Logistics mappers added in New Hampshire. They originally added 
the tag without using street-level imagery to look for no trespassing 
signs, and they made so, so many mistakes. The group has finally yielded 
to the community feedback to stop adding the tag, and I want to quickly 
remove as many of the instances as possible. I believe it is worthwhile 
to remove the tag because it is important to distinguish between houses 
that accept visitors and those that do not, and currently access=private 
is the best way to indicate it, but it is diluted by all of the Amazon 
Logistics driveways. Ihave written up my proposal here 
. 
It's pretty much copy-paste from the project with the same goals for 
neighboring Maine, and that one has been well received, so I am hoping 
this one is well received as well. (I'd be in favor of a nationwide 
greenlighting of such projects, but since that hasn't happened yet I'm 
doing my due diligence contacting the community ).

Sincerely,
Alex (aweech)


I'm glad to see efforts toward distinguishing between posted and 
unposted driveways. I've encountered plenty of no trespassing signs on 
driveways over the years, some of them more menacing than others. I've 
even encountered signs that threaten people who attempt to use their 
driveway as a U-turn. So I'd imagine this distinction would be 
beneficial to any logistics company as well.


The proposal says it'll be limited to features edited by Amazon 
Logistics users, which is a good idea. Since there may have been 
turnover on the team since the first driveways were mapped, ideally 
you'd include former team members too. Unfortunately, 
 doesn't list 
former team members, but you could comb through the page's revision 
history if you wanted to be extra thorough.


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


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

[Talk-us] licence? | Re: [Imports] Importing data from alltheplaces.xyz

[Rory McCann]

That site is “A growing set of web scrapers designed to output 
consistent geodata about as many places of business in the world as 
possible.”


I don't think it's CC0 licenced. It's a collection of other databases. 
Have they gotten permission from all the business that they scrape that 
they can licence this resultant data as CC0? I don't think so.


They could claim the data is CC0, or that the moon is made of cheese, 
but that doesn't mean the data is CC0.


I don't think you can import this.

On 22.08.20 14:04, Kun Attila wrote:

Dear OSM community,

I've been mapping Moundsville, WV nowadays (one of my friends live there 
so i chose that location). I'm ottwiz on OSM 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ottwiz) from Hungary. Sometimes i 
didn't know how to publish imports correctly  from 
https://www.alltheplaces.xyz/( it has CC-0 with waiver license), because 
i never imported anything. I already talked in US slack, and they saw no 
problems with importing these data, just they warned me they can't be 
100% accurate, because the "spider" bot takes the data from websites 
that publish their coordinates on a map, and sometimes it can be like 
100-200 (or more) yards off the place. Without further ado, I only 
imported those which are 100% accurate. (checked on other maps, that's 
why, but of course there is some that is on correct position on Google, 
but not in this database, so i omitted those ones, because taking stuff 
from Google is not complying with OSM rules). I also put a "Taco Bell" 
store, which address is 103 Lafayette Ave, Moundsville, WV 26041. It's 
between two shops (which have 101 and 105 Lafayette Ave respectively), 
so it was easy to guess the location.


It's a thing that I already finished my importing, just someone told me 
if i didn't go to the location, I shouldn't use "survey" for source. OK, 
i got it.
So, if nobody has any questions, i'd leave the already imported stuff 
alone(it's like 15 shops around Lafayette avenue, changesets which 
contain them: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89655873 ; 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89742498); , and open a case in 
the catalogue and a small wiki page that i did this import on OSM. 
Sorry, just this is my first import, so i didn't know i had to take 
these steps.


Ottwiz


___
Imports mailing list
impo...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports


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

[Talk-us] Importing data from alltheplaces.xyz

[Kun Attila]

Dear OSM community,

I've been mapping Moundsville, WV nowadays (one of my friends live there 
so i chose that location). I'm ottwiz on OSM 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ottwiz) from Hungary. Sometimes i 
didn't know how to publish imports correctly  from 
https://www.alltheplaces.xyz/( it has CC-0 with waiver license), because 
i never imported anything. I already talked in US slack, and they saw no 
problems with importing these data, just they warned me they can't be 
100% accurate, because the "spider" bot takes the data from websites 
that publish their coordinates on a map, and sometimes it can be like 
100-200 (or more) yards off the place. Without further ado, I only 
imported those which are 100% accurate. (checked on other maps, that's 
why, but of course there is some that is on correct position on Google, 
but not in this database, so i omitted those ones, because taking stuff 
from Google is not complying with OSM rules). I also put a "Taco Bell" 
store, which address is 103 Lafayette Ave, Moundsville, WV 26041. It's 
between two shops (which have 101 and 105 Lafayette Ave respectively), 
so it was easy to guess the location.


It's a thing that I already finished my importing, just someone told me 
if i didn't go to the location, I shouldn't use "survey" for source. OK, 
i got it.
So, if nobody has any questions, i'd leave the already imported stuff 
alone(it's like 15 shops around Lafayette avenue, changesets which 
contain them: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89655873 ; 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89742498); , and open a case in 
the catalogue and a small wiki page that i did this import on OSM. 
Sorry, just this is my first import, so i didn't know i had to take 
these steps.


Ottwiz


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

Re: [Talk-us] VANDALISM !

[Andy Townsend]

On 22/08/2020 02:35, Clay Smalley wrote:
For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day 
ban for the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're 
exhibiting right now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3850



Indeed, and it wasn't done lightly - only after a very large number of 
public comments (in changesets  and block messages) and private messages 
(OSM PMs and emails) from the DWG.


