Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Fri, 2017-05-26 at 17:07 +0200, Rory McCann wrote: > Hi all, > > It's great that there are many notes, OSM will die without interest > and  > activity. > > Rather than putting up a barrier to prevent people from adding > notes,  > why don't we talk to Maps.me to improve the notes (and feedback

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

Even from the numerous apps for mobile devices? On 30/05/2017 15:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: the OP - like everyone else - can read it, she just doesn't get an email notification about the reply. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstr

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

sent from a phone On 30. May 2017, at 13:38, Dave F wrote: >> Even when i close a nonsensical note i dont write 3.1415926 in them >> but i write >> >> "A pure number is without context and we cant interpret it to extent >> or improve the map. If you habe more context what this number means >>

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On 26/05/2017 18:58, Florian Lohoff wrote: It was basically an integration of the former separat built OSMBugs. That statement just reinforces my argument. OSMBugs was an awful implementation which made editing a pain in the neck. ...as the entry barrier should be really low. If nonsensi

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On 26/05/2017 17:46, Greg Troxel wrote: ...But probably this is not worth the dev/sysadmin time. I see this as a major part of the problem with Notes (& other parts of OSM). It was written & implemented in a lackadaisical manner with regard to quality control. Mopping up the detritus was know

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

sent from a phone > On 29. May 2017, at 01:10, john whelan wrote: > > >Over the last 2 days i've closed 500+ notes with the words (My > >house,house,*someones name* house, I live here, my friend lives here) > Regards, > Hans > > But how will they find their way home? the notes remain visib

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Sat, 27 May 2017 15:21:50 +0300 Ilya Zverev wrote: > > Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > > On Fri, 26 May 2017 00:24:15 +0200 > > Rafael Avila Coya <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >> And not to talk about this note: > >> > >> "The place has gone or never existed. This is an auto-generated > >> note f

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

>Over the last 2 days i've closed 500+ notes with the words (My house,house,*someones name* house, I live here, my friend lives here) *Regards,* *Hans* But how will they find their way home? Cheerio John On 28 May 2017 at 19:04, Hans De Kryger wrote: > Over the last 2 days i've closed 500+ not

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

Over the last 2 days i've closed 500+ notes with the words (My house,house,*someones name* house, I live here, my friend lives here) *Regards,* *Hans* On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > 2017-05-28 6:08 GMT-03:00 Florian Lohoff : > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:12:07PM -03

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

2017-05-28 6:08 GMT-03:00 Florian Lohoff : > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:12:07PM -0300, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: >> Really? Calling it "notes" is one of the worst parts of this system. >> People in my area keep using them for personal notes / bookmarks >> (sometimes with content as meaningless as "it'

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 07:12:07PM -0300, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > Really? Calling it "notes" is one of the worst parts of this system. > People in my area keep using them for personal notes / bookmarks > (sometimes with content as meaningless as "it's here"), not > understanding that their purpose

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: On Fri, 26 May 2017 00:24:15 +0200 Rafael Avila Coya <[hidden email]> wrote: And not to talk about this note: "The place has gone or never existed. This is an auto-generated note from MAPS.ME application: a user reports a POI that is visible on a map (which can be outd

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

2017-05-27 0:12 GMT+02:00 Nicolás Alvarez : > The map should say "report a problem", not "add a note". +1, I agree with this part. It really happens not too rarely that people use the "notes" system for their personal notes (like "John's hotel"). Rather than "problem reports" they could also b

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

2017-05-26 14:58 GMT-03:00 Florian Lohoff : > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 04:03:41PM +0100, Dave F wrote: >> On 26/05/2017 14:43, Florian Lohoff wrote: >> > >> >Instead of complaining and continuing the bullshit - close it? Its a >> >single click - easy as it is ... We want the feedback and the barrie

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > So I think we are all talking about low-quality anonymous notes here, > and perhaps the way forward is to stop having anonymous notes. We > could even let people sign up for a notes-only account (with 2-way > email) without agreeing to the

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Dave F wrote: > > On 26/05/2017 14:43, Florian Lohoff wrote: > >> >> Instead of complaining and continuing the bullshit - close it? Its a >> single click - easy as it is ... We want the feedback and the barrier >> should be low - accept a bad signal to noise rat

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Dave F wrote: > (Could repliers please 'To:' the OSM list *not* the personal address of > the sender) > Drifting OT for the thread, it'd help a *lot* if gmail would get onto the "reply-to-list" bandwagon already (but they probably won't thanks to Google Groups).

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2017-05-26 11:56 GMT+02:00 Dave F : > >> Quantity is not quality, as you note above. > > > > Quality concerns are part of the reason why notes were introduced: to give > an easy feedback possibility without a risk to damage actual ma

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Dave F wrote: > On 26/05/2017 09:43, Florian Lohoff wrote: > >> >> So who is at fault? The one mentioning somethings missing - or the one >> putting some information into the map without closing the note? >> > > I think you're missing the point. There are a large

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 09:17:50PM +0100, Dave F wrote: > > Yeah, but how many of them are useful? I spend far too much of my > > OSM time mopping up irrelevant, out of date & inaccurate info. Many > > notes are indicating locations which a

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

Hi, On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 05:07:29PM +0200, Rory McCann wrote: > Hi all, > > It's great that there are many notes, OSM will die without interest > and activity. I very much agree on that. Notes is the most valuable feedback method for non mappers. > Rather than putting up a barrier to prev

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 04:03:41PM +0100, Dave F wrote: > On 26/05/2017 14:43, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > > >Instead of complaining and continuing the bullshit - close it? Its a > >single click - easy as it is ... We want the feedback and the barrier > >should be low - accept a bad signal to noise

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

Dave F writes: > On 26/05/2017 09:43, Florian Lohoff wrote: >> >> So who is at fault? The one mentioning somethings missing - or the one >> putting some information into the map without closing the note? > > I think you're missing the point. There are a large number of > pointless notes, such as

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

Hi all, It's great that there are many notes, OSM will die without interest and activity. Rather than putting up a barrier to prevent people from adding notes, why don't we talk to Maps.me to improve the notes (and feedback cycle), and most importantly, let's start resolving notes ourselves!

