Re: [talk-au] Question about using NSW Speed Zone Data in OSM

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/02/2024 11:45, Mark Pulley wrote:
I’ve got some further info on how this user has been editing (see 
comment on changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117791362 )


In short, Harsimranjit works for an un-named company. Unspecified 
people can report an incorrect speed limit on a road segment, it is 
verified (?how?) by someone else in the company, then goes to 
Harsimranjit who checks the claimed speed limit change with NSW Speed 
Zone Data, then if the NSW Speed Zone Data matches the proposed 
change, the edit is made. This process has obviously not worked in at 
least a few of these changesets (the ones I found had been changed 
incorrectly).



Separate to any other issues, at the very least, that company should be 
following the organised editing guidelines.  If you drop an email to 
d...@openstreetmap.org, we can try and persuade them to do so.  I don't 
think we've had a ticket or report about this particular one so far.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)


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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/01/2024 22:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Only thought there is should the note= possibly be a description= ?

Notes are only visible to mappers on OSM, descriptions show to 
"everybody" (?) using it downstream.



This seems to be referring to an OSM note _tag_ rather than "OSM notes" 
(those red things).  Although not many things claim to process OSM note 
tags, some do - data in there is just a "public" to downstream OSM data 
consumers as in a description tag,


https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/note#projects

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/description#projects

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andy Townsend]

On 09/10/2023 00:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
& for some reason, Andy's reply didn't appear in my email until after 
I sent my own saying more or less the same thing?


I cocked it up anyway - sending it from a phone as html only, so I 
suspect many people (including the list archive) won't see it! For what 
it's worth it said:



> The path of least harm is to let land managers remove informal paths 
and leave them removed


I'm not actually convinced that is true.

If something is visible from aerial imagery (or even something like 
Strava*) then someone might "just add it" without knowing the history.  
With a DWG hat on I have many times explained to people why a path that 
"should not exist" has been re-added by someone unfamiliar with its status.


If there is a chance that someone will add something that shouldn't be 
there for whatever reason then it makes sense to ensure that something 
representing the current status is mapped. This might be some sort of 
lifecycle tag such as "disused:highway=path" or if the thing really does 
still exist but is private, some sort of access tag.


Best Regards,

Andy

* I certainly wouldn't map "just from Strava" myself, but unfortunately 
some people do.


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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of informal paths by NSW NPWS

[Andy Townsend]

 > The path of least harm is to let land managers remove informal paths and leave them removedI'm not actually convinced that is true.If something is visible from aerial imagery (or even something like Strava*) then someone might "just add it" without knowing the history.  With a DWG hat on I have many times explained to people why a path that "should not exist" has been re-added by someone unfamiliar with its status.If there is a chance that someone will add something that shouldn't be there for whatever reason then it makes sense to ensure that something representing the current status is mapped. This might be some sort of lifecycle tag such as "disused:highway=path" or if the thing really does still exist but is private, some sort of access tag.Best Regards,Andy* I certainly wouldn't map "just from Strava" myself, but unfortunately some people do.   ___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [OSM-talk] When two bots go to war

[Andy Townsend]

On 15/09/2023 10:43, Paul Norman wrote:
They have edited it back with 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141281494. I've left a 
changeset discussion comment asking why, and asking for a link to the 
required documentation and consultation.



Maybe I'm being over-cynical, but I suspect that that may not work :)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15054

That's just "until a human reads it" - I've asked the bot to forward it 
to their tame human :) .  When one does, they can hopefully take the 
action required and document things properly, and we can point them at 
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=18539679 to 
address any other issues in their data.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed bulk removal of service=driveway2

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/06/2023 00:02, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
And indeed, nine months later, we see that not only has the work not 
gotten done, but while we all squabbled away with our pet views about 
automated editing, we find that we agreed to nothing, and the mapper 
has quietly continued to add this nonsense tag to the database unabated:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/service=driveway2#chronology

For the original thread, see: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2022-September/087734.html


Has anyone actually mentioned this discussion to the proponent of the 
tag?  If I've got the right user (and I may not have) 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=741163 
suggests not.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [talk-au] Routing problem near Albany, WA

[Andy Townsend]

On 07/06/2023 03:00, Ian Steer wrote:


My Garmin GPSMAP 66i gives misleading routing instructions at a new 
intersection on Albany Highway near Albany when using OSM data.


One thing that might be useful to know is what was used to create the 
Garmin .img file from the .osm data.  Control over "who or what can go 
where" is almost entirely under the control of the style.  That's an 
entirely different thing to spurious "right on ..." etc. instructions of 
course, but it might still be worth knowing.


Not related to your problem, but I did notice that when I changed cars, 
and went from a Garmin Nuvi using my own OSM-based maps to the car's 
built-in HERE-based satnav maps, it started chirping about "keep left / 
keep right" on main roads with very minor junctions all the time - so 
annoying that I turned the sound right down!


Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] mapilio? (street-level imagery)

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/05/2023 13:31, Greg Troxel wrote:

I just got spam from mapilio, implying that I was a "Mapilio
contributor".  This was, to my memory, the first I had heard of them.


Apparently, I am part of the "Mapilio Volunteer Community" according to 
a message I received at about the same time.




Thus, my approach will be to not deal with them at all and just block
their mail.


I am curious if anyone
   - thinks my assessment of the fundamentals is off
   - thinks there is a reasonable way to use their imagery in JOSM
   - anything else similar

There's continuing discussion at 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapilios-support-for-openstreetmap/99021/14 
.  They may, I guess, come up with something useful; they certainly seem 
to be trying to do so, but appear to have not done so yet.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [OSM-talk] bot proposal: shop values cleanup (low use values only, 1 used 250 times, three over 100 times, many used less)

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/04/2023 16:57, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:



Apr 22, 2023, 14:10 by ajt1...@gmail.com:

More generally, anyone with half a brain consuming OSM shop data
(or actually, _any_ external data from _anywhere_) will look at
the values contained in it***.

And that is exactly what lead to proposing this edits - I was writing 
code to handle OSM
data and researched tagging situation. And one of[1] effects was 
discovering numerous
cases of tags that seem to be exact duplicates of more standard ones, 
and retagging

them seems to clearly improve OSM data as far as I can see

Your continued tagfiddling here is making it much harder for local 
mappers to find problem values in OSM data.


