Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Tomas Straupis]

>>   So you have two tables of same structure. Voila. You can compare
>> anything (title, coordinates), in any direction with some
>> approximation if needed etc. No OSM wikidata involved at all.
>
> Thomas, this will not work. Matching wikidata & osm by coordinates is
> useless, because the coordinates differ too much -- see the hard data proof
> <...>

  I will repeat that this is not something which COULD be done, this
comparison is something, what IS ACTUALLY DONE and has been done for
years.

-- 
Tomas

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

[OSM-talk] OSMCha isn't showing new changesets

[Safwat Halaby]

https://osmcha.mapbox.com/ hasn't been showing new changesets since 5
days. Does anyone know why?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[dkiselev]

You can compareanything (title, coordinates), in any direction with someapproximation if needed etc.  That's the root of an evil. That comparison have to be done manually. I really don't understand why wikidata needs to be added. It needs to be added to avoid manual fixes of wikipedia links,because wikipedia's articles names aren't constant. That looks like inventing sphisticated comparison procedurewhich has to be done manualy only not to have wikidata tags. What's the point in not having wikidata?  02.10.2017, 05:15, "john whelan" :Rather than fill OSM up with automated edits that have not even been discussed with the local community can we think more about functionality? Since an OSM object has  lat and long value and it appears that wiki whatever also has one the entries can be linked. "This gives you a very simple table with: lat/lonThat/page_title.  No parsing or anything else involved.  You then take data from OSM - lat/lon/wikipedia.tag  So you have two tables of same structure. Voila. You can compareanything (title, coordinates), in any direction with someapproximation if needed etc. No OSM wikidata involved at all." I really don't understand why wikidata needs to be added.  Note the word need, I'm missing the requirement somehow that overides following normal OSM practices. Cheerio John On 1 Oct 2017 7:19 pm,  wrote:Hi everybody.We already accepted wikipedia links keep in mind that wiki article isn't the same abstraction as OSM object.And the way we make a reference on wiki articles differs over time.It was a link, it was an article name, it was a name with language prefix.Wikidata id is a way to make a refererence onto wikipedia articlewhich wiki community states to be the right and consistent one.Why don't we just accept the recomended way of referencing wiki articles?That doesn't make wikipedia articles more or less verifable on the ground.But that makes the link persistent agains the changes in wikipedia.01.10.2017, 16:38, "Christoph Hormann" :> On Sunday 01 October 2017, Marc Gemis wrote:>>  If I noticed an inception date on a information sign next to a>>  building, is this original research or a secondary source ?>> The date on the sign is verifiable as a signed date, not necessarily as> a date connected to the building. Historic information like dates from> before the timeframe witnessed by today's mappers is something that is> problematic in OSM in general.>> As any historian will be able to tell you history as a science is not> about analyzing events of the past in the same way you analyze present> day observations in empiric science disciplines but about analyzing and> interpreting sources - in this way it resembles the approach of> Wikipedia more than that of OSM.>>>  If a Wikidata contributor/Wikipedian researches websites like Orbis,>>  Onroerend erfgoed, etc and finds different inception dates and>>  records them all, is it bad that s/he uses secondary sources instead>>  of the information sign on the ground ?>> I don't want to judge the different approaches of Wikipedia and OSM -> both have their pros and cons. As a contributor i am more comfortable> with the OSM approach but i would never say that collecting information> from secondary sources is inherently less valuable than collecting> empiric data.>>>  I wonder whether OSM is really always based on original research, or>>  whether we sometimes just want to believe this.>> Well - human perception is of course always connected to our past> experience and beliefs, we cannot observe our environment in a truly> neutral way. And of course with armchair mapping much of the data in> OSM is produced by people who have never been near the place they map> based on the belief that what the image layer they use depicts what is> actually there (which is sometimes not the case - like with the iconic> demolished buildings) and that what people think they see in the images> actually resembles the impression they would have on the ground (which> is also frequently not the case - prominent example would be here:> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7142214). But the key is every> information in OSM has to be able to stand up to scrutiny by local> mappers - a local mapper standing in front of the object needs to be> able to tell if it is correct or not - even if different mappers could> in borderline cases come to different assessments on the matter.>> --> Christoph Hormann> http://www.imagico.de/>> ___> talk mailing list> talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk___talk mailing listtalk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Yuri Astrakhan]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> > Tomas, you claimed that "It adds NO value."  This is demonstrably wrong.
> You
> > are right that the same fixing was done for years. But until wikidata
> tag,
> > there was no easy way to FIND them.
>
>   There always was.
>   You simply take wikipedia provided geo-tags dump like
> https://dumps.wikimedia.org/ltwiki/latest/ltwiki-latest-geo_tags.sql.gz
>
>   This gives you a very simple table with: lat/lon/page_title.
>   No parsing or anything else involved.
>   You then take data from OSM - lat/lon/wikipedia.tag
>   So you have two tables of same structure. Voila. You can compare
> anything (title, coordinates), in any direction with some
> approximation if needed etc. No OSM wikidata involved at all.
>

Thomas, this will not work. Matching wikidata & osm by coordinates is
useless, because the coordinates differ too much -- see the hard data proof
in the prev email.  The only way you can make any useful calculation is if
you analyze the entirety of Wikidata graph, and merge it with OSM objects,
and expose it to other users so that they can figure out what is right or
broken.  That's exactly what my Wikidata+OSM service allows users to do.


>   If wikipedia page moves - title is gone from this dump and the new
> one appears on the same coordinates. You can map them very quickly.
> Theoretically you can update OSM data automatically, but usually if
> wikipedia title has changed, it means that something has changed in
> the object on the ground, so maybe something else has to be changed in
> OSM data as well (for example name).
>

Again - not possible - because coordinate matching is mostly useless.
Also, no, usually wikipedia titles change not because something changed on
the ground, but because of a conflict with a similarly named place
somewhere else. People usually rename the original page to a more specific
name, and create a new page in its place listing all the disambiguations.
This is what breaks titles most often. We now have about 800 left (after
thousands already fixed), plus potentially thousands more of those that
have not been tagged with wikidata tag yet.

>
> I'm just saying the same could be done without wikidata tags.
>

As explained by me in one of the first emails, and by Andy, and a few
others, it cannot be done **as easily**. You can build a complex system if
you have enough disk space (~1TB), and do a local resolve of wikipedia ->
wikidata, and build a complex service on top of it.  Or you can simply add
a single tag that has already been added to 90% of cases, and use
off-the-shelve query engine to merge the data, and let everyone use it.

>
>   See above. What are practical advantages of your method?
>   Because theoretically you are taking a set A, creating a new set B
> from this A, and then you're trying to fix A according to B. This is
> logical nonsense :-) There is no point of putting this B into OSM.
> This is a temporary data which could be stored in your local "error
> checking" database.
>

Strawman argument :)   For each object that has a tag, I use JOSM to get
corresponding wikidata tag, and upload that data to OSM.  The moment it is
uploaded, other systems, such as my wikidata+osm service, get that data.
Then community, without my involvement, can analyze the data with many
different queries, and fix all the errors they find.  If I haven't uploaded
the data to OSM, only I would be able to see it, and only I would be able
to fix it.  I don't know all the different ways community may query the
data (I'm already getting hundreds of thousands of queries). Its a tool
that helps community.

>
>   550 objects globally... Well... :-) You should see from here, that
> the problem is finding people who want to FIX, not finding problems...
>

750 is number NOW. It used to be many thousands. And was all fixed, by
volunteers. For just the most obvious of queries.  There are many more
fixes that needs to happen - see wikipedia link cleanup project on osm
wiki.  So once the problems are identified, they get solved. Finding them
is the problem.


> I'm arguing against idea that wikipedia tag is outdated or in any way
> worse.


But this is exactly what I have been showing with my data about broken
tags. Do you have any data to say that it is not worse?


> Yes, OSM would not be born
> without a geek idea, but it would not have reached what it is now if
> it would not be easy to understand for non geeks. Wikidata tag is
> totally non-understandable to non-geeks.
>

Wikidata does not need to be understood by geeks or non-geeks. It's an ID,
and everyone understands that concept, and most people don't touch tags
they don't understand. Just like mapillary ID, or tons of other local
government IDs.  The tools we have, like iD editor, can easily work with
these IDs without non-geeks as you call them understanding it. The query
system also doesn't need to be understood to be used - you simply share the
link 

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Paul Norman]

On 10/1/2017 5:39 PM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
Lastly, if the coordinates are different, you may not copy it from OSM 
to Wikidata because of the difference in the license.


