Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Proposing import of sidewalk data Seattle, WA, USA
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > >>sidewalk tagging in OSM is a complex issue. The fact that sidewalks >> are not tagged as individual geometries is not purely a shortcoming, it >> is a compromise that keeps OSM data editable. Having individual >> geometries for every single sidewalk on the planet will not only >> massively increase the data volume but also require new and better tools >> for editing, e.g. moving the geometry of a street without having to move >> three parallel lines manually and so on. >> > > Frederik, I thought you were for only add objects that can be surveyed on > the ground? Isn't that what they are proposing? > > We tell people not to map for the renderer. In the same spirit shouldn't > we tell people not to let the limitations of the editor stop them from > mapping? > I tend to agree, particularly for pedestrian modes. Sidewalks and pedestrian crossings are pretty easy to verify even from the air and this will be at least rational for most automated routing systems and a good starting point (even if it means multiple ways per street, short of some form of lanes type tagging, which I think gets messy for things like sidewalks that have a curb (or more severe) barrier). It does give the most reasonable routing assumption (that is, you can't just freerun midblock from sidewalk to sidewalk). Most routing engines will figure it out fairly quickly if you do this anyway, however (and any highly-tuned routing engine should be able to make an educated guess by context anyway). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Proposing import of sidewalk data Seattle, WA, USA
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Greg Morgan wrote: >> look at the recent turn lane work that MapBox is performing. They >> have done a wonderful job of finding issues and developing use cases >> for the rest of the community. Far worse than the alleged GIGO of >> this import is the NINO. Without out MapBox's activity we would not >> have a well developed definition of turn lanes. Without sideway data >> mapped and worked on, we'll get no where with these kinds-of >> discussions. I look forward to see what the Washington community will >> find. I am still working out details of my sidewalk edits. I'd like >> to build on the Washington data that will be developed. >> https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/wiki/Mapping-guide-for-turn-lanes-from-imagery >> https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/wiki/QA-for-turn-lane-data > > Huh ? The German community had turn:lane mapping as a week project > (don't take that too literally) back in November 2014. Thousands of > turn lanes have been added in the months after the idea was launched > in "DACH" (Germany, Switserland & Austria). I had been mapping > hundreds of them in Belgium since spring 2014, all based on the JOSM > style developed by Martin Vonwald. > Please do not make it sound like Mapbox pushed turn:lane mapping > forward. Maybe this is true for the US, but not for Western Europe. > OsmAnd has turn lane navigation since the summer of 2015. In 2014 turn:lane mapping was not on my radar. I have not used OsmAnd. I had/have no clue of your activity until now. In the last six years I have often turned to Western Europe for examples but turn:lane mapping has not been one of them. What MapBox has pushed forward is excellent documentation and published it in such a way that the documentation was clear and drew my interest. Moreover, what really caught my eye is how the Portland community responded to a mistake during the mapping process. The Portland community did not call in the DWC to break both of the mapper's knee caps with a baseball bat. The issue was repaired and the community moved forward. Regards, Greg ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Proposing import of sidewalk data Seattle, WA, USA
> Again this seems to be is the "I'm waiting for someone else to do something" > line. If you want a map rendering that shows stop signs, create one, like I I am not standing in any line. If I find an issue that I don't think has been addressed or the original author did not understand is an issue, then I file a bug report to the best my abilities. That doesn't mean I have to pick up the language and supply the patch. The way that open source works is that you don't always have to be the coder. Besides I would put up Butt ugly tiles that only a mother would dare hang on her fridge and be proud of. Then again, Tiles At Home was Butt ugly and effective for mappers to see there changes. https://github.com/openstreetview/josm-plugin/issues/2 https://github.com/openstreetview/uploader/issues/5 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Proposing import of sidewalk data Seattle, WA, USA
On 06/08/2016 23:40, Greg Morgan wrote: Again relevance: I am still waiting for a stop sign to be rendered a year after it was requested. If we wait until a stop sign gets all artsie and fartsie, then it will never be rendered and it will never be mapped or shall I say mappers will become uninterested without a reward for their efforts. We deny one stop light towns the pleasure of seeing something happen on the map. We need this kind of data before the renders can even have some use cases to work from. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1683 Again this seems to be is the "I'm waiting for someone else to do something" line. If you want a map rendering that shows stop signs, create one, like I did for sidewalks*. Back in the day of hand-crafting Mapnik XML there was a seriously high bar to clear before "making your own map style", but now with CartoCSS (for which thanks, Mapbox!) that simply isn't the case any more. If what you do makes sense at a local or national level it can get picked up at that level, and it'll stand much more chance of being included in one of the styles on the main osm.org site if you've got an example that says "here's how to do it and here's what it looks like"**. Best Regards, Andy * https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/38136 ** https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1260#issuecomment-225009856 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Proposing import of sidewalk data Seattle, WA, USA