No-one's going to complain about you changing "shop=shoe" to 
"shop=shoes" - they clearly have the same meaning, so changing the less 
common form to the more common form is a net benefit.


However, your recent changes have gone much further than this, included 
changing shops with values you don't understand into "shop=yes".  As an 
example, consider https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353944525 .  It was 
previously "shop=retail", an unusual and rare tag that would likely flag 
up the interest of a passing local mapper.  You changed it to 
"shop=yes", of which there are 180,000 of in OSM.  No-one is going to 
spot that as an "unusual" shop at all.  This one's actually a charity 
shop, and a question about it on IRC would have got that response in 
only a few minutes (or a glance at taginfo/overpass: 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=Lighthouse%20Charity%20Shop#overview 
/ https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1v3j ).


Changing "invalid" (by whatever definition) values to "valid but 
incorrect" ones does not improve the quality of OSM, and it actually 
hides problems so that they are much harder to fix in the future.


Do we perhaps need a StreetComplete quest searching for incorrect values 
set by "Mateusz Konieczny - bot account" so that they can be corrected 
to valid values? :)


In the case of the changesets that I've seen just now and commented on 
(see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=3199858 
) many are by longstanding contributors to OSM.  In many cases a comment 
on a previous changeset would have got the answer "yes, obviously that 
should be a shop=xyz" (rather than you just setting it to shop=yes).  I 
thought that after the discussion on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134837986 that you weren't going 
to mass-change actual values to shop=yes any more, but clearly I was wrong.


Best Regards,

Andy

(for the avoidance of doubt, writing in a personal capacity)



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/04/2023 22:50, Allan Mustard wrote:
Rather than criticize the CWG for using Google because certain people 
are restricted by their governments from using Google services, it 
would be more useful to suggest alternatives that might work in those 
countries.



Mikel already mentioned that OSMF had used Limesurvey earlier; that was 
also what the DWG used when we last ran a survey a while back, and what 
the organisers of this survey have suggested they will use it too (in 
various of the other channels that it has been announced).  I don't have 
up to date info on where that might be blocked, but at least a couple of 
the channels in which this survey has been announced have contributors 
who may have more up to date info on whether something is reachable or 
not - from both of the countries you mentioned.**


Best Regards,

Andy

** I'm not being more specific because I don't want to advertise an 
activity that might be "frowned upon" in a particular country, or which 
particular OSM channel people doing that might be found in.





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

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/04/2023 15:47, Sören Reinecke wrote:

So please stop complaining about when someone does not share your ideologic 
attitude. And wanting to use OSS only is a ideology.


In this case, it's not just my view, it's the view of the OSMF board:

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Commitment_to_Open_Communication_Channels

I have nothing against Google per se (casual observers will note that 
I'm posting this from a Gmail address), but we have to allow everyone to 
access a survey like this - including those people who are restricted by 
their government from using services such as Google's.




In this case privacy is not even a concern. So please stop polluting email 
threads with unnecessary replies.



:)

Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/04/2023 14:57, Marc_marc wrote:

part of the active opendata community
does not wish to ally a closeddata based enterprise


It's actually worse than that.

OpenStreetMap has mappers all around the world.  Some of those places 
don't have the virtually unrestricted Internet access that people in the 
west may be accustomed to, and I wouldn't assume that a website of a 
major American company (Google) is available in all those places.  
Previously the Board and other OSMF working groups have taken care to 
ensure that everyone can contribute to surveys like this.  Of all 
people, I'd have expected the Communication Working Group to be aware of 
this potential issue and to have taken steps to ensure that it wasn't one.


Best Regards,

Andy

(writing in a personal capacity rather than as a member of the DWG)



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

Re: [OSM-talk] bot proposal: shop values cleanup (low use values only, 1 used 250 times, three over 100 times, many used less)

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/04/2023 12:46, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

when you search for tea shop and it was marked as
shop=herbata ("herbata" is Polish for tea) then even a well written 
search tool

will fail to reliably find it.


Where something is an _absolute direct equivalent_ (but in another 
language) it makes no sense to use a distinct term (no-one's going to 
suggest "highway=autoweg" for motorways in the Netherlands, for 
example), but where there are genuine differences it does make sense to 
try and capture that somehow.


This also applies where English has borrowed a word that means something 
else elsewhere - for example, I bet all the "shop=boutique" at 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1u5H don't match the OSM wiki's definition, 
but do match the French meaning of the word "boutique", which means "shop".


Even "poorly written" data consumers need to be aware of the data they 
are consuming.  With OSM, there is no single definition**. Someone 
trying to interpret data for the part of Togo that I linked above would 
surely say that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5001651960 (tagged 
only "shop=boutique") is just "some sort of shop".


More generally, anyone with half a brain consuming OSM shop data (or 
actually, _any_ external data from _anywhere_) will look at the values 
contained in it***.  The next time you're on a plane, ask yourself - "is 
it likely that the aircraft's systems have been tested with inputs from 
sensors out of the expected range of those sensors to ensure that they 
can deal with that input?".  The answer will of course be "yes".


Best Regards,

Andy


** we know that the OSM wiki does not describe the data in the Togo 
example.  It doesn't matter that it is the data that is wrong (in OSM 
terms); the OSM wiki still does not describe the data.


*** although some high-profile organisations have failed that most basic 
task (e.g. 
https://www.theguardian.com/games/2020/aug/21/melbourne-fawkner-suburbia-users-poke-fun-at-microsoft-flight-simulator-glitches 
).



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

Re: [OSM-talk] bot proposal: shop values cleanup (low use values only, 1 used 250 times, three over 100 times, many used less)

[Andy Townsend]

On 22/04/2023 08:38, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

Wiki should not be mindlessly obeyed but it at least tends to be right.


[citation needed]

The OSM wiki tends to be many things, among those "somewhat helpful" and 
"usually edited in good faith"; but "tends to be right" is very much a 
stretch.