Just for clarity and anyone reading the archives later, copying from 
Wikidata to OSM is also a problem because Wikidata permits coordinate 
sources like Wikipedia or Google Earth.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Yuri Astrakhan]

John, I guess it is always good to talk as a data scientist - with numbers
and facts. Here's why matching by coordinates would not work.  This query
calculates the distance between the OSM nodes, and the coordinates that
Wikidata has for those nodes. I only looked at nodes, because ways and
relations are even more incorrect - Wiki only has a center point.  The
results are bucketed by the distance (in km) - the bigger the distance, the
bigger the mismatch between OSM and Wikipedia.   As you can see,  only a
small number of nodes are accurate to 10 meters.Query:
http://tinyurl.com/ybp4tp7a

diff in km number of nodes
<0.01 75,027
<0.1 131,644
<0.5 147,637
<1 46,891
<2 28,049
<5 10,792
<10 3,537
10+ 7,239

Is this a convincing argument why we should have a Wikipedia/Wikidata link,
as oppose to calculate it?

The other issue is why we need Wikidata links - while I have said it many
times, let me say it again.  Because the current system is badly broken -
as is evident by tens of thousands of errors that my approach has
uncovered.  I am not advocating to delete Wikipedia tag. Only that when you
use wikipedia tag, it creates a burden on the community to maintain, and
community is clearly unable to keep up with the changes on the Wikipedia
side. So instead of using just the bad link (page title), I am advocating
to use a good link (wikidata).  We are already using it for 90%. Why not
fill in the last 10%?  It does not change anything of how you do your
mapping. It simply helps those who want to fix errors, or view
corresponding wikipedia articles even if it gets renamed.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:50 PM, john whelan  wrote:

> >Assuming my above arguments has convinced you
>
> No I still do not see a requirement here, but there again I'm only part of
> the community and that's the concern you appear to be ramming this down our
> threats.  As for what iD does or does not do, I don't see that is relevant.
>
> Why does OSM need it and why are you unable to put forth a convincing
> argument that is accepted by the community?   A ninety percent acceptance
> rate will be fine but I'm not seeing it.
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[john whelan]

>Assuming my above arguments has convinced you

No I still do not see a requirement here, but there again I'm only part of
the community and that's the concern you appear to be ramming this down our
threats.  As for what iD does or does not do, I don't see that is relevant.

Why does OSM need it and why are you unable to put forth a convincing
argument that is accepted by the community?   A ninety percent acceptance
rate will be fine but I'm not seeing it.

Cheerio John

On 1 October 2017 at 20:39, Yuri Astrakhan  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:15 PM, john whelan  wrote:
>
>> Since an OSM object has  lat and long value and it appears that wiki
>> whatever also has one the entries can be linked.
>>
>
> Not so.  The data is very often different between wikipedia, wikidata, and
> OSM. Also, the same location could be a square, a famous sculpture within
> that square, and some commemorative plaque on it, and all could have some
> wikipedia/wikidata entry. Matching them up requires humans, and cannot
> reliably be done by an algorithm in a large number of cases. Lastly, if the
> coordinates are different, you may not copy it from OSM to Wikidata because
> of the difference in the license.
>
>>
>> "This gives you a very simple table with: lat/lon/page_title.
>>   No parsing or anything else involved.
>>   You then take data from OSM - lat/lon/wikipedia.tag
>>   So you have two tables of same structure. Voila. You can compare
>> anything (title, coordinates), in any direction with some
>> approximation if needed etc. No OSM wikidata involved at all."
>>
>
> See above,  this cannot be done with any reasonable reliability by
> automatic means. You will end up with an incredible amount of unreliable
> data. Feel free to discuss deleting of both Wikipedia and Wikidata tags,
> but I seriously doubt the community will go for it.
>
>>
>> I really don't understand why wikidata needs to be added.  Note the word
>> need, I'm missing the requirement somehow that overides following normal
>> OSM practices.
>>
>
> Assuming my above arguments has convinced you -- that we must manually
> determine the match between an OSM feature and a Wikipedia article, lets
> discuss how best to link to Wikipedia.  There are two options: link by
> article title, and link by Wikidata ID. The first one causes many errors -
> because titles get renamed, and old titles are reused for other meanings.
> The second approach is less readable when looking at the tag, but it is
> much more stable.  Its as simple as that.  One approach causes errors, the
> other approach is more stable.  Both point to Wikipedia article, just using
> a slightly different URL internally.
>
> Automatically adding Wikidata tags is already being done by iD. I would
> like to finish that process, so that the community can clean up all the
> mistakes that are hiding in the OSM db.
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Yuri Astrakhan]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:15 PM, john whelan  wrote:

> Since an OSM object has  lat and long value and it appears that wiki
> whatever also has one the entries can be linked.
>

Not so.  The data is very often different between wikipedia, wikidata, and
OSM. Also, the same location could be a square, a famous sculpture within
that square, and some commemorative plaque on it, and all could have some
wikipedia/wikidata entry. Matching them up requires humans, and cannot
reliably be done by an algorithm in a large number of cases. Lastly, if the
coordinates are different, you may not copy it from OSM to Wikidata because
of the difference in the license.

>
> "This gives you a very simple table with: lat/lon/page_title.
>   No parsing or anything else involved.
>   You then take data from OSM - lat/lon/wikipedia.tag
>   So you have two tables of same structure. Voila. You can compare
> anything (title, coordinates), in any direction with some
> approximation if needed etc. No OSM wikidata involved at all."
>

See above,  this cannot be done with any reasonable reliability by
automatic means. You will end up with an incredible amount of unreliable
data. Feel free to discuss deleting of both Wikipedia and Wikidata tags,
but I seriously doubt the community will go for it.

>
> I really don't understand why wikidata needs to be added.  Note the word
> need, I'm missing the requirement somehow that overides following normal
> OSM practices.
>

Assuming my above arguments has convinced you -- that we must manually
determine the match between an OSM feature and a Wikipedia article, lets
discuss how best to link to Wikipedia.  There are two options: link by
article title, and link by Wikidata ID. The first one causes many errors -
because titles get renamed, and old titles are reused for other meanings.
The second approach is less readable when looking at the tag, but it is
much more stable.  Its as simple as that.  One approach causes errors, the
other approach is more stable.  Both point to Wikipedia article, just using
a slightly different URL internally.

Automatically adding Wikidata tags is already being done by iD. I would
like to finish that process, so that the community can clean up all the
mistakes that are hiding in the OSM db.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[john whelan]

Rather than fill OSM up with automated edits that have not even been
discussed with the local community can we think more about functionality?

Since an OSM object has  lat and long value and it appears that wiki
whatever also has one the entries can be linked.

"This gives you a very simple table with: lat/lon/page_title.
  No parsing or anything else involved.
  You then take data from OSM - lat/lon/wikipedia.tag
  So you have two tables of same structure. Voila. You can compare
anything (title, coordinates), in any direction with some
approximation if needed etc. No OSM wikidata involved at all."

I really don't understand why wikidata needs to be added.  Note the word
need, I'm missing the requirement somehow that overides following normal
OSM practices.

Cheerio John

On 1 Oct 2017 7:19 pm,  wrote:

> Hi everybody.
>
> We already accepted wikipedia links keep in mind that wiki article isn't
> the same abstraction as OSM object.
> And the way we make a reference on wiki articles differs over time.
> It was a link, it was an article name, it was a name with language prefix.
>
> Wikidata id is a way to make a refererence onto wikipedia article
> which wiki community states to be the right and consistent one.
> Why don't we just accept the recomended way of referencing wiki articles?
>
> That doesn't make wikipedia articles more or less verifable on the ground.
> But that makes the link persistent agains the changes in wikipedia.
>
> 01.10.2017, 16:38, "Christoph Hormann" :
> > On Sunday 01 October 2017, Marc Gemis wrote:
> >>  If I noticed an inception date on a information sign next to a
> >>  building, is this original research or a secondary source ?
> >
> > The date on the sign is verifiable as a signed date, not necessarily as
> > a date connected to the building. Historic information like dates from
> > before the timeframe witnessed by today's mappers is something that is
> > problematic in OSM in general.
> >
> > As any historian will be able to tell you history as a science is not
> > about analyzing events of the past in the same way you analyze present
> > day observations in empiric science disciplines but about analyzing and
> > interpreting sources - in this way it resembles the approach of
> > Wikipedia more than that of OSM.
> >
> >>  If a Wikidata contributor/Wikipedian researches websites like Orbis,
> >>  Onroerend erfgoed, etc and finds different inception dates and
> >>  records them all, is it bad that s/he uses secondary sources instead
> >>  of the information sign on the ground ?
> >
> > I don't want to judge the different approaches of Wikipedia and OSM -
> > both have their pros and cons. As a contributor i am more comfortable
> > with the OSM approach but i would never say that collecting information
> > from secondary sources is inherently less valuable than collecting
> > empiric data.
> >
> >>  I wonder whether OSM is really always based on original research, or
> >>  whether we sometimes just want to believe this.
> >
> > Well - human perception is of course always connected to our past
> > experience and beliefs, we cannot observe our environment in a truly
> > neutral way. And of course with armchair mapping much of the data in
> > OSM is produced by people who have never been near the place they map
> > based on the belief that what the image layer they use depicts what is
> > actually there (which is sometimes not the case - like with the iconic
> > demolished buildings) and that what people think they see in the images
> > actually resembles the impression they would have on the ground (which
> > is also frequently not the case - prominent example would be here:
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7142214). But the key is every
> > information in OSM has to be able to stand up to scrutiny by local
> > mappers - a local mapper standing in front of the object needs to be
> > able to tell if it is correct or not - even if different mappers could
> > in borderline cases come to different assessments on the matter.
> >
> > --
> > Christoph Hormann
> > http://www.imagico.de/
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk-fr] Comment utiliser Openstreetmap avec les format de fichiers utilisé par les ɢᴘꜱ Mappy (sous traités par Logicom) ?