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On 26/05/2017 14:43, Florian Lohoff wrote: Instead of complaining and continuing the bullshit - close it? Its a single click - easy as it is ... We want the feedback and the barrier should be low - accept a bad signal to noise ratio - dont take notes with a number as serious ... You still do

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 11:17:00AM +0100, Dave F wrote: > On 26/05/2017 09:43, Florian Lohoff wrote: > >So who is at fault? The one mentioning somethings missing - or the one > >putting some information into the map without closing the note? > > I think you're missing the point. There are a large

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On 26/05/2017 11:31, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Why doesn't damn MAPS.ME produce those bloody notes with the name of the place instead of "The place" ? That way they could be useful instead of being a nuisance. I've just added https://github.com/mapsme/omim/issues/6136 saying exactly that. _

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

(Could repliers please 'To:' the OSM list *not* the personal address of the sender) On 26/05/2017 13:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2017-05-26 11:56 GMT+02:00 Dave F >: Quantity is not quality, as you note above. Quality concerns are part of the rea

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

2017-05-26 11:56 GMT+02:00 Dave F : > Quantity is not quality, as you note above. Quality concerns are part of the reason why notes were introduced: to give an easy feedback possibility without a risk to damage actual map data. as long as we can deal with incoming notes, it is OK. If they're be

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Thu, 25 May 2017 21:17:50 +0100 Dave F wrote: > > Yeah, but how many of them are useful? I spend far too much of my OSM > time mopping up irrelevant, out of date & inaccurate info. Many notes > are indicating locations which already exist such as building names & > parks. What devices are be

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Fri, 26 May 2017 00:24:15 +0200 Rafael Avila Coya wrote: > > And not to talk about this note: > > "The place has gone or never existed. This is an auto-generated note > from MAPS.ME application: a user reports a POI that is visible on a > map (which can be outdated), but cannot be found on th

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Dave F wrote: > I believe Notes were a reasonable idea, but poorly implemented with little > control on how they're added or their content and limited methods of > verification. They're not that great because they lack any semantics, like: "needs survey", "needs

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On 26/05/2017 09:43, Florian Lohoff wrote: So who is at fault? The one mentioning somethings missing - or the one putting some information into the map without closing the note? I think you're missing the point. There are a large number of pointless notes, such as mentioning things which *are

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On 26/05/2017 07:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: yes, not very reliable those, I've seen many of these where the thing with the note on was clearly still there and operating You have thousands of those. because they have millions of users. That's something positive actually. Quantity is not

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On 25/05/2017 22:06, Paul Johnson wrote: *OSM Notes: *Closed with comment 1287 (w/o 5586), commented 409 and 7830 opened So, I'd say north of 7500. I'm still working on cleaning up after myself since I /prolifically/ road tripped the first half of this decade, mostly in the southern plains.

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

Andreas wrote: > I follow all notes created in Sweden and close bad notes almost instantly. > Mostly I miss a tool to list notes by date as I often find notes which have > been resolved but not closed. I don't know how he does it, but local to me user pole_climber keeps this map updated:

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 09:17:50PM +0100, Dave F wrote: > Yeah, but how many of them are useful? I spend far too much of my > OSM time mopping up irrelevant, out of date & inaccurate info. Many > notes are indicating locations which already exist such as building > names & parks. What devices are b

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

sent from a phone > On 26. May 2017, at 00:24, Rafael Avila Coya wrote: > > "The place has gone or never existed. This is an auto-generated note from > MAPS.ME application: a user reports a POI that is visible on a map (which can > be outdated), but cannot be found on the ground. (OSM data v

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

And not to talk about this note: "The place has gone or never existed. This is an auto-generated note from MAPS.ME application: a user reports a POI that is visible on a map (which can be outdated), but cannot be found on the ground. (OSM data version: 2016-12-14T16:41:03Z) #mapsme" You have

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

I follow all notes created in Sweden and close bad notes almost instantly. Mostly I miss a tool to list notes by date as I often find notes which have been resolved but not closed. I'd say most notes are good, but they demand an active mapping team in the area. Notes from apps, especially when

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Dave F wrote: > Yeah, but how many of them are useful? I spend far too much of my OSM time > mopping up irrelevant, out of date & inaccurate info. Many notes are > indicating locations which already exist such as building names & parks. > What devices are being us

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

sent from a phone > On 25. May 2017, at 22:17, Dave F wrote: > > Many notes are indicating locations which already exist such as building > names & parks. What devices are being used which don't display this clearly? some app has put a note on every amenity=parking object around here (and

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Note 1000000

Yeah, but how many of them are useful? I spend far too much of my OSM time mopping up irrelevant, out of date & inaccurate info. Many notes are indicating locations which already exist such as building names & parks. What devices are being used which don't display this clearly? I wish I could