The current status of any page shows you what the last editor of a 
particular page thought about something.  Looking at the history, you 
can see how other people thought too - and sometimes their views are 
very different.  The wiki doesn't necessarily help people understand 
what OSM mappers in general think, because only a tiny fraction of OSM 
mappers update the wiki.  It's also not a great place to compare 
versions and see who added what (there's no "blame" equivalent**).


One of the places where the wiki fails badly is where people have 
different views.  Partly this isn't the OSM wiki's fault - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest tries its best to describe 
the debacle there, but there are many pages that contain essentially the 
same information, and monitoring and maintaining each and every one of 
them would be more than a full-time job.


Often wiki pages are written by people only with knowledge that "this 
OSM tag exists in the OSM database" not with any real-world 
understanding of what a particular feature is.  Often there are links to 
wikipedia, when wikipedia has fundamentally different definition of what 
some particular word means.


Another problem is maintenance.  For example 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes#United_Kingdom is 
just a couple of links, but the do look useful.  The first, 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Long-distance_footpaths_in_the_United_Kingdom 
exists, but some of the information is both not especially relevant and 
somewhat misleading, e.g. "Completed 12/09/2009" - in reality there is 
continual refinement going on with all of these as more detail is 
added.  Occasionally people introduce gaps by mistake and people fill 
them in.


The other link 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Tagging_Access_Provisions 
just redirects to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#Tagging_Access_Provisions 
which does not exist.  Clearly someone edited something but didn't 
realise the links that they were breaking.


Best Regards,

Andy

** wikis do have the concept - see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiBlame .



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

Re: [OSM-talk] bot proposal: shop values cleanup (low use values only, 1 used 250 times, three over 100 times, many used less)

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/04/2023 12:17, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
It helps because maintaining lists of many many many rarely used 
meaningless values
in every single QA tool and validator and tool doing this is annoying 
at best.



For the avoidance of doubt we are NOT talking about meaningless values 
here.  We're also not talking about obvious misspellings, like the 
previously mentioned "shop=Chandlery" (that entry has a website that 
confirms that the tag is just misspelt).  We're not talking about 
genuine duplicates ("shop=healthcare" vs "shop=health_care") where 
literally no-one is going to assume a different meaning.


We're actually talking about the "long tail" of shop values - genuine, 
perfectly descriptive, perfectly valid values, like "shop=whisky" that 
someone mentioned on IRC this morning. Changing that to something 
generic without recording the extra detail somewhere (and communicating 
to data consumers where that extra detail has moved to) is essentially 
low-grade vandalism - removing detail from OSM.  It devalues the hard 
work of the people who surveyed these things in the first place.


You previously changed "shop=luxury" to "shop=yes" and then changed it 
back when I complained (see e.g. 
https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/2642857189 and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134837986 ).  As I said on that 
changeset, surely some of those values could be set to better actual 
values.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2642857046 is part of a 
chain https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1u3W with variable tagging; the most 
popular of those would be better than "luxury", but either would be 
better than "yes": https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/2642857046 .  Some 
of the others (the unnamed ones) may benefit from a resurvey since they 
were added in 2014.


The fact that you find it "annoying" to deal with this detail in OSM is 
extremely disappointing.  I would have expected better.  It really isn't 
rocket science to deal with the "shop" key - it's just one key with a 
set of values.  If you want a challenge, try "historic" (though that is 
also possible: 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#17/-25.00937/135.17762 ).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] bot proposal: shop values cleanup (low use values only, 1 used 250 times, three over 100 times, many used less)

[Andy Townsend]

On 20/04/2023 19:50, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

For start I want to propose to people to review shop tags in their area
with undocumented shop values or ones documented as problematic.

See http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1u2o



Reviewing "odd" tags before tagfiddling them away seems to me a very 
sensible approach.  However, running that query locally finds, alongside 
a couple of typos by me, lots that are very much correct, but just not 
on your list - there are some very odd shops out there.


To change "shop=veryrarevalue" where it was correct to 
"shop=lessrarevalue"without preserving the detail somehow loses detail 
from OSM and is therefore by definition a Bad Thing.  Some of the 
entries on your list I'd definitely want to check onsite ("gun" and 
"firearms" is one obvious one such, but there are others).


Also, changing rare shop types into "yes" helps absolutely no-one.  If a 
data consumer wants to handle a catch-all for "shop" they can; they 
don't need them to be set to "yes" first.


That doesn't mean we should keep obvious rubbish in OSM - 
"shop=stationary" is an obvious and amusing typo for "shop=stationery".  
Single-use examples, especially featuring capital letters like 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1u2R ("shop=Chandlery") are also obvious 
candidates for changing to something at least non-capitalised.


The rest, however, I really won't worry about.  I disagree very much 
with your paragraph that starts "For quite long time...", but let's not 
let that get in the way of fixing what ought to be fixed - either 
manually or automatically.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Help with reverting a changeset (somebody deleted weeks and weeks of work)

[Andy Townsend]

On 09/04/2023 12:55, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

Hello everybody!

I hope you're having a good weekend. I'm looking for help with 
reverting a changeset 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54488428?way_page=6#map=14/51.5273/-0.1224. 
(Kings Cross, London)


The changeset is labeled "Large correction of outdated information", 
and while the 'correction' was large, the information wasn't outdated 
at all. The editor mistook an extensive set underground paths (labeled 
correctly with level, leading to underground railways) for obsolete 
footpaths and stripped them all out - removing the entire underground 
structure. They hadn't noticed that the same user (me, bjohas) had put 
them all in only a year or so earlier (which took me weeks and weeks 
to do, sigh).


Obviously a few edits have happened since, but the underground 
footpaths haven't been restored/re-added. I'd like to 'cautiously' 
revert/merge those edits. However, it does involve many many paths, 
nodes etc etc. While I'm a fairly experienced mapper / josm user 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bjohas), I feel that I'd best do 
this with support from somebody, to make sure that the initial 
destruction doesn't lead to more destruction...



Given that it's 5 years ago that these were deleted, you're not going to 
be able to do a simple revert.


What you could do is, where particular things are still missing, 
"undelete" the deleted paths one by one and then join up to any current 
features (checking for problems with the JOSM validator as you go).


For "undelete" functionality you could use JOSM's "undelete" plugin or 
the perl revert scripts' "undo.pl".  There may be other options too.