[none]

Bonjour,

Mappy utilise Winᴄᴇ sur ᴀʀᴍ, et de ce fait, tout le système de 
cartographie n’est qu’un simple .exe
Les cartes utilisent l’extension .fbl… et les point d’intérêt .poi. Ces 
format ne sont reconnu par aucun programme, et binwalk ne donne aucune 
information valide.


Quels sont les possibilités de conversions ? Je parle aussi biens des 
traces que des cartes.



Cordialement,

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[dkiselev]

Hi everybody.

We already accepted wikipedia links keep in mind that wiki article isn't the 
same abstraction as OSM object.
And the way we make a reference on wiki articles differs over time.
It was a link, it was an article name, it was a name with language prefix.

Wikidata id is a way to make a refererence onto wikipedia article 
which wiki community states to be the right and consistent one.
Why don't we just accept the recomended way of referencing wiki articles?

That doesn't make wikipedia articles more or less verifable on the ground.
But that makes the link persistent agains the changes in wikipedia.

01.10.2017, 16:38, "Christoph Hormann" :
> On Sunday 01 October 2017, Marc Gemis wrote:
>>  If I noticed an inception date on a information sign next to a
>>  building, is this original research or a secondary source ?
>
> The date on the sign is verifiable as a signed date, not necessarily as
> a date connected to the building. Historic information like dates from
> before the timeframe witnessed by today's mappers is something that is
> problematic in OSM in general.
>
> As any historian will be able to tell you history as a science is not
> about analyzing events of the past in the same way you analyze present
> day observations in empiric science disciplines but about analyzing and
> interpreting sources - in this way it resembles the approach of
> Wikipedia more than that of OSM.
>
>>  If a Wikidata contributor/Wikipedian researches websites like Orbis,
>>  Onroerend erfgoed, etc and finds different inception dates and
>>  records them all, is it bad that s/he uses secondary sources instead
>>  of the information sign on the ground ?
>
> I don't want to judge the different approaches of Wikipedia and OSM -
> both have their pros and cons. As a contributor i am more comfortable
> with the OSM approach but i would never say that collecting information
> from secondary sources is inherently less valuable than collecting
> empiric data.
>
>>  I wonder whether OSM is really always based on original research, or
>>  whether we sometimes just want to believe this.
>
> Well - human perception is of course always connected to our past
> experience and beliefs, we cannot observe our environment in a truly
> neutral way. And of course with armchair mapping much of the data in
> OSM is produced by people who have never been near the place they map
> based on the belief that what the image layer they use depicts what is
> actually there (which is sometimes not the case - like with the iconic
> demolished buildings) and that what people think they see in the images
> actually resembles the impression they would have on the ground (which
> is also frequently not the case - prominent example would be here:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7142214). But the key is every
> information in OSM has to be able to stand up to scrutiny by local
> mappers - a local mapper standing in front of the object needs to be
> able to tell if it is correct or not - even if different mappers could
> in borderline cases come to different assessments on the matter.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Colin Smale]

And here's a road that wants to be a shared space but isn't there yet...

https://www.facebook.com/NHnieuws/videos/1627424217288914/ 

The goal of reducing the traffic speed has been achieved, apparently. 

On 2017-10-01 20:16, Richard Mann wrote:

> The classic shared space scheme in Haren: 
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.17312/6.60310 
> 
> has no tags that I can see. 
> 
> I'd go for something like shared_space=yes for the moment. It's a "special" 
> type of traffic calming. 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> Just like in the UK, the councils here make it up as they go along; a "shared 
> space" has no special legal status, unlike a "woonerf". 
> 
> A general principle which has proved its worth is that to make things safer, 
> you remove the safety features. Like white lines and kerbs. Everyone moans a 
> bit, but in the mean time you slow down and watch out just that little bit 
> more... Hence shared spaces, an apparent free-for-all that works well.
> 
> On 2017-10-01 18:57, Andy Townsend wrote: 
> Not an answer, but a suggestion where there might be a bit more info...
> 
> The Netherlands forum https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12 [1] 
> might be worth a read, since the shared space concept was pioneered there; 
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=54843 [2] is directly about 
> "shared_space" but a search for "woonerf" (aka "home zone") gets a whole 
> bunch more hits.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [3] 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [3]

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

Links:
--
[1] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12
[2] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=54843
[3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[OSM-talk-fr] Bornes à incendie : votez sur la 1ere proposition

[François Lacombe]

Bonsoir à tous,

Suite à la séparation en plusieurs morceaux de la proposition sur les
bornes à incendie, le premier volet est ouvert au vote.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant_Extensions

C'est une évolution plutôt ambitieuse qui est proposée.
Même si un grand nombre d'objets vont devoir être revus, le nouveau
formalisme apporte certains avantages
Il y a une confusion entre les types de bornes et la source de l'eau. Il
est proposé d'utiliser un tag pour le type physique et un autre pour la
source
Enfin, le namespace fire_hydrant: n'était pas nécessaire pour un certain
nombre de clés, il est proposé d'utiliser d'autres clés plus universelles à
la place pour plus de lisibilité

Le vote est ouvert jusqu'au 15/10, bonne soirée

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

Re: [Talk-it] Strada comunale

[Alessandro Vitali]

Ok grazie!

Il giorno 28 settembre 2017 15:35, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> se non c'è un numero, allora non mettere un tag "ref", e volendo potresti
> mettere noref=yes. Invece per il nome, quando non esiste, c'è il tag
> noname=yes. Entrambi i tags servono per i programmi di QA (verifica) e per
> gli altri mappatori.
>
> Ciao,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Andy Mabbett]

On 1 October 2017 at 18:29, Tomas Straupis  wrote:

>> Also, please elaborate which community has asked me to stay away???
>
>   Lithuania.

Please can you point to the place where this was discussed and
consensus reached, also to where that was communicated to the wider
community?

> We are in active action on not only fixing wikipedia
> tags, but also adding missing tags to OSM, adding missing coordinates
> to wikipedia, aligning coordinates between OSM and wikipedia etc. For
> YEARS!

Me too.

That does not preclude the work Yuri is doing; the two are not
mutually exclusive.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Stefano]

2017-10-01 21:45 GMT+02:00 Tomas Straupis :

>
>
> >>   When we create a POI detail page, we want to add a link (url without
> >> redirects) to a wikipedia page. To do that it is straightforward to
> >> use a value in wikipedia tag.
> > Great, thanks. As you can see, nothing in what I do breaks that.
> Instead, it
> > actually helps your POI links to be more accurate.
>
>   It does not help. We are not using wikidata in any way. We are
> fixing wikipedia links, OSM objects, wikipedia articles manually using
> automated checks described above to pinpoint the problems.
>
> *You* aren't using Wikidata.
If you want a redirect to a wikipedia page to build an url, here it is
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:GoToLinkedPage?site=enwiki=Q936

Instead of filling the database with hundreds of variations of wikipedia
tag (wikipedia, wikipedia:, wikipedia=:* and so on) you need
one to build the one you need.



> --
> Tomas
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Tomas Straupis]

>>   It is mostly because you pushed the effort, not beaucse of
>> "advantage of wikidata". The same fixing has already been done for
>> YEARS before your effors based on wikipedia tags only.
>
>
> Tomas, you claimed that "It adds NO value."  This is demonstrably wrong. You
> are right that the same fixing was done for years. But until wikidata tag,
> there was no easy way to FIND them.

  There always was.
  You simply take wikipedia provided geo-tags dump like
https://dumps.wikimedia.org/ltwiki/latest/ltwiki-latest-geo_tags.sql.gz

  This gives you a very simple table with: lat/lon/page_title.
  No parsing or anything else involved.
  You then take data from OSM - lat/lon/wikipedia.tag
  So you have two tables of same structure. Voila. You can compare
anything (title, coordinates), in any direction with some
approximation if needed etc. No OSM wikidata involved at all.

  If wikipedia page moves - title is gone from this dump and the new
one appears on the same coordinates. You can map them very quickly.
Theoretically you can update OSM data automatically, but usually if
wikipedia title has changed, it means that something has changed in
the object on the ground, so maybe something else has to be changed in
OSM data as well (for example name).

> About a year ago when I first started
> this project, I created lists of thousands of such errors, that were very
> rapidly fixed once they were identified. This was not possible before.

  Cool. I have nothing against that. I'm just saying the same could be
done without wikidata tags.

> My method is for finding broken wikipedia tags. What method are you talking
> about? Can you describe what method you use to identify errors?

  See above.

> Here is the DATA for my "theoretical ramblings". Can you show any data to
> back your theoretical ramblings?