Thank you for your comments Greg! We've been drafting a longer response that we wanted to share, and this seems like a good moment to jump in and do so. Firstly, thank you to everyone for your engaging feedback! We’ve learned a huge amount about the weaknesses and strengths of our proposal. We think it would be helpful to talk about our motivations in posting this import (and the schema suggestion), to give our points some context. We have started this project with the goal of making sidewalks in OSM more useful for the greater community, particularly people with limited mobility. With its principles of openness and inclusion, OSM is uniquely positioned to adopt a data model that can make a big difference for people who use wheelchairs, crutches, or otherwise have difficulties walking, while also improving the data in the map. While we hope this will have a global impact, we are starting with a local import, are engaging the local OSM community, and are setting up stakeholder relationships for the maintenance of the data. We would like to distinguish, as best we can, our schema proposal (on the OSM wiki) from the import. The data to be imported does not have enough metadata to make use of all the tags we are suggesting, and primarily comes down to annotating the basic feature-level descriptions of sidewalks, crossings, and curb ramps. We may be able to add one or two more pieces of information (like width, surface, and kerb tags), but we consider this to be an opportunity more than a requirement. In all cases, the tags we would use are not new or in violation of OSM standards, in our understanding - they are all in heavy use in many locations, with wiki entries, even though tagging streets with sidewalk information is popular in other locales. To address some of the concerns about community engagement and our import proposal in general, we’d like to detail what we have done so far to make it clear that we’re engaging with the local community and attempting to go through all the right steps. 1. We started (after much research) by posting the schema towards the end of June to get feedback 2. We presented our schema at the SOTMUS to get direct feedback, especially to learn how it could adapt to places outside of Seattle. We also presented our plan to actually to do an import of Seattle data to test this schema, and have received positive feedback from the local OSM community so far. This put us in contact with a large number of OSM community members from the U.S. and international communities, and we received overwhelmingly positive feedback. 3. We also connected with the LA building import team (at the SOTMUS) and have modeled our import proposal after theirs. 4. After posting the proposal, we’re engaging the tagging and import mailing lists to get more feedback in case there are unforeseen problems. 5. Next we plan on running a test import from start to finish, converting Seattle municipal data to (a subset of) the proposed schema, with an output of OSM XML. We’ll then test integrating with a locally hosted copy of OpenStreetMap through a human verification process (the tasking manager + JOSM plugins), to meet with OSM best practices. 6. Only once we’ve learned from this process, and ensured that our schema meets community expectations were we planning to actually import the Seattle data set. The goal here would be to take a first step to be able to show the benefits of having this standardized sidewalks schema, especially for the limited mobility community. 7. For maintainability (and immediate impact), we have several stakeholder relationships interested in this project. These include the NGO Feet First, the Puget Sound Regional Council (they are discussing an official capacity), the King County Mobility Coalition, groups within King County Metro, and of course the local OSM community, with whom we’re hosting a Mapathon on August 7, 2016. What are everyone’s thoughts? Are there any additional steps you would recommend? Regarding the import challenges: In terms of putting the burden on existing volunteers, we actually think that this could be used as a strategy to get more people into mapping. We were lucky enough to speak to a lot of OSM meetup organizers at SOTMUS and something which came back consistently is: they need interesting projects to get people to turn out for mapathon events, and projects with a social angle are really effective at this. Obviously this isn’t a new idea, and we can point to the work done by the HOT team as a really positive example of this. Additionally, we have found that a more human-centric approach draws people in. We are interested, afterall, in improving walking conditions for everyone. We are also developing mapping tools (iD modes, mobile applications, and potentially a JOSM plugin) to make mapping sidewalks, crossings, and curb ramps easier. We a
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Proposing import of sidewalk data Seattle, WA, USA
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Meg, > >sidewalk tagging in OSM is a complex issue. The fact that sidewalks > are not tagged as individual geometries is not purely a shortcoming, it > is a compromise that keeps OSM data editable. Having individual > geometries for every single sidewalk on the planet will not only > massively increase the data volume but also require new and better tools > for editing, e.g. moving the geometry of a street without having to move > three parallel lines manually and so on. > > There have been several local imports of sidewalk data that were removed > again because lack of prior discussion and/or because they were > single-purpose imports that did not care about integration with the rest I don't see how that is relevant here since Meg is engaging in a conversation. > of OSM (for example: what should rendering engines do with sidewalks; Again relevance: I am still waiting for a stop sign to be rendered a year after it was requested. If we wait until a stop sign gets all artsie and fartsie, then it will never be rendered and it will never be mapped or shall I say mappers will become uninterested without a reward for their efforts. We deny one stop light towns the pleasure of seeing something happen on the map. We need this kind of data before the renders can even have some use cases to work from. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1683 > how do they integrate with normal footways; how is a sidewalk linked to > the road along which it runs so that routing engines can say "follow > sidewalk along XY road" instead of "follow unnamed footway"; how can > routing and rendering use individual sidewalks and still gracefully fall > back to another method where these are not defined, and so on). > > People are experimenting with different ways of mapping sidewalks. > Under no circumstances should you perform an import that creates facts > before your proposal for separate mapping of sidewalks has been > discussed more widely. I look at the recent turn lane work that MapBox is performing. They have done a wonderful job of finding issues and developing use cases for the rest of the community. Far worse than the alleged GIGO of this import is the NINO. Without out MapBox's activity we would not have a well developed definition of turn lanes. Without sideway data mapped and worked on, we'll get no where with these kinds-of discussions. I look forward to see what the Washington community will find. I am still working out details of my sidewalk edits. I'd like to build on the Washington data that will be developed. https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/wiki/Mapping-guide-for-turn-lanes-from-imagery https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/wiki/QA-for-turn-lane-data Thank you Meg. Regards, Greg ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Proposing import of sidewalk data Seattle, WA, USA
Clifford, On 08/02/2016 05:59 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > We tell people not to map for the renderer. In the same spirit shouldn't > we tell people not to let the limitations of the editor stop them from > mapping? Usually, when you deal with individual mappers who come up with a tagging scheme, you can simply let them try it because they are just one person and the amount of stuff they can survey in any given time is limited. Before they can break a lot, others will notice what's going on, and a discussion can develop. Importing sidewalks for a large city is something different. It allows you to add thousands of objects in a short time frame. Hence the request to "talk before you import" - something we don't expect from the hobby mapper who adds a few sidewalks according to a tagging schema he has made up. > I'm not following you. They did announce their plans and are discussing > the proposal with the community, including how to route. I am concerned that they might want to start importing data 5 days from now which is certainly not enough time for a solid discussion. Maybe I misread. > Unlike existing routing systems, they are proposing to enable people > with limited mobility to find a route to their location. As I have said, there have been a number of publicly funded projects that had this laudable aim. Solving the issue by adding ways for every sidewalk is one of many potential solutions; a solution that has advantages and drawbacks which should be discussed widely before an import is done to "kick-start" world-wide adaption of a tagging schema. > Yet their plan is the easiest for a new mapper to follow. I've followed > mapping of sidewalks. Where are these proposals you talk about? I linked some in my post to the tagging list. Some of the failed/single-minded projects in the past didn't even bother documenting their tags on the wiki, insofar this project is superior - and it's totally ok for them to start a discussion. Just not an import one week after mentioning that by-the-way-we-have-a-proposal-here ;) 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] [Imports] Proposing import of sidewalk data Seattle, WA, USA
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >sidewalk tagging in OSM is a complex issue. The fact that sidewalks > are not tagged as individual geometries is not purely a shortcoming, it > is a compromise that keeps OSM data editable. Having individual > geometries for every single sidewalk on the planet will not only > massively increase the data volume but also require new and better tools > for editing, e.g. moving the geometry of a street without having to move > three parallel lines manually and so on. > Frederik, I thought you were for only add objects that can be surveyed on the ground? Isn't that what they are proposing? We tell people not to map for the renderer. In the same spirit shouldn't we tell people not to let the limitations of the editor stop them from mapping? > There have been several local imports of sidewalk data that were removed > again because lack of prior discussion and/or because they were > single-purpose imports that did not care about integration with the rest > of OSM (for example: what should rendering engines do with sidewalks; > how do they integrate with normal footways; how is a sidewalk linked to > the road along which it runs so that routing engines can say "follow > sidewalk along XY road" instead of "follow unnamed footway"; how can > routing and rendering use individual sidewalks and still gracefully fall > back to another method where these are not defined, and so on). > I'm not following you. They did announce their plans and are discussing the proposal with the community, including how to route. Unlike existing routing systems, they are proposing to enable people with limited mobility to find a route to their location. > > Several ideas have been proposed to get around mapping sidewalks as > individual geometries, which is in many ways the most primitive way to > tackle the problem and the one that puts the most work on the shoulders > of our volunteers. > Yet their plan is the easiest for a new mapper to follow. I've followed mapping of sidewalks. Where are these proposals you talk about? Your wiki page states that you had "feedback from the global OSM > community"; I'm surprised that these details seem to have escaped you > until now. Which sidewalk mapping experiments in OSM have you studied, > and what have you learned? Which global OSM community did you talk to > and where? > Frederik - may I suggest you comment on their proposal in a more constructive method. I was septical of their approach when I first learned of their plans, yet as I learn more, I've come to accept that they have a well thought out proposal. Certainly the community should help make sure that their proposal doesn't have some unforeseen issue. As a walker, the current OSM sidewalk tagging scheme is lacking and just a pain when with complex intersections. And yes I have added the entire sidewalk, manually, to my town. Best, 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