You're going to have to do it one object at a time anyway, so perhaps do 
a couple first and then ask again to see if anyone can see any problems 
with what you've done?


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] wheelmap.org batch updates

[Andy Townsend]

On 07/04/2023 13:13, Marc_marc wrote:


Le 07.04.23 à 12:26, a...@onthewings.net a écrit :


it would be great if board/DWG can communicate this with 
wheelmap.org. I don't think I can represent osm.



you don't need to represent the community to make a suggestion
and I even think that the board/DWG has much more important things
to do than passing on suggestions.


Hello,

Andy from the DWG here.

We maybe get a couple of complaints a year about wheelmap edits (many 
fewer than most organisations get, and fewer than some individual 
mappers).  Of these quite a lot complaints are about the wrong user 
altogether (people click on a random changeset, which because of the 
size is likely to be a wheelmap one) and the rest are usually about 
changeset size.  As you can see from 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=290680 , 
they're apparently working on this ("We know that these big changesets 
are annoying and we really want to optimize this. Unfortunately, it 
takes longer than planned").


I've mentioned it to them again (not some secret back-channel - I just 
mailed the parent organisation's "info" address listed on their website, 
which I got a reply from last time I used it) and I'm sure that they'll 
reply shortly.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-se] Import av laddstationer

[Andy Townsend]

Se också 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/charging-stations-sites-or-individual-chargers/96810




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

Re: [talk-au] [Impersonated Sender] Re: Map feedback - Australia

[Andy Townsend]

On 17/02/2023 11:33, Salim Baidoun wrote:


I conducted my due diligence and came back with a solid answer to 
answer your question, Yes, the user will have agreed to OSM's 
Contributor Terms.




Great, thanks!

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

Re: [talk-au] Map feedback - Australia

[Andy Townsend]

For the avoidance of doubt - will the user have agreed to OSM's 
Contributor Terms?


https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms

Best Regards,

Andy


On 13/02/2023 17:48, Salim Baidoun wrote:


Hello Australia Community,

In TomTom's endeavor to improve OSM, we plan to conduct edits based on 
user input. This activity is the result of checking if feedback 
received for the TomTom map is also valid for OSM.


Note that, starting with a small number, we will only perform edits if 
they add value to the OSM map, do not conflict with any recent edits 
made by the community, and are supported by a local source. In the 
absence of credible source material, we will reach out to the local 
community for guidance.


We will start with editing POIs, land use, addresses, and highways 
during this activity. Over time, we will evaluate more feedback and 
expand to other features. You can refer to the GitHub issue 
 for 
further details regarding the types of planned edits.


The MapRoulette challenge used for these edits will be accessible only 
for our editing team as it could contain confidential information. 
Along with the *#tomtom* hashtag that accompanies every TomTom edit in 
OSM, we will also add the *#tt_mapfeedback* hashtag to the changeset 
if it is an incidental edit resulting from user feedback.


We plan to start with Australia in 2 weeks along with a selection of 
countries for which there is available user input, and then expand to 
other countries. Please reach out to me if you have any thoughts or 
questions about this upcoming activity.


Regards.

Salim A. Baidoun / Community & Partnerships - Global


___
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

Re: [OSM-talk] Dubious websites added to tourist attractions?

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/02/2023 17:08, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:

Looks like most of these have been cleaned up but there's a couple left:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1qU8



Some of the links are to other websites, e.g. the fishing area 
https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/148514524 .


It might well just be a good-faith attempt to "add websites to OSM" 
rather than to drive traffic to any particular sites, although the 
selection of sites seems very narrow :) .  In the example above, the 
site appears to be a 3rd-party one, but is the first search engine 
result after the local group's Facebook page.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

[Andy Townsend]

On 09/01/2023 20:17, Snusmumriken wrote:

On Mon, 2023-01-09 at 08:21 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:

You seem unwilling to understand that defining a way to refer to ids
will cause social pressure not to change ids,

Is there actually evidence that would corroborate this claim?


There have definitely been complaints to the DWG when people "resurrect" 
old long-deleted nodes, or exhibit "unusual mapping behaviour" such as 
never deleting any nodes, and always re-using them in some other 
feature.  There have also been complaints about changes to objects that 
people consider "special" such as https://osm.mapki.com/history/node/1 
and, er, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/69#map=17/48.06733/12.86258 .


I'm not saying those complaints are defensible, but they do occur.

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Extending the 'geo:' uri scheme: Adding parameter 'osmid'

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/01/2023 20:44, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

way/node/relation ids in OSM are unstable, not promised to be stable and
anything relying on their stability can break at any point

Unfortunately, that sort of "black and white" answer doesn't really 
answer the question of whether it's useful to link to OSM data like 
that.  This community thread discusses it with rather more nuance:


https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/persistent-and-stable-identifiers/6819

It's certainly possible (as I've said in that discussion) to use OSM IDs 
as "stable enough to do real work with" - I do it all the time.


Can I guarantee that the shop at "No 55 Main Street" will always have 
the same OSM ID?  No, but it's unlikely to change.  Can I guarantee that 
in real life it'll always be the same shop?  Of course not - businesses 
close and open; buildings get knocked down and replaced.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] QA tool for finding nameless highways that are armchair-fixable

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/11/2022 13:57, Maarten Deen wrote:

What the user wielding the QA tool does with that is his choice.


Indeed, but as we've seen in lots of places users sometimes blindly 
follow "suggestions" without engaging their brains.


As an example, Osmose contains very clear information that users should 
not blindly obey it (see 
https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=0=39.9=-74.6 and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmose ) yet there are still many 
complaints about people using Osmose for "fixing" stuff in OSM that 
isn't actually broken.


I can't really think what the Osmose people (in this example) could do 
to make people NOT blindly make changes in this way, and it's really 
useful to the project to have something suggesting what might (but might 
not) be a problem**.


Perhaps what needs to happen is for people who actually do go outside 
and map stuff to push back more forthrightly and more often, when we 
know that something is wrong, and even when it "just looks a bit iffy".