It can sometimes be difficult to see how something that you see locally 
that appears "wrong" fits into a wider picture, but the way to resolve 
that is to try and understand the wider picture, not just to delete data 
that you don't understand and claim that others are "vandalising the 
map" by adding that data in the first place.  We do get "real" vandalism 
in OSM, but it is thankfully relatively rare - as an example, yesterday 
someone replaced a major US landmark with a priapic "artwork" that was 
swiftly reverted.


That "understanding the wider picture" involves asking why things are 
done as they are and listening to the answer, and if there's a local 
case that doesn't seem to fit discussing among a wider group of people 
how best to resolve the issue (as I've done with the PTv2 stop position 
issue).  Starting mailing list threads with "VANDALISM!" in the subject 
is unlikely to be helpful in doing that.


The converse of that is that sometimes people find "discussing among a 
wider group" difficult for whatever reason - I'd always try and 
understand and assist with that where possible (and have spent 
significant personal time doing so here) but sometimes clear lines have 
to be drawn about what is and what is not acceptable, and when they are 
crossed there needs to be a response.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)



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

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] VANDALISM !

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

Thanks to DWG for taking this action.

Aug 22, 2020, 03:35 by claysmal...@gmail.com:

> For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day ban for 
> the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're exhibiting right 
> now: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3850
>
> jdd 3, please take a break. You have better things to do.
>
> I look forward to when you demonstrate the ability to communicate 
> collaboratively.
>
> Best,
> Clay
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:08 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us <> 
> talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> FYI;
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
>>  
>> Purposeful removal or degradation of data that are known to be correct,
>>  
>> Deliberate adding incorrect data;
>>  
>> People who revert other people's work should expect to be able to 
>> demonstrate that the reversion was well reasoned and proportionate to the 
>> issue.
>>  
>> Not There;
>> Unverified>>  >>  >> if someone puts in 400 + >>  unverified >> tags in one 
>> edit,
>>  
>> If someone reverts, 400 + edits,  in one edit, done on good faith by others 
>> over the years to conform to there way of thinking,
>>  
>> If someone deletes, 400 + edits,  in one edit, done on good faith by others 
>> over the years to conform to there way of thinking,
>>  
>> If someone refuses to let others, edit because they have taken over that 
>> type edit, all bus stops in the same area,
>> all train stations in the same area, all boundaries in the same area.
>>  
>> Edits that do not conform to the subject wiki. 
>>  
>> if someone downloads data that will create one mulitipolygon, against all 
>> wikis
>>  
>> Also there is no wiki on unverified edits.
>>  
>>  
>> ___
>>  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] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us]

"It a playground with half-ass quality more than an authoritative and verified 
source of information (like e.g. Wikipedia)"

I am not sure whatever you claim that
Wikipedia is
"playground with half-ass quality" or
"authoritative and verified source of information".

Though any of this claims would demonstrate that
you are wrong and uninformed.

Like with your "deprecate name tag"
there are so many wrong things here.
OSM would benefit from better verification
tools and so on but insult-laden post
filed with misunderstandings will not
lead towards them.
22 Aug 2020, 09:32 by pang...@riseup.net:

> Hi
>
> 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk  skrev: (22 augusti 2020 
> 03:06:37 CEST)
>
> > 
> >Also there is no wiki on unverified edits.
> > 
>
> In OSM we don't yet have an established system for verification or accurate 
> machine readable references for the data to my knowledge.
>
> This means the whole database is basically just a mess of biased data that 
> one of our millions of editors thought should be included. Most objects have 
> very few revisions and we have no idea about the overall quality or 
> correctness. It a playground with half-ass quality more than an authoritative 
> and verified source of information (like e.g. Wikipedia). Building upon it 
> can lead to strange things. E.g. 
> https://www.nyteknik.se/popularteknik/mystisk-jatteskrapa-dok-upp-i-flygsimulator-6999771
>  (building:levels=212 was entered erroneously and committed to the database 
> without any kind of QA follow-up. If someone knows the osmid I would like to 
> know how long this error was present in OSM)
>
> We should really fix this and start a verification effort after implementing 
> a sane verification model.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

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

Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !

[stevea]

I largely agree, but I have found there are times and places where explicitly 
saying "this particular wiki here is being PREscriptive (should be done), 
rather than the usual tone of DEscriptive (as done now)" can be a value-add to 
both our map and our wiki (in the long run).  When done well and right, this 
practice can encourage a messy state in the map into a more orderly one, with 
the wiki aiding in displaying progress, "how far along" this is.  When this 
"task" (or "project" as it is a good chunk of work) is done, the wiki can 
describe itself as descriptive (like most are) and it fully self-documents.  
This really works, but such "macro states" are best declared quite explicitly, 
so that people know how a particular wiki is being used.  (The vast majority 
are indeed "how things are actually mapped.")  It starts with a goal, a 
prescriptive description of "how things should be" is asserted, then we build 
it.  Finally (sort of), around the time it's "done" (or it gets close, as some 
things are never "done") we say "this is how it is."  This practice is not THAT 
unusual, even if some wiki pages are explicit about it and others are less so 
or not.

A subset of these are something we used to call "WikiProjects" but somehow that 
moniker seems to have dissolved.

SteveA

> On Aug 21, 2020, at 6:38 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> I feel like now is a good time to remind folks that the wiki should be 
> descriptive of how things are actually mapped, not strictly proscriptive.

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