  See above. What are practical advantages of your method?
  Because theoretically you are taking a set A, creating a new set B
from this A, and then you're trying to fix A according to B. This is
logical nonsense :-) There is no point of putting this B into OSM.
This is a temporary data which could be stored in your local "error
checking" database.

> Now there is a simpler http://tinyurl.com/ybv7q7n6 query - it used to have
> about 1300, now down to ~750. And these are JUST the disambig errors.

  550 objects globally... Well... :-) You should see from here, that
the problem is finding people who want to FIX, not finding problems...

> wiki. Lastly, what am I proposing to destroy?!?  I am ADDING a tag and
> ADDING a new search mechanism, because there is current no reliable
> mechanism to fix these things.

  I have nothing against that. I'm arguing against idea that wikipedia
tag is outdated or in any way worse. Yes, OSM would not be born
without a geek idea, but it would not have reached what it is now if
it would not be easy to understand for non geeks. Wikidata tag is
totally non-understandable to non-geeks.

> This is wonderful that you are fixing all these issues, could you tell me
> how you find them? Also, funny enough, I used to live in Vilnius a long time
> ago, near Gineitiškės. Should I be allowed to edit there? (I hope this
> doesn't lead to another huge but unrelated discussion :) )

  You know that is not the point. You could still live in Lithuania
and you would still need to consult the local community before doing
automated changes.

>>   When we create a POI detail page, we want to add a link (url without
>> redirects) to a wikipedia page. To do that it is straightforward to
>> use a value in wikipedia tag.
> Great, thanks. As you can see, nothing in what I do breaks that. Instead, it
> actually helps your POI links to be more accurate.

  It does not help. We are not using wikidata in any way. We are
fixing wikipedia links, OSM objects, wikipedia articles manually using
automated checks described above to pinpoint the problems.

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Yuri Astrakhan]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> 2017-10-01 20:04 GMT+03:00 Yuri Astrakhan:
> >> 2. Its not a WORK to automatically update one osm tag according to
> another
> >> osm tag (anybody can do it online/locally/etc). It adds NO value.
> >
> > It adds HUGE value, as was repeatably shown. Thanks to Wikidata IDs, the
> > community was able to see and fix tens of thousands of errors in
> Wikipedia
> > tags. <...>
>
>   It is mostly because you pushed the effort, not beaucse of
> "advantage of wikidata". The same fixing has already been done for
> YEARS before your effors based on wikipedia tags only.


Tomas, you claimed that "It adds NO value."  This is demonstrably wrong.
You are right that the same fixing was done for years. But until wikidata
tag, there was no easy way to FIND them.  About a year ago when I first
started this project, I created lists of thousands of such errors, that
were very rapidly fixed once they were identified. This was not possible
before.


> And fixing
> wikipedia tags is in no way inferior to your method. Maybe even
> better, because it involves less „geekiness“ - they are more
> understandable to larger portion of OSM community.
>
> My method is for finding broken wikipedia tags. What method are you
talking about? Can you describe what method you use to identify errors?

>> 3. It is totally unacceptable to introduce idea that wikipedia tag could
> >> be removed at some time, because some other new automatically filled
> tag has
> >> been introduced.
> >
> > First, it is always acceptable to introduce and discuss new ideas. Any
> > ideas. Always. <...>
>
>   Yes. But when you're told by numerous people numerous times that
> current mechanism works, and there is nothing BETTER in your advice
> (other than your theoretical rambilngs), you cannot advice to destroy
> existing working mechanism.
>

Here is the DATA for my "theoretical ramblings". Can you show any data to
back your theoretical ramblings?
  https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Data:
Sandbox/Yurik/OSM_objects_pointing_to_disambigs.tab=history
Now there is a simpler http://tinyurl.com/ybv7q7n6 query - it used to have
about 1300, now down to ~750. And these are JUST the disambig errors. There
are many other types as I listed in the Wikipedia improvement project on
osm wiki. Lastly, what am I proposing to destroy?!?  I am ADDING a tag and
ADDING a new search mechanism, because there is current no reliable
mechanism to fix these things.


> > We are discussing the way to improve them,
> > because they are currently broken. Badly.
>
>   And they are perfectly being fixed without involving wikidata tags
> there, where people WANT to do that and do WORK to fix them.
>
> Do you have any data to back that up?  When I first looked at them,
Wikipedia links were often incorrect (see links above). Now they are fixed
thanks to all the work done by the communities. Yes, all that manual work
that people did. But in order to WORK, you need to FIND issues first.


> > Also, please elaborate which community has asked me to stay away???
>
>   Lithuania. We are in active action on not only fixing wikipedia
> tags, but also adding missing tags to OSM, adding missing coordinates
> to wikipedia, aligning coordinates between OSM and wikipedia etc. For
> YEARS!
>

This is wonderful that you are fixing all these issues, could you tell me
how you find them? Also, funny enough, I used to live in Vilnius a long
time ago, near Gineitiškės. Should I be allowed to edit there? (I hope this
doesn't lead to another huge but unrelated discussion :) )

>
>   When we create a POI detail page, we want to add a link (url without
> redirects) to a wikipedia page. To do that it is straightforward to
> use a value in wikipedia tag.
>

Great, thanks. As you can see, nothing in what I do breaks that. Instead,
it actually helps your POI links to be more accurate.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Richard Mann]

The classic shared space scheme in Haren:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.17312/6.60310

has no tags that I can see.

I'd go for something like shared_space=yes for the moment. It's a "special"
type of traffic calming.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:

> Just like in the UK, the councils here make it up as they go along; a
> "shared space" has no special legal status, unlike a "woonerf".
>
> A general principle which has proved its worth is that to make things
> safer, you remove the safety features. Like white lines and kerbs. Everyone
> moans a bit, but in the mean time you slow down and watch out just that
> little bit more... Hence shared spaces, an apparent free-for-all that works
> well.
>
> On 2017-10-01 18:57, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> Not an answer, but a suggestion where there might be a bit more info...
>
> The Netherlands forum https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12
> might be worth a read, since the shared space concept was pioneered there;
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=54843 is directly about
> "shared_space" but a search for "woonerf" (aka "home zone") gets a whole
> bunch more hits.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-it] Fwd: [OSM-talk] All the subway systems in the world

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 1. Oct 2017, at 10:27, Cascafico Giovanni  wrote:
> 
> Ed io che pensavo ci fossero solo una paio di nodi a Roma ... :-)
> 


non sono solo subway, sono anche treni regionali/trenini, non so se ha molto 
senso aggiungere un station=light_rail a tutte le fermate, ma probabilmente lo 
faremo ;-)

Ciao, Martin ___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Tomas Straupis]

2017-10-01 20:04 GMT+03:00 Yuri Astrakhan:
>> 2. Its not a WORK to automatically update one osm tag according to another
>> osm tag (anybody can do it online/locally/etc). It adds NO value.
>
> It adds HUGE value, as was repeatably shown. Thanks to Wikidata IDs, the
> community was able to see and fix tens of thousands of errors in Wikipedia
> tags. <...>

  It is mostly because you pushed the effort, not beaucse of
"advantage of wikidata". The same fixing has already been done for
YEARS before your effors based on wikipedia tags only. And fixing
wikipedia tags is in no way inferior to your method. Maybe even
better, because it involves less „geekiness“ - they are more
understandable to larger portion of OSM community.

>> 3. It is totally unacceptable to introduce idea that wikipedia tag could
>> be removed at some time, because some other new automatically filled tag has
>> been introduced.
>
> First, it is always acceptable to introduce and discuss new ideas. Any
> ideas. Always. <...>

  Yes. But when you're told by numerous people numerous times that
current mechanism works, and there is nothing BETTER in your advice
(other than your theoretical rambilngs), you cannot advice to destroy
existing working mechanism.

> We are discussing the way to improve them,
> because they are currently broken. Badly.

  And they are perfectly being fixed without involving wikidata tags
there, where people WANT to do that and do WORK to fix them.

> Also, please elaborate which community has asked me to stay away???

  Lithuania. We are in active action on not only fixing wikipedia
tags, but also adding missing tags to OSM, adding missing coordinates
to wikipedia, aligning coordinates between OSM and wikipedia etc. For
YEARS!

> 4) could you elaborate on who uses wikipedia
> tags, and how they are being used? It would greatly help to understand
> various use cases for such data.

  When we create a POI detail page, we want to add a link (url without
redirects) to a wikipedia page. To do that it is straightforward to
use a value in wikipedia tag.

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Colin Smale]

Just like in the UK, the councils here make it up as they go along; a
"shared space" has no special legal status, unlike a "woonerf". 

A general principle which has proved its worth is that to make things
safer, you remove the safety features. Like white lines and kerbs.
Everyone moans a bit, but in the mean time you slow down and watch out
just that little bit more... Hence shared spaces, an apparent
free-for-all that works well. 