Best Regards,

Andy

** for the avoidance of any doubt I'm not complaining about Osmose here!



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Jhulto Pul/ Morbi bridge

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/11/2022 13:51, Andy Mabbett wrote:


I'm not in the least precious about how it is tagged, so long as the
fact that a structure still bridges the river, but is impassable to
pedestrians, is recorded.


(and earlier)


If I knew how to revert the edit I would do so; I do not. Can someone
do the revert, please?


Given that you're essentially asking a worldwide favour here, that does 
seem to be a bit of an officious line to take?


In response to your question, people from (at least) England, Germany 
and most importantly India have tried to get the tagging correct:


https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/604295549

I'm sure that all of those edits were made for the right reasons, even 
if they weren't all the best edits.


May I suggest that a "thank you" somewhere might be in order?

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] I need your help please

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/09/2022 10:38, Fakhreddine Azzouni wrote:
Good afternoon, I started using OSM for a tourism project. The idea 
is make a tour's road map with places from OSM. But some places are 
not on the map so I added them yesterday. I am using a WordPress 
Plugin to get locations From OSM. Unfortunately I couldn't find any of 
the locations I have recently added.

As this matter is urgent, I would appreciate a reply as soon as possible.


Hello,

Unfortunately there is no information in your message that would enable 
anyone to help you understand what has gone wrong.  We don't know what 
you added, where you added it, or how your WordPress plugin obtains its 
information (as data from somewhere, if so where?  tiles?  something else?).


Perhaps it might be a suitable question for the help site 
https://help.openstreetmap.org/ ?  You'll need to provide a bit more 
information than you have so far though.


Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [talk-au] Adding river crossings to Guidelines "road quality / 4wd-only"?

[Andy Townsend]

On 8/10/22 03:06, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

Cleared a note to add a ford / river-crossing to a road in Cape York: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025490234, & added both a "ford" 
node, & also changed the actual river crossing to a track with 4wd 
only & similar tags.


Wondering if we should include those sort of details in the Guidelines? eg

4wd_only=extreme

bicycle=no

foot=no

highway=track

horse=no

motor_vehicle=yes

smoothness=horrible

tracktype=grade8

& possibly even hazard=wild_animals + animals=crocodile!




(not from AU or Queensland but)

To add to what Ian has said already, the foot, horse, bicycle etc. are 
legal access tags - if that mode of transport isn't legally permitted to 
cross there then e.g. horse=no would be correct, but otherwise not.


A tag such as horse_scale can be used to suggest how appropriate 
something is for that mode of transport, much like the example already 
uses "4wd_only=extreme" alongside "motor_vehicle=yes".


Personally I'd be very reticent about tagging "smoothness" remotely as well.

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [talk-au] New OSM Discourse site: community.osm.org

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/05/2022 22:36, Andrew Davidson wrote:


How do we get a category we can interact with through email? I haven't 
used Discource enough to picture how it works.


If you enable mailing list mode in your profile, you will get emailed 
all messages and can reply to them by email too.  What you can't yet do 
is to create a new thread by email - to do that you'll need to go to 
e.g. https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/help-and-support/7 and click 
"new topic".


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55

[Andy Townsend (ajt1...@gmail.com)]

I suspect that no-one is taking the piss - depending on the mail client
"reply all" will very often go to the sender cc the list.

Perhaps a bit more discussion about what problems have been created might
have helped (and "source=knowledge") isn't a great description of why
something was changed, but to an outsider it does look like a couple of
rounds of polite questions were mossing before the "wtf is going on" on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120344373#map=19/-34.76638/138.58995
.

Where there are turn restrictions missing something vital like "from" or
"to" sometimes it's obvious what needs to be re-added, and sometimes
actually deleting it is just fine because other tags (such as oneway) are
doing the same job.

Where you think a turn restriction has been deleted in error, perhaps it
would help to comment why that was in error?



On Sat, 30 Apr 2022, 13:18 Anthony Panozzo,  wrote:

> Im not it’s 100% true, youre the one taking the piss by jumping in this
> conversation and just speaking on behalf of the other person involved when
> the matter was already discussed and sorted. Please do not email me directly
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:41 PM
> *To: *talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 55
>
>
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48 (Luke Stewart)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 22:07:00 +1000
> From: Luke Stewart 
> To: Anthony Panozzo 
> Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
> Message-ID:
>  3+dc4uvt_k62zz...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Can someone else please confirm that this guy is just taking the piss?
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:58, Anthony Panozzo  wrote:
>
> > I didn?t realise you emailed me directly I am going to have to block you
> > from doing so in the future, it?s against OSM au-talk policy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From: *Luke Stewart 
> > *Sent: *Saturday, 30 April 2022 9:21 PM
> > *To: *Anthony Panozzo ; OSM Australian Talk List
> > 
> > *Subject: *Re: [talk-au] Talk-au Digest, Vol 178, Issue 48
> >
> >
> >
> > "TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him
> > to" - What's most likely is that the validator located a relation that
> was
> > incorrect, and he determined that he should delete it. Alternatively, it
> > could have been added back. Regardless, the relation was non-functional
> and
> > that is obvious given the single member
> >
> > "have you figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag
> > yet" - Stops should have a platform tag, either on the node or the area
> > that is the platform, but mass adding them still remains incorrect as has
> > been discussed ad nauseam
> >
> > "a bunch of people who all have the same opinion and wont listen to a
> word
> > im saying" - This is not always the case, however if everybody else has a
> > contrary opinion that may be an indication that you don't understand what
> > we are saying or why you are incorrect
> >
> >
> >
> > So if you want to add the no-u-turn relation on the freeway off-ramp,
> then
> > go for it, but it was non-functional to begin with. And a side-note, I am
> > yet to see a validator that says "delete it, it's wrong". It most likely
> > would say that there is an incorrect number of members, which then
> provides
> > a mapper with two options on how to proceed and fix it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please provide an example of where the routing is still incorrect, in a
> > way that TheSwavu has 'broken' by using a validator. It is possible that
> > deleting the relation, rather than re-adding the two missing members, was
> > the wrong decision. However, it is also the case that you yourself broke
> > the relation (again, perhaps inadvertently), within 24 hours of first
> > adding it.
> >
> >
> >
> > P.S., make sure to use 'reply all', so that the message gets cross-posted
> > to talk-au.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Luke
> >
> > On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 21:03, Anthony Panozzo 
> wrote:
> >
> > Luke,
> >
> >
> >
> > TheSwavu has already said he deleted it because the validator told him
> >  to, it wasn?t based on local knowledge or intersection rules. And have
> you
> > figured out how to route bus stops with out the platform tag yet? Do you
> > 

[talk-au] Garmin (was Re: Wiki Clean Up Progress Update)

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/04/2022 11:25, Bob Cameron wrote:


Good stuff Dian!

