Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Automatic translation with Deepl below Bonjour à tous, Je reviens sur ce fil de discussion qui ne semble pas avoir fait émerger une décision quant au parti pris par Quincy Morgan concernant iD, et ne répond pas à une question plus large. Quelle est actuellement la gouvernance autour d’iD ? Je

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Just a general remark on the technical issue that sparked of this discussion:  squaring buildings is not primarily about improving data quality. Non-square buildings are simply visually annoying when rendered, so much that I support squaring them "as a rule" too when it can reasonably be assumed

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

9 May 2019, 22:14 by osm...@michreichert.de: > What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on > www.openstreetmap.org > ? > Before going for a nuclear solution - is there already refused issue that asks to reconsider problematic parts

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:39 PM Yves wrote: > Some validation tools, like Osmose, make great efforts to maintain a > 'false positive' database. > If the same validation is done by multiple tools, they need to share the "false positive" data, otherwise only one tool would know not to change

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Some validation tools, like Osmose, make great efforts to maintain a 'false positive' database. Also, I don't think such validation of building orthogonality should take place at editing stage. A hint to the squaring tool or shortcut when someone is mapping almost square buildings is probably a

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

May 20 2019 at 14 h 02 min 51 s UTC−4, Stefan Keller wrote : > Trying to get focus back on the thread topic. > Storing hints like nosquare=yes (or square=no) is not best practice of > data curation on w worldwide level. I dont think either that this is the solution.  We have to look where

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Hi, Trying to get focus back on the thread topic. Storing hints like nosquare=yes (or square=no) is not best practice of data curation on w worldwide level. At Thu., 9. Mai 2019 23:56 Simon Poole wrote: > The question was not about validating square or not square buildings, it > is about

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

> I believe the issue is more about the unwillingness to take community > feedback seriously at all when it doesn't coincide with the opinions already > held by the developers. Which brings us back full circle to the discussion of > the privileged position of the default editor on

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Hola, On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 06:00:20PM -0400, Jmapb wrote: > This strikes me as a pretty bad idea. I map in NYC where we have lots, > lots, lots of nearly-square buildings with official footprints imported > from the city's open data initiative. When a mapper not familiar with > the history

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

On 09/05/2019 23:21, Michael Reichert wrote: JOSM runs its validation rules only on objects modified or created in the current session. This seems more sensible both for experienced users and newbies for two reasons: - Uses don't get overwhelmed with dozens or hundreds of reports on objects

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Michael Reichert writes: > JOSM runs its validation rules only on objects modified or created in > the current session. This seems more sensible both for experienced users > and newbies for two reasons: That seems like the right thing to do. > - Uses don't get overwhelmed with dozens or

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

On 5/9/2019 6:21 PM, Michael Reichert wrote: JOSM runs its validation rules only on objects modified or created in the current session. This seems more sensible both for experienced users and newbies for two reasons: - Uses don't get overwhelmed with dozens or hundreds of reports on objects

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Hi, Am 10.05.19 um 00:00 schrieb Jmapb: > This strikes me as a pretty bad idea. I map in NYC where we have lots, > lots, lots of nearly-square buildings with official footprints imported > from the city's open data initiative. When a mapper not familiar with > the history here gets a message from

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

On Thursday 09 May 2019, Simon Poole wrote: > > The question was not about validating square or not square buildings, > it is about storing a hint for iDs validation mechanism permanently > in OSMs data. There is some precedent for doing so, as was mentioned > in the github issue, still it is a

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Hi Mikel, Am 09.05.19 um 23:14 schrieb Mikel Maron: > Absolutely. My understanding is this feature will greatly improve data > quality in OSM. I think it's fair to validate squareness of existing > buildings. I did not say that I am against the validation rule itself. I agree that the rule is

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

I agree it's a bad idea inflating the database size and I don't agree that all buildings should be square. Let iD warn about buildings mapped in this session by all means but that does not require all existing buildings to be square. Cheerio John On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 18:02, Jmapb wrote: > On

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

On 5/9/2019 4:14 PM, Michael Reichert wrote Quincy Morgan, one of the maintainers of iD, invented a new tag called nosquare=yes today which should be added to buildings which are not square and should not be flagged by iD's validator. This strikes me as a pretty bad idea. I map in NYC where

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Am 09.05.2019 um 23:14 schrieb Mikel Maron: > > What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on > www.openstreetmap.org? > > Absolutely. My understanding is this feature will greatly improve data > quality in OSM. I think it's fair to validate squareness of existing > buildings.

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 6:18 PM Mikel Maron wrote: > Absolutely. My understanding is this feature will greatly improve data > quality in OSM. I think it's fair to validate squareness of existing > buildings. Appreciate the great work of the iD team. Instead inventing a new tag, it could simply

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Not the first time tagging is bent to editor's will, but this one is gross. Yves Le 9 mai 2019 22:14:31 GMT+02:00, Michael Reichert a écrit : >Hi, > >this could be seen as a tagging discussion but I think that it is a >discussion on governance and power. That's why this email goes to the >Talk

Re: [OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

> What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on > www.openstreetmap.org? Absolutely. My understanding is this feature will greatly improve data quality in OSM. I think it's fair to validate squareness of existing buildings. Appreciate the great work of the iD team.  Also

[OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared

Hi, this could be seen as a tagging discussion but I think that it is a discussion on governance and power. That's why this email goes to the Talk mailing list. Quincy Morgan, one of the maintainers of iD, invented a new tag called nosquare=yes today which should be added to buildings which are