On 2017-10-01 18:57, Andy Townsend wrote:

> Not an answer, but a suggestion where there might be a bit more info...
> 
> The Netherlands forum https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12 
> might be worth a read, since the shared space concept was pioneered there; 
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=54843 is directly about 
> "shared_space" but a search for "woonerf" (aka "home zone") gets a whole 
> bunch more hits.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Yuri Astrakhan]

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> I guess the point is that:
> 1. Its ok to play with some pet-tag like wikidata
>
100 % agree


> 2. Its not a WORK to automatically update one osm tag according to another
> osm tag (anybody can do it online/locally/etc). It adds NO value.
>

It adds HUGE value, as was repeatably shown. Thanks to Wikidata IDs, the
community was able to see and fix tens of thousands of errors in Wikipedia
tags. The Wikipedia link improvement project is based on it:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Link_Improvement_Project
Also, there is no point to add it online/locally because that wouldn't help
community to find these errors.

3. It is totally unacceptable to introduce idea that wikipedia tag could be
> removed at some time, because some other new automatically filled tag has
> been introduced.
>

First, it is always acceptable to introduce and discuss new ideas. Any
ideas. Always. We, as a community, don't have to accept them, but
discussing innovations is always a good thing.  That said, the removal of
wikipedia tag is NOT being discussed here. We are discussing the way to
improve them, because they are currently broken. Badly.


> So if you like wikidata tag - go ahead and enjoy it, but do not tuch
> wikipedia tag with autoscripts because people are actually using it.
> Especially when you not only avoid discussing with local communities, but
> ignore active requests from local communities to stay away.
>
> Tomas, 1) i don't have autoscripts to touch wikipedia tag, I use JOSM to
generate wikidata tags because of the benefits it provides 2) i am
providing a way for community to fix the broken wikipedia tags, 3) I have
been very actively talking to many communities (in, ru, de, fr, ...). Also,
please elaborate which community has asked me to stay away??? A very broad
statement, considering that every single community had many members
supporting this effort. And 4) could you elaborate on who uses wikipedia
tags, and how they are being used? It would greatly help to understand
various use cases for such data.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Andy Townsend]

Not an answer, but a suggestion where there might be a bit more info...

The Netherlands forum 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12 might be worth a 
read, since the shared space concept was pioneered there; 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=54843 is directly about 
"shared_space" but a search for "woonerf" (aka "home zone") gets a whole 
bunch more hits.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Adam Snape]

My original solution when I changed the living streets back to normal roads
a few months back was to just add extra tags to highlight the features of
the scheme: access, traffic calming, surface, maxspeed:practical etc. I
have just received a message from contributor 'lakedistrict' who raised the
issue back then, supporting the way I tagged the roads.

Andy, this scheme does have its own signs
https://designnotes.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2014/07/Screen-Shot-2014-07-07-at-12.15.04.png
but it doesn't seem to be an official designation in the same way as Home
Zones/Quiet Lanes so maybe if it needs a specific tag, 'designation' isn't
entirely appropriate. Is it better considered a form of traffic calming?
How about traffic_calming=shared_space?

Michael, thanks for the Poynton example. To me that clearly shows why it
shouldn't be a separate category of highway. It looks like two A roads and
a tertiary road cease to exist upon entering the town centre. There is a
tertiary road similarly affected in Preston

Adam



On 1 October 2017 at 16:58, Michael Booth  wrote:

> One of the first edits I did in OSM was to change my local high street to
> a tertiary road from a living_street. I think I noticed it because it's
> rendered different by osm-carto and some routers wouldn't use the road for
> directions.
>
> It's a 20mph two lane road, except with three traffic calming tables (one
> of which is a pelican crossing), and some larger pavements after
> improvement works reclaimed some parking spaces - so not somewhere like a
> "home zone".
>
> I read about the "shared space" scheme in Poynton, which seemed to be
> about narrowing/redesigning the roads to reduce speeds, and allowing
> pedestrians to cross almost anyway. However I think it's marked wrongly as
> a living_street in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19753268/history
> - funnily enough also by Pete Owens...
>
>
> On 01/10/2017 14:12, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Over the past couple of years Fishergate, the high street in Preston, and
> some surrounding streets have been redeveloped and these highways are now
> designated as 'shared space' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
>
> Following redeveleopment these were mapped as "highway=living_street".
> Earlier this year fellow mapper 'lakedistrict' left a note saying that this
> seemed incorrect as this wasn't a residential scheme, I agreed and changed
> the roads to unclassified highways (+ 1 tertiary), adding traffic calming,
> surface and access tags as appropriate. These roads have recently been
> changed back to highway-=living_street by another mapper 'Pete Owens'
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52072635
>
> To move things forward I would like others' opinions about how we should
> map such shared space schemes Are we happy to broaden the definition of
> living_street to include them or are they better mapped as ordinary streets
> with additional tags? Another potential option which I toyed with was
> mapping them as highway=pedestrian, adding access tags (bicycles are
> permitted, motor vehicle access varies across the area from 24/7
> thoroughfares, to time conditional/destination/psv only access).
>
> I'll draw lakedistrict and Pete Owens' attentions to this email so that
> they can contribute to the discussion.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam (ACS1986)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Michael Booth]

One of the first edits I did in OSM was to change my local high street 
to a tertiary road from a living_street. I think I noticed it because 
it's rendered different by osm-carto and some routers wouldn't use the 
road for directions.


It's a 20mph two lane road, except with three traffic calming tables 
(one of which is a pelican crossing), and some larger pavements after 
improvement works reclaimed some parking spaces - so not somewhere like 
a "home zone".


I read about the "shared space" scheme in Poynton, which seemed to be 
about narrowing/redesigning the roads to reduce speeds, and allowing 
pedestrians to cross almost anyway. However I think it's marked wrongly 
as a living_street in OSM: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19753268/history - funnily enough also 
by Pete Owens...


On 01/10/2017 14:12, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

Over the past couple of years Fishergate, the high street in Preston, 
and some surrounding streets have been redeveloped and these highways 
are now designated as 'shared space' 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space


Following redeveleopment these were mapped as "highway=living_street". 
Earlier this year fellow mapper 'lakedistrict' left a note saying that 
this seemed incorrect as this wasn't a residential scheme, I agreed 
and changed the roads to unclassified highways (+ 1 tertiary), adding 
traffic calming, surface and access tags as appropriate. These roads 
have recently been changed back to highway-=living_street by another 
mapper 'Pete Owens' https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52072635


To move things forward I would like others' opinions about how we 
should map such shared space schemes Are we happy to broaden the 
definition of living_street to include them or are they better mapped 
as ordinary streets with additional tags? Another potential option 
which I toyed with was mapping them as highway=pedestrian, adding 
access tags (bicycles are permitted, motor vehicle access varies 
across the area from 24/7 thoroughfares, to time 
conditional/destination/psv only access).


I'll draw lakedistrict and Pete Owens' attentions to this email so 
that they can contribute to the discussion.


Kind regards,

Adam (ACS1986)







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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Andy Townsend]

On 01/10/2017 14:47, Adam Snape wrote:



If a shared space is not a living street how should it be tagged?


For "quiet lanes" (which are sort-of a rural analogue to urban "home 
zones") I went with "designation", and it looks like I'm not the only one:


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/designation=quiet_lane

I'm not sure if a shared space is a legal designation in the same way 
though.  Presumably you can tag any traffic rules in force, so that even 
consumers not expecting a particular tag can still do the right thing?


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[Glenn Plas]

Hi,

comments below

On 01-10-17 15:06, Yves bxl-forever wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> It may be a good idea to freshen up the pages on the wiki to remove all 
> confusion about this.
> Perhaps we could summarize all the discussions as such.
> 
> 
> 1) If a street is one-way for motor traffic but open to cyclists in both 
> direction, we use this:
> 
>   oneway=yes
>   oneway:bicycle=no
> 
> (This scheme is better than the legacy cycleway=opposite tag, because it also 
> allows to add oneway:moped_P=no if we have the new M11 roadsign allowing 
> speed pedelecs too.)
> 
> 
> 
> 2) A properly-marked lane 
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Cycleway_lane1_be.jpg), i.e. 
> stripped lines
> In Belgian traffic rules, this is the same as a track (fietspad/piste 
> cyclable) and gives right-of-way to cyclists
> 
>   cycleway=lane
> 
>   (if cyclists can use the street in both directions, use cycleway:left
>   or cycleway:right if the situation is not the same on both sides)
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Just logos 
> (http://redac.cuk.ch/archives_v3/5237/bandecyclablesuggeree.png) or color, 
> but without the stripped lines
> This is the example eMerzh brought up to start the discussion.
> This situation does not do anything with regard to traffic rules, but is 
> useful for cycling applications because it feels a little safer than a street 
> with nothing.
> 
>   cycleway=shared_lane
>  
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think?

You are totally correct is what I think.  Cycleway=opposite as per marc
marc's suggestion is wrong in this particular case.  well formulated.

Glenn


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Tomas Straupis]

I guess the point is that:
1. Its ok to play with some pet-tag like wikidata
2. Its not a WORK to automatically update one osm tag according to another
osm tag (anybody can do it online/locally/etc). It adds NO value.
3. It is totally unacceptable to introduce idea that wikipedia tag could be
removed at some time, because some other new automatically filled tag has
been introduced.