I don't know how widespread the problem is, but Garmin GPS navigation 
devices see no road surface tag as sealed. This can create routing 
stress for the driver and possibly safety issues. Might be worth 
mentioning that it's far better to default tag new roads in non urban 
areas as unpaved than no tag, if the surface is unknown.


The process for converting OSM data into Garmin maps is entirely 
software-defined, so if you want to represent unpaved roads differently 
to paved roads that's entirely possible.  There's quite a bit of 
information of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mkgmap , and there's 
other information elsewhere.  I wrote a diary entry 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/38613 ages ago to 
deal with the reverse problem - someone modifying OSM data incorrectly 
so that it appears as they wanted it on their Garmin.


If someone wants to do the opposite (avoid unpaved roads by representing 
them as tracks) that's entirely possible too.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [talk-ph] "VJMEJ Planned" and "Open Paint Maps"

[Andy Townsend]

On 16/04/2022 13:02, Jherome Miguel wrote:

I just reported their two diary entries.

Back on the issue, do you mean we can't discount VJMEJ Planned and 
Open Paint Maps are the same person?



As ever, I'd suggest trying to engage with the mapper.

In this case 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=15549478 has 
only one comment on it, and it merely says "you're wrong" - not even 
"hello".  This was on this mapper's first ever contribution to OSM - 
certainly before anyone can reasonably think that they were the same 
person as some other mapper.


However, Subsequent changeset comments by them (see 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=15549478 
) and diary entries (see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/VJMEJ%20Planned/diary ) suggest that 
they have a problem with you*1.


I appreciate that there has been a problem with "new accounts" in the 
Philippines that are performing the same sort of edits that don't match 
reality that are suspected of being related, but from the perspective of 
the DWG we need more to go on than one person saying "I think the DWG 
should ban this user".


Please, please, try and give new mappers the time and space to start 
mapping.  Don't immediately assume that they will "spoil the map".


Please also do not think that sending repeated emails and reports to the 
DWG that add no new information (or cc:ing me directly) will get your 
issue dealt with quicker.  If anything, it'll have the reverse effect.  
Instead, please say "hello and welcome", and offer to help them doing 
whatever it is that they are doing.  If they are mapping things 
incorrectly, explain why it is wrong (don't just say that it is) and 
invite them to discuss how to map with the rest of the PH community.


Right now the thread 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2022-April/thread.html#6947 
only has mails from you in it*2, so it appears not to be an especially 
important issue within the wider PH community.  Once these is more 
discussion (especially, changeset comments from other mappers) I'm sure 
that someone from the DWG will pick it up.


Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, from the Data Working Group


*1 visible at the time of writing.  Some of their diary entries have 
already been hidden.


*2 to be fair we have had one other issue report about this user.



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

Re: [talk-au] Tagging bicycle on footpath laws Was: Re: HighRouleur edits

[Andy Townsend]

On 08/04/2022 06:31, Andrew Harvey wrote:



On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 14:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
 wrote:





On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 12:50, Andrew Harvey
 wrote:


I think this is getting too much into mapping regulations, we
could just have no bicycle tag and leave it to data consumers
to apply the regional defaults.


What would that do to bike routing?


Well your router would need to look up the specific default whether 
that's something in the routing engine configuration, pulled from the 
OSM wiki, or pulled from the Victoria state relation def:* tags.



Which, practically speaking, will never happen.

In OSM terms, that's very much "on display in the bottom of a locked 
filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door 
saying 'Beware of The Leopard'"**


Best Regards,

Andy

** Douglas Adams, of course.

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

Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

[Andy Townsend]

On 04/04/2022 09:41, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Hi Andy,

I am aware of the volunteers doing this great work. My concern was 
that I had not received a confirmation that the email had been 
received and a ticket created. This has happened once before and I was 
led to believe the ticket creation to be automatic on receiving an email.


Our ticketing system thinks it sent you a message with subject 
"Ticket#202204021063] Re: Our phantom note creator is back ..." at 
6:51 on 2nd April.  Depending on how people have spam filters set up 
it's not unheard of for mails to end up in there. The email will likely 
have come from "o...@otrs.openstreetmap.org".



If its not an automatic process then please accept my apologies and I 
will make a suggestion that an autoresponder is installed so that we 
at least know that the email has arrived at the correct location.


Is the correct email address d...@openstreetmap.org or is it 
d...@otrs.openstreetmap.org which others seemed to have used.


The full "I've seen a problem; what should I do?" story is on 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group , but addresses 
that will work include


 * d...@openstreetmap.org
 * d...@osmfoundation.org

and likely others involving "otrs" and a ticket number on the subject 
line, but the "official one that is likely to work best for most people" 
is "d...@openstreetmap.org".


Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

[Andy Townsend]

Hello,

Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here.

> Is there any other way to alert the Data working group?

With respect, which part of "Please understand that our working group 
consists of volunteers only who do this job in their spare time. All 
incoming messages are read but processing them can take a little time." 
(in the acknowledgement that gets sent out to every DWG ticket) was 
unclear?  We got Phil's message 6:51 UTC Saturday morning.  The user was 
blocked in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5875 about 49 hours 
later, across a weekend.  Is that response not snappy enough for you? :)


With regard to the data that they've added, we'll give them a few days 
to respond to the questions that they have been asked and if we don't 
hear anything we'll revert and then likely redact the data.


With regard to the original notes, looking at the country feeds such as 
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=Australia , 
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=United%20States and 
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=Canada it seems that 
most or all of the original notes have been closed and will disappear 
from the map in a few days.  I'm aware that there are "note cleanup" 
projects going on in Australia and elsewhere, so hopefully any 
stragglers will also get dealt with.


Best Regards,

Andy



On 04/04/2022 04:28, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Another 60 changesets this morning!

Is there any other way to alert the Data working group? I suspect 
there will be over 400 changesets to revert and they will get harder 
the longer he adds data.


Cheers

*From:*Phil Wyatt 
*Sent:* Monday, 4 April 2022 10:29 AM
*To:* 'Graeme Fitzpatrick' ; 'Andrew Davidson' 
; 'OSM - Andrew Harvey' 

*Cc:* 'OpenStreetMap' 
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

Hi Folks,

Can someone else please log a request to the Data Working Group re 
this user. I suspect me email is not getting to them as I have not 
even received an acknowledgement as yet (which I gather should be 
instantaneous)


He is still working away adding road names

Changesets in Australia by PopeyePopcord

d...@openstreetmap.org

suggested reverts

119223580

119223590

119223592

119223605

119223620

119223637

119223650

119223659

119223666

119223674

119223683

119223719

119223741

119223758

119223766

119223781

119223790

119223806

119223819

119224021

119224028

119224065

119224109

119224938 - maybe dont revert this - SWAVU comment

119225009

119225018

119244811

119244940

119247805

119247832

119247850

119247892

119247910

119247919

119247973

119248033

119248057

119248118

119248169

119248239

119248274

119248322

119248753

119248767

119248789

119248810

119248822

119248862

119248914

119248959

119249026

119249073

119249093

119249135

119249266

119250024

119276663

119276678

119276773

119276793

119276824

119276841

119276875

119276933

119276992

119277068

119277105

119277136

119277169

119277230

119277248

119277257

119277364

119277377

119277756

119277793

119277821

119277902

119277945

119277971

119278013

119278024

119278060

119278075

119278139

119278155

119278198

119278239

119278334

119278421

119278439

119278464

Cheers - Phil

*From:*Phil Wyatt 
*Sent:* Sunday, 3 April 2022 12:32 PM
*To:* 'Graeme Fitzpatrick' ; 'Andrew Davidson' 
; 'OSM - Andrew Harvey' 

*Cc:* 'OpenStreetMap' 
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

Hi Folks,

He is back at it in Australia, mainly in aboriginal communities – 
adding street names and population and still no response for any 
changeset comments.


I am collecting all the changeset numbers but *no response from the 
data working group as yet*


Cheers - Phil

*From:*Graeme Fitzpatrick 
*Sent:* Saturday, 2 April 2022 4:52 PM
*To:* Andrew Davidson ; OSM - Andrew Harvey 


*Cc:* OpenStreetMap 
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Map Note Flood

Looks like we have somebody playing games?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3111672#map=15/-12.5048/135.8049

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PopeyePopcord

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PopeyePopcord/history#map=6/-18.272/136.714

AndrewH - you may need to swap to DWG hat for a moment?

Thanks

Graeme

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 15:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
 wrote:


Just had a comment made by somebody in the US on one of the Notes
I worked on: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3111658

Apparently copying from HERE.com

They have referred to DWG.

Thanks

Graeme

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 11:50, Andrew Davidson 
wrote:

> On looking at the notes added in Australia, they do seem to
be an automated script comparing what’s in OSM to an external
source.
>
> The notes added to Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt and Maningrida
don’t seem to be coming from a suitable NT give source. One of
the notes suggests a street name for a road I was only able to
find in Google Maps.
>

That's the 

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Change reversal

[Andy Townsend]

On 09/02/2022 12:28, Andy Townsend wrote:
The revert was clean, but can you check that it looks OK?  JOSM's 
validator reckons that 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9217096278/history is a duplicate 
node, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12175058/history is 
no longer a valid relation, as there is no "to".


I suspect that Mapbox might have been fixing broken relations (as 
announced on talk-gb) which brought them to this area.


To avoid Mapbox trying to "fix" that relation in future I've deleted it 
in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117200951


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Change reversal

[Andy Townsend]

On 09/02/2022 12:04, Ryan Underwood wrote:
Just noticed somebody changed my newer edits to the A34 Perry Barr 
junction, essentially reverting it to the way it was before the 
roadworks even started!!  The editor has removed the right turn lane 
into the One Stop from the Walsall Road, has made the new ground-level 
lane from A34 into a bridge, and has moved the position of the slip 
from A34 to Aldridge Road to its old position.


Any way to get it back to my previous edit?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117151237 - edit in question.


Since time is of the essence here, I've jumped in and done that in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117200180 .  I'll comment on the 
previous changeset (by a Mapbox mapper) as well.


The revert was clean, but can you check that it looks OK?  JOSM's 
validator reckons that 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9217096278/history is a duplicate 
node, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12175058/history is no 
longer a valid relation, as there is no "to".


I suspect that Mapbox might have been fixing broken relations (as 
announced on talk-gb) which brought them to this area.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/02/2022 11:36, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au wrote:

On 2/2/22 21:45, Phil Wyatt wrote:


Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its 
not usually editable by mappers?




See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652

Specifically the tag: def:highway=footway;access:bicycle = yes


In OSM worldwide, that's only set for Australia:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=def%3Ahighway%3Dfootway%3Baccess%3Abicycle#overview

Do any routers actually read that?

Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/01/2022 22:43, David Wales via Talk-au wrote:
2. Practically invisible on the ground, except for bits of red tape 
hanging from tree branches every 50-100 metres!



Every 50-100 meters?  Luxury! :)

My recollection is that the signage on the bits of the Bibbulmun Track 
near Denmark in WA (see 
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=400098=relation=13.0/-34.9918/117.3729 
) were much less prominent than that.  I've no idea how typical that is, 
but something every 100m sounds "quite well signed" to me.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"

[Andy Townsend]

I think we need to take a bit of a step back here.

This is a new account with just over 100 edits, and they're going to 
make mistakes (I certainly did at that stage).  They may not fully 
understand what they're editing, or why some things should be mapped as 
one thing or another.


The changeset discussion comments they've received can be seen at 
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=14817502 .


While it's great to get in touch and say what they've done wrong, what 
would be better would be to explain in a bit more detail why (e.g. with 
changeset comments link to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments which 
explains how they help).