So if you like wikidata tag - go ahead and enjoy it, but do not tuch
wikipedia tag with autoscripts because people are actually using it.
Especially when you not only avoid discussing with local communities, but
ignore active requests from local communities to stay away.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Andy Mabbett]

On 1 October 2017 at 14:03, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> On 01/10/2017 13:05, Andy Mabbett wrote:

>> And now you're making things up.
>>
> just two posts earlier in this thread you said
>
>> I don't think this kind of sarcastic hyperbole helps to move things
>> forward, nor to engender an atmosphere of collegial collaboration.
>> Please resist the temptation to use it.
>
> I would respectfully suggest that you follow your own advice.

I do; my comment was not "sarcastic hyperbole", but a factual observation.

> There's a valid discussion to be had about "how OSM does things vs how
> wikipedia/wikidata does things"

Has anyone said there is not?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Adam Snape]

Hi Colin,

I agree entirely (though note that the two share many of those features so
I can see where the argument comes from).

If a shared space is not a living street how should it be tagged?

Adam


On 1 October 2017 at 14:29, Colin Smale  wrote:

> It depends if you want to have a uniform basis for "living_street" across
> the world (well, Europe at least). The concept is well known and understood
> in continental Europe, and basically implies driving at walking pace, no
> separate pavements, no parking except in marked spaces, and all road users
> (including pedestrians!) have equal priority. Such streets are always
> residential in character.
>
> The UK implementation of this concept is known as a Home Zone [1].
>
> Shared space schemes (see [2]) are something different, aimed at town
> centre environments more than housing estates.
>
> So please DO NOT consider expanding living_street to include these shared
> spaces.
>
> //colin
>
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_zone
>
> [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shared-space
>
>
> On 2017-10-01 15:12, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Over the past couple of years Fishergate, the high street in Preston, and
> some surrounding streets have been redeveloped and these highways are now
> designated as 'shared space' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
>
> Following redeveleopment these were mapped as "highway=living_street".
> Earlier this year fellow mapper 'lakedistrict' left a note saying that this
> seemed incorrect as this wasn't a residential scheme, I agreed and changed
> the roads to unclassified highways (+ 1 tertiary), adding traffic calming,
> surface and access tags as appropriate. These roads have recently been
> changed back to highway-=living_street by another mapper 'Pete Owens'
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52072635
>
> To move things forward I would like others' opinions about how we should
> map such shared space schemes Are we happy to broaden the definition of
> living_street to include them or are they better mapped as ordinary streets
> with additional tags? Another potential option which I toyed with was
> mapping them as highway=pedestrian, adding access tags (bicycles are
> permitted, motor vehicle access varies across the area from 24/7
> thoroughfares, to time conditional/destination/psv only access).
>
> I'll draw lakedistrict and Pete Owens' attentions to this email so that
> they can contribute to the discussion.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam (ACS1986)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] All the subway systems in the world

[Ilya Zverev]

Hi Daniel,

> Nice to see another unification effort, but I have a specific question: we 
> have an interchange station in Warsaw called "Świętokrzyska". I marked it as 
> one station some time ago in the middle of lines crossing.

> Lately somebody (namely https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/IraSergeeva ) made 
> it two different points in the middle of each line's waiting area:

> - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3390253994 (M1)
> - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5117464830 (M2)

> How do you think it should be tagged properly?

To me, this is a better way of tagging: there is a noticeable transfer time 
between lines on this station, and platforms are different, so mapping the 
station as two shows that better. Of course, you can leave it a single station, 
but in this case, some routers might think there is virtually no time needed to 
change lines.

(Actually it was me who made this edit under Ira's account, while I was showing 
how to prepare subway stations.)

> Plus there is additional error reported about duplication and I'm also unsure 
> what to do with public_transport=stop_position: 

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3208963714 (M2)

The route https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4232533 the stop_position and 
the station for Świętokrzyska, and the latter is in the incorrect position. The 
same for https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4232534 .

Ilya
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Colin Smale]

It depends if you want to have a uniform basis for "living_street"
across the world (well, Europe at least). The concept is well known and
understood in continental Europe, and basically implies driving at
walking pace, no separate pavements, no parking except in marked spaces,
and all road users (including pedestrians!) have equal priority. Such
streets are always residential in character. 

The UK implementation of this concept is known as a Home Zone [1]. 

Shared space schemes (see [2]) are something different, aimed at town
centre environments more than housing estates. 

So please DO NOT consider expanding living_street to include these
shared spaces. 

//colin 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_zone 

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shared-space 

On 2017-10-01 15:12, Adam Snape wrote:

> Hi, 
> 
> Over the past couple of years Fishergate, the high street in Preston, and 
> some surrounding streets have been redeveloped and these highways are now 
> designated as 'shared space' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
> 
> Following redeveleopment these were mapped as "highway=living_street". 
> Earlier this year fellow mapper 'lakedistrict' left a note saying that this 
> seemed incorrect as this wasn't a residential scheme, I agreed and changed 
> the roads to unclassified highways (+ 1 tertiary), adding traffic calming, 
> surface and access tags as appropriate. These roads have recently been 
> changed back to highway-=living_street by another mapper 'Pete Owens' 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52072635 
> 
> To move things forward I would like others' opinions about how we should map 
> such shared space schemes Are we happy to broaden the definition of 
> living_street to include them or are they better mapped as ordinary streets 
> with additional tags? Another potential option which I toyed with was mapping 
> them as highway=pedestrian, adding access tags (bicycles are permitted, motor 
> vehicle access varies across the area from 24/7 thoroughfares, to time 
> conditional/destination/psv only access). 
> 
> I'll draw lakedistrict and Pete Owens' attentions to this email so that they 
> can contribute to the discussion. 
> 
> Kind regards, 
> 
> Adam (ACS1986) 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[David Woolley]

On 01/10/17 14:12, Adam Snape wrote:
To move things forward I would like others' opinions about how we should 
map such shared space schemes Are we happy to broaden the definition of 
living_street to include them or are they better mapped as ordinary 
streets with additional tags? Another potential


I would say that they are not "living streets".

Note that the UK term for a real "living street" is actually "home 
zone", and I think that is what you will see on the signage that should 
be used to justify their mapping.


Shared use possibly needs its own highway tag.  It includes living 
streets, but is broader.


Living streets are more about things like children playing in them, 
which is not something that would be encouraged in a High Street.


(Searching on "Living Streets" gives false positives for a charity that 
encourages walking as a means of transport.)


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

[Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Over the past couple of years Fishergate, the high street in Preston, and
some surrounding streets have been redeveloped and these highways are now
designated as 'shared space' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

Following redeveleopment these were mapped as "highway=living_street".
Earlier this year fellow mapper 'lakedistrict' left a note saying that this
seemed incorrect as this wasn't a residential scheme, I agreed and changed
the roads to unclassified highways (+ 1 tertiary), adding traffic calming,
surface and access tags as appropriate. These roads have recently been
changed back to highway-=living_street by another mapper 'Pete Owens'
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52072635

To move things forward I would like others' opinions about how we should
map such shared space schemes Are we happy to broaden the definition of
living_street to include them or are they better mapped as ordinary streets
with additional tags? Another potential option which I toyed with was
mapping them as highway=pedestrian, adding access tags (bicycles are
permitted, motor vehicle access varies across the area from 24/7
thoroughfares, to time conditional/destination/psv only access).

I'll draw lakedistrict and Pete Owens' attentions to this email so that
they can contribute to the discussion.

Kind regards,

Adam (ACS1986)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Do you Tag those as cycleway?

[Yves bxl-forever]

Hello,

It may be a good idea to freshen up the pages on the wiki to remove all 
confusion about this.
Perhaps we could summarize all the discussions as such.


1) If a street is one-way for motor traffic but open to cyclists in both 
direction, we use this:

oneway=yes
oneway:bicycle=no

(This scheme is better than the legacy cycleway=opposite tag, because it also 
allows to add oneway:moped_P=no if we have the new M11 roadsign allowing speed 
pedelecs too.)



2) A properly-marked lane 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Cycleway_lane1_be.jpg), i.e. stripped 
lines
In Belgian traffic rules, this is the same as a track (fietspad/piste cyclable) 
and gives right-of-way to cyclists

cycleway=lane

(if cyclists can use the street in both directions, use cycleway:left
or cycleway:right if the situation is not the same on both sides)



3) Just logos (http://redac.cuk.ch/archives_v3/5237/bandecyclablesuggeree.png) 
or color, but without the stripped lines
This is the example eMerzh brought up to start the discussion.
This situation does not do anything with regard to traffic rules, but is useful 
for cycling applications because it feels a little safer than a street with 
nothing.

cycleway=shared_lane
 



What do you think?
Yves



On Sat, 30 Sep 2017 18:08:21 +
marc marc  wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Le 30. 09. 17 à 18:36, joost schouppe a écrit :
> > I think everyone agreed that this is nothing more than "maquillage"  
> not me, not always :)
> 
> > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8674422,4.3297542,3a,60y,141.06h,86.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srWr6HwmC8P9LgEfOSk2Xpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> >   
> this traffic sign is not a "maquillage".
> It is the traffic sign that tells you that another traffic sign at the 
> other end of the street allows a cyclist to take the one-way street.
> If this mark did not exist, you do not know it when going forward
> in this street in the "one-way" direction.
> 
> > https://www.google.be/maps/@50.8676849,4.3295925,3a,75y,183.24h,93.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLOB7wV_P3Sqi3kbypjpQcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
> >   
> here is the second traffic sign.
> 
> > https://www.touring.be/fr/articles/regles-de-circulation-pour-les-cyclistes 
> >  
> Without any sign, a cyclist can not go backward in a "one-way" street.
> 
> maybe the regionalization of the road code has * the situation but 
> that is, as far as I know, the rule in Brussels where is the street of 
> the first photo.
> 
> So this street should be tagged with cycleway=opposite. see wiki :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway
> Use cycleway=opposite for situations where cyclists are permitted to 
> travel in both directions on a road which is one-way for normal traffic, 
> in situations where there is no dedicated contra-flow lane marked for 
> cyclists.
> 
> Regards,
> Marc
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Andy Townsend]

On 01/10/2017 13:05, Andy Mabbett wrote:


And now you're making things up.


just two posts earlier in this thread you said

> I don't think this kind of sarcastic hyperbole helps to move things
> forward, nor to engender an atmosphere of collegial collaboration.
> Please resist the temptation to use it.

I would respectfully suggest that you follow your own advice.

There's a valid discussion to be had about "how OSM does things vs how 
wikipedia/wikidata does things".  Back in 2016 in another context I 
mentioned "Common End" in Derbyshire on this list 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2016-November/077139.html 
.  It's in wikipedia as "a place noted on a map" (which is correct - OS 
maps include it).  It doesn't in any verifiable sense "exist" though.  
Wikidata has it https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5153341 as both a 
"hamlet" and a "fictional location".  Whether that's "correct" or not is 
a decision for wikidata - I've no idea what their definition of "hamlet" 
is and whether it includes a locality that probably used to exist in 
some sense but all on-the-ground trace of the name has disappeared, but 
it's entirely reasonable to discuss the areas in which different 
contribution customs will result in different data, and how we handle 
links in those cases.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Andy Mabbett]

On 1 October 2017 at 12:13, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> the consensus in the OSM community to link to Wikipedia articles, and
> other useful third-party sources?

> I find it fascinating how both you and Yuri seem to be eager to always
> deflect the discussion from the main subject, namely the automated
> editing/addition of wikidata IDs

Your 337-word post to which I replied, mentioned Wikidata only once,
tangentially, mentioned Wikipedia nine times, and was mostly concerned
with your thesis on your perception of "the fundamental differences
between OSM and Wikipedia."

> and misinterpreting constructive
> critique of that as an attempt to tell local mappers what tags they may
> and may not add to the things they map.

And now you're making things up.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 01 October 2017, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
> If I noticed an inception date on a information sign next to a
> building, is this original research or a secondary source ?

The date on the sign is verifiable as a signed date, not necessarily as 
a date connected to the building.  Historic information like dates from 
before the timeframe witnessed by today's mappers is something that is 
problematic in OSM in general.

As any historian will be able to tell you history as a science is not 
about analyzing events of the past in the same way you analyze present 
day observations in empiric science disciplines but about analyzing and 
interpreting sources - in this way it resembles the approach of 
Wikipedia more than that of OSM.

> If a Wikidata contributor/Wikipedian researches websites like Orbis,
> Onroerend erfgoed, etc and finds different inception dates and
> records them all, is it bad that s/he uses secondary sources instead
> of the information sign on the ground ?

I don't want to judge the different approaches of Wikipedia and OSM - 
both have their pros and cons.  As a contributor i am more comfortable 
with the OSM approach but i would never say that collecting information 
from secondary sources is inherently less valuable than collecting 
empiric data.

> I wonder whether OSM is really always based on original research, or
> whether we sometimes just want to believe this.

Well - human perception is of course always connected to our past 
experience and beliefs, we cannot observe our environment in a truly 
neutral way.  And of course with armchair mapping much of the data in 
OSM is produced by people who have never been near the place they map 
based on the belief that what the image layer they use depicts what is 
actually there (which is sometimes not the case - like with the iconic 
demolished buildings) and that what people think they see in the images 
actually resembles the impression they would have on the ground (which 
is also frequently not the case - prominent example would be here: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7142214).  But the key is every 
information in OSM has to be able to stand up to scrutiny by local 
mappers - a local mapper standing in front of the object needs to be 
able to tell if it is correct or not - even if different mappers could 
in borderline cases come to different assessments on the matter.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 01 October 2017, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
> Or perhaps it is you who is "deep denial" about the consensus in the
> OSM community to link to Wikipedia articles, and other useful
> third-party sources?

May i suggest you to read my previous messages on this thread to find 
the answer to that question?

I find it fascinating how both you and Yuri seem to be eager to always 
deflect the discussion from the main subject, namely the automated 
editing/addition of wikidata IDs and misinterpreting constructive 
critique of that as an attempt to tell local mappers what tags they may 
and may not add to the things they map.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Talk-us] dubious church node

[ethnicfoodisgreat]

Usually when I find a POI for a church that no longer exists, the USGS topo 
maps also show a church at that location.  Comparing the aerials and the maps 
confirms the church POI should be deleted (or marked as historic).
Mark


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
 Original message From: Carl Anderson 
 Date: 9/30/17  11:21 AM  (GMT-05:00) To: Brian May 
 Cc: Kevin Kenny , Mark Bradley 
, talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] 
dubious church node 
​A little history on GNIS data, and the Board of Geographic Names.

The US Board of Geographic Names manages names for places and features shown on 
US govt maps.  They have been using a database to manage the names across maps 
and map scales. That database is the GNIS.

The ​original GNIS data was populated from all text labels shown on USGS maps.  
The most common source was 1:24,000 scale topo quarter quads.  Text from 
1:100,000, 1:250,000 and 1:1,000,000 scale maps and larger were included.

The stated map accuracy of these scales  ( 
https://nationalmap.gov/standards/nmas.html ) is approximately

1:24:000        40 feet1:250,000     416 feet
1:500,000     833 feet
1:1,000,000   1666 feet

The GNIS dataset includes the most precise location for text, when the text 
appears on maps of different scales.

An example of the kinds of text on the maps is attached.





On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Brian May  wrote:

  

  
  
On 9/29/2017 11:06 PM, Kevin Kenny
  wrote:



  

  On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Mark
Bradley 
wrote:


  



  
  In the course of my mapping in the American Midwest, I
  have come across several small country churches of GNIS
  origin that no longer exist.  Often there will be a nearby
  cemetery, but the church facility is gone.  I simply
  delete the node.  In one case I know of, the church
  building was converted into a home, so I remapped it
  accordingly.





Of course, if the cemetery is there on the ground, then
  it should be mapped. But deleting the node for a
  demolished church is entirely appropriate. For a church
  converted to a private home, consider:



building=detached historic:amenity=place_of_worship
  historic:name=* etc.



if the building still resembles a church. 
  

  
  

  
  


For any arm-chair mappers out there, you cannot assume the location
of the original GNIS point is accurate at all, unless you have up to
date evidence it is. So if you see a church point sitting on what
looks like a house in a residential neighborhood on the aerial, then
either delete it,  mark it as a FIXME or leave it alone. The person
working for the Feds who originally mapped the point may have been
miles off.



A few thoughts:



Churches from GNIS seem to be one of the biggest "map noise"
features for areas I look at. Sometimes the locational accuracy is
spot on, church is still there and everything is great. Sometimes
the church is a mile and half down the road on a different block.
Sometimes its in the middle of the highway. Sometimes in the water,
etc. When I am quickly reviewing an area and I see a church point in
the water or on a road, I usually just move it to a halfway
plausible location without doing more research. It would be nice to
have a fairly solid process for reviewing these with external data
that is of known high quality.



I did a little playing around with the new USGS Map VIewer [1] and
it has a Structures layer.  This appears to be part of the volunteer
corps thing w/ USGS, which was (is?) a national program to provide
higher accuracy points focused on buildings and structures.  I found
this [2] from 2012 that provides an overview. Looks like they
intended to contribute back to OSM - but no word on that in the doc.
Found this site as well [3], but out of time to dig into it for now.
Anyone know more about this Structures layer? 



In the USGS Map Viewer, you can click on a structure and see details
about it. Some say source=centroid - to me this means parcel
centroid. Many have addresses as well. The map viewer allows you to
switch the base map to OSM. So then you get a nice QA tool to check
OSM features in an area. The structures layer doesn't include
churches, but cemeteries are included. Other features include Post
Offices, State Capitol Buildings, 

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Andy Mabbett]

On 1 October 2017 at 10:06, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> On Sunday 01 October 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:

> Wow, i had to read this twice to really believe what i was reading here.

I don't think this kind of sarcastic hyperbole helps to move things
forward, nor to engender an atmosphere of collegial collaboration.
Please resist the temptation to use it.

> Seems you are still in deep denial about the fundamental differences
> between OSM and Wikipedia.

Or perhaps it is you who is "deep denial" about the consensus in the
OSM community to link to Wikipedia articles, and other useful
third-party sources?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Marc Gemis]

> Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, it rejects original research.
> OSM is fundamentally different in that because it is based on
> verification by original research.

I'm trying to understand this.

If I noticed an inception date on a information sign next to a
building, is this original research or a secondary source ?

If a Wikidata contributor/Wikipedian researches websites like Orbis,
Onroerend erfgoed, etc and finds different inception dates and records
them all, is it bad that s/he uses secondary sources instead of the
information sign on the ground ?

I wonder whether OSM is really always based on original research, or
whether we sometimes just want to believe this.

regards

m

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Christoph, I am not talking about OSM or Wikidata or Wikipedia quality or
approaches. Please don't read more into it than what I am trying to state.

If we say that we want OSM objects to link to Wikipedia (and we clearly do,
judging by the number of wikipedia tags people have created), we need a
good way to do it.

Linking to Wikipedia with the page titles is bad. It is not stable.
Wikidata tags fixes that.  No other claim is being made here.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Sunday 01 October 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> >
> > Wikipedia created a stable ID system for these pages. Its called
> > Wikidata. Please view Wikidata as first and foremost a linking system
> > to Wikipedia articles.  [...]
> >
> > Andy, you keep saying Wikidata is not verifiable data - but that's
> > because you keep insisting on separating it from Wikipedia.
>
> Wow, i had to read this twice to really believe what i was reading here.
> Seems you are still in deep denial about the fundamental differences
> between OSM and Wikipedia.
>
> Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, it rejects original research.
> Therefore you can find a lot of nonsense on Wikipedia - all kind of
> urban legends and things like that, especially about remote areas, as
> long as everyone believes them and no one bothers to proof them wrong
> and rebut them outside of Wikipedia.  So in a way Wikipedia documents
> societies current beliefs about the world, not the world itself.  This
> does not necessarily have to go as far as an article about something
> fictitious claiming to be about a real world thing, often its smaller
> stuff like X being an object of type Y.  The iconic 'citation needed'
> of Wikipedia is not about the information being in need of actual
> verification as a fact, it is about this information being verified to
> be something well integrated into societies' belief system.
>
> OSM is fundamentally different in that because it is based on
> verification by original research.  This does not mean everything in
> OSM holds up to this standard but we aim for this and value information
> that is practically verifiable by local mappers and tagging concepts
> that are targeted at verifiable mapping more than other information
> that people always will keep adding to OSM to some extent despite it
> being non-verifiable.
>
> It also means information in OSM is inherently more variable because
> what people observe on the ground varies - both because what people see
> depends on their experience and background and because appearance of
> reality, especially of natural features, varies over time.  OSM with
> its original research research focus lacks the unifying and consistency
> preserving effect of the filter through secondary sources you have in
> Wikipedia.
>
> What you do when you mechanically 'fix errors' and correct discrepancies
> between tags in OSM that contradict the Wikipedia/Wikidata information
> is you impose the value system of Wikipedia onto OSM.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding wikidata tags to the remaining objects with only wikipedia tag

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 01 October 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
> Wikipedia created a stable ID system for these pages. Its called
> Wikidata. Please view Wikidata as first and foremost a linking system
> to Wikipedia articles.  [...]
>
> Andy, you keep saying Wikidata is not verifiable data - but that's
> because you keep insisting on separating it from Wikipedia.

Wow, i had to read this twice to really believe what i was reading here.  
Seems you are still in deep denial about the fundamental differences 
between OSM and Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, it rejects original research.  
Therefore you can find a lot of nonsense on Wikipedia - all kind of 
urban legends and things like that, especially about remote areas, as 
long as everyone believes them and no one bothers to proof them wrong 
and rebut them outside of Wikipedia.  So in a way Wikipedia documents 
societies current beliefs about the world, not the world itself.  This 
does not necessarily have to go as far as an article about something 
fictitious claiming to be about a real world thing, often its smaller 
stuff like X being an object of type Y.  The iconic 'citation needed' 
of Wikipedia is not about the information being in need of actual 
verification as a fact, it is about this information being verified to 
be something well integrated into societies' belief system.

OSM is fundamentally different in that because it is based on 
verification by original research.  This does not mean everything in 
OSM holds up to this standard but we aim for this and value information 
that is practically verifiable by local mappers and tagging concepts 
that are targeted at verifiable mapping more than other information 
that people always will keep adding to OSM to some extent despite it 
being non-verifiable.

It also means information in OSM is inherently more variable because 
what people observe on the ground varies - both because what people see 
depends on their experience and background and because appearance of 
reality, especially of natural features, varies over time.  OSM with 
its original research research focus lacks the unifying and consistency 
preserving effect of the filter through secondary sources you have in 
Wikipedia.

What you do when you mechanically 'fix errors' and correct discrepancies 
between tags in OSM that contradict the Wikipedia/Wikidata information 
is you impose the value system of Wikipedia onto OSM.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Talk-it] Fwd: [OSM-talk] All the subway systems in the world

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Ed io che pensavo ci fossero solo una paio di nodi a Roma ... :-)

Buon lavoro!

Il 30/set/2017 18:52, "Martin Koppenhoefer"  ha
scritto:

> Ilya ha pubblicato i risultati di un nuovo sistema per verificare le metro
> del mondo in osm. Questo è il link per lItalia:
> http://osmz.ru/subways/italy.html
>
> Ciao, Martin
>
> sent from a phone
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From:* Ilya Zverev 
> *Date:* 30. September 2017 at 18:35:18 CEST
> *To:* t...@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* *[OSM-talk] All the subway systems in the world*
>
> Hi,
>
> I have made a script that parses and validates subway systems. It prints
> the number of subway lines and stations that an automated system can
> extract from the OpenStreetMap data. See the latest report here (these are
> updated manually for now):
>
> http://osmz.ru/subways/
>
> It is still in beta: it doesn't use networks and omits many non-european
> cities. We plan to employ it for maps.me, so it would be the first app
> that does world-wide subway routing using only OSM data. To make tagging
> subway systems uniform and usable, I've compiled a list of practices on
> this page:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Metro_Mapping
>
> Some questions are answered on the Talk page there. Next week I'll open a
> voting, so that tagging schema could be made official. The validator of
> course expects that kind of tagging, though it allows for some omissions.
>
> Ilya
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
> ___
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
>
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [Talk-it] Import numeri civici Trento

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 30. Sep 2017, at 19:02, Andrea Musuruane  wrote:
> 
> Invece è un problema, ad esempio per il routing perché si perde 
> l'informazione sull'ingresso. Quindi non puoi sapere da dove si entra (gli 
> edifici hanno più lati e non sono necessariamente posizionati vicino 
> all'accesso stradale).


l’accesso è posizionato nella via di cui prende il civico.


Ciao, Martin 
___
Talk-it mailing list
Talk-it@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it

Re: [talk-au] Qld topo map usable?

[Andrew Harvey]

I made an enquiry to DNRM about this exactly back in June.

The response I got was:

We have given consideration to your request and advise that, consistent
with Queensland Government policy, our data is provided under a CC:BY 4.0
Licence.  The department will not provide the data under an ODbl licence.
It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for use of our data and
we do not accept that OpenStreetMap cannot use our data under the CC:BY
licence.



If you have any questions or I can be of any further assistance please feel
free to contact me by any of the methods below.

So in the end I didn't get the waiver form OSMF requires, yet DNRM believes
we can use CC BY 4.0 data in OSM without it, in conflict with what the OSMF
says. I don't feel this is good enough, but I'm not a lawyer so I left it
at that.

If anyone can help pick this up again, I feel we have a good chance of it
happening.

DNRM are very responsive to enquiries like this, which is great.


On 1 Oct. 2017 4:50 pm, "Andrew Harvey"  wrote:

Unfortunately not. CC BY 4.0 data isn't compatible with the OSM license,
see https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ for more
details.

There is a waiver form at that link which the copyright holder needs to
agree and sign for CC BY 4.0 data to be used in OSM.

Some Australian agencies have agreed to this, and others have explicitly
not agreed to this, so it's hit and miss based on the agency.

On 1 Oct. 2017 4:29 pm, "Graeme Fitzpatrick"  wrote:

> G'day all
>
> I've just come across an online Qld topo map, published by Dept of Natural
> Resources.
>
> Map is at http://qtopo.dnrm.qld.gov.au/Mobile/
>
> Also makes reference to copyright being licensed under CC BY 4.0:
> https://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/legal/copyright, & includes
>
> "Under this licence you are free to use this information in accordance
> with the licence terms without having to seek permission from our
> department. You must keep the copyright notice intact and attribute the
> State of Queensland as the source of the material."
>
> Does that mean we can use it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au