Rather than "clean your mess" it would help to explain why something is 
classified as A not B, and to offer to help with other questions that 
they will surely have.


With regard to "Drawing paint secondary road map blocked SometingElse" 
it's not really "Blackmail"; it's just a comment by someone who's 
hurting from their first interaction with the OSM community.


Maybe it just needs someone in the area (perhaps someone not previously 
involved) to say "hello and welcome" and ask "how can I help"?


Best Regards,

Andy


On 21/01/2022 02:29, Jherome Miguel wrote:
For everyone who wants to deal with this mapper, be warned! You can be 
singled out for false accusation of all sorts, and he's now resorting 
to trolling every user who monitors his edits. He's now blocked, but 
he's not going to stop until he gets a longer block.


On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:39 PM Jherome Miguel 
 wrote:




-- Forwarded message -
From: *Jherome Miguel* 
Date: Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:31 PM
    Subject: Re: [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"
To: Andy Townsend , 


He’s back again, and he's now blackmailing you in his latest edit
comment (i.e. Drawing paint secondary road map blocked
SometingElse). Already warned some local users to be careful.
Please consider revert once user is blocked.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 7:41 AM Andy Townsend 
wrote:

On 16/01/2022 06:41, Jherome Miguel wrote:
> Anyone monitoring this new user, "Open Paint Maps"? This one's
> suspicious, not only for its username that is obviously
deceptively
> similar to the OSM name, but this is also messing with roads in
> various places. Just undid or fix some of this one's edits.
>
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5604 .

We'll keep an eye on future edits.

Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)



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

Re: [talk-ph] "Open Paint Maps"

[Andy Townsend]

On 16/01/2022 06:41, Jherome Miguel wrote:
Anyone monitoring this new user, "Open Paint Maps"? This one's 
suspicious, not only for its username that is obviously deceptively 
similar to the OSM name, but this is also messing with roads in 
various places. Just undid or fix some of this one's edits.



See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5604 .

We'll keep an eye on future edits.

Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)



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

Re: [talk-au] Stealth import of beach names?

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/12/2021 10:35, Adam Horan wrote:
In the last 2 weeks a handful of users have added or edited 182 
beaches in Victoria.


Each changeset contains 1 beach, there's a closed way for the beach 
and there's a name.
The changeset will reference Bing or Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta 
as the imagery, and iD is used.
The beach drawn typically doesn't match the imagery, although 
sometimes it does.
There's no clue on the source of the name - you can't get the name 
from an aerial photo...


This is the query I used https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1dGR if you run 
it note that the updates are limited to VIC.


There's a handful of users doing this, and they're all fresh accounts 
with 'realistic' names, and all they've done is add beaches.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Ryan__Williams/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Finnegan%20BARNES/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Elly%20Gresle/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alana%20labagnara/history

What to do?




I'd suggest initially sending a "hello and welcome to OSM" message via 
changeset discussion (so that everything can see) and then asking 
(nicely) where they got the name from.


It might indeed be a "stealth import"; but it might also be something 
like a school project, and trying to engage them in conversation will 
help tell the difference.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [talk-au] Unconnected ways

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/11/2021 22:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


I tried putting a path along the beach, but routing still walks up to 
the nearest road, along that, then back down onto the beach at the 
other end?



What actually is it that you're referring to when you say "routing" above?

Different routers will process different tags for different modes of 
transport when deciding whether something is routable or not, and they 
also update at different times (which might even be months after the 
data in OSM has updated).


If you're referring to the routers available from osm.org, then there 
are two of them (OSRM and Graphopper) and each supports 3 modes.  Both 
can route over https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/423685771 which has 
"trail_visibility=no" - 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot=54.33093%2C-0.87679%3B54.32784%2C-0.87723#map=17/54.32938/-0.87666 
.


Best Regrds,

Andy


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

Re: [talk-au] No attribution on map

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/10/2021 00:50, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Spotted this site a couple of days ago: 
https://easypark.com.au/parking/en_au/, that certainly appears to be 
using OSM with no attribution.


Sent them an email, but no response as yet.

On the site that they say they also operate in NZ & 15 countries 
around Europe, but not sure if they're also using OSM there?


I had a look around where I used to work in Sweden (Kista) and it 
doesn't look like it there - the POI data differs from OSM in terms of 
placement, and the building outlines are different.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Andy Townsend]

On 03/10/2021 22:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

In that case, the definitions in iD probably need to be updated /
changed, as when you're mapping any form of highway=*, the "Allowed
Access" options & explanations include designated: "Access allowed
according to signs or specific local laws".


Perhaps raise that at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues ?

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

[Andy Townsend]

On 03/10/2021 04:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



I would think it should be bicycle=designated, which means that 
signage & local laws would then apply?



(on the very narrow question of what "bicycle=designated" means in OSM)

"=designated" is a somewhat confusingly named tag - it 
sounds like it ought to mean what you say above, but in practice the 
definition at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated is actually:


"indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a 
government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport"


It's a way of saying "you might have a right to get from A to B via X, Y 
or Z, but the route via X has been specifically constructed for your 
mode of transport so you should go that way".


An example I've added myself is at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894921545#map=17/53.36085/-1.25653 
near Sheffield in the UK - there's a legal right of foot access directly 
across the road between the two kissing gates shown in OSM on the left 
of that view, but there's a sign directing foot traffic east to the 
roundabout where it's safer to cross the road, before walking back along 
the other carriageway of the road.


In OSM "foot=designated" is mostly used to indicate that a 
"highway=path" should be treated like a highway=footway for foot 
traffic, and bicycle=designated that a a "highway=path" should be 
treated like a highway=cycleway for bicycle traffic. It doesn't mean 
"legal access rules for this mode are not a simple yes or no and you 
should consult local signage and local laws".


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [talk-au] Suspicious amount of removed bicycle tags

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/09/2021 14:05, Adam Horan wrote:

I think I've tried to contact this user before.


Yes you did:

http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11210886

For info, to see who you've commented on the changesets of, go to "My 
Edits", click on a changeset, click on "changeset xml" at the bottom of 
the screen, note the "uid" that appears, and create a URL like 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942 
that includes that "uid".


Similarly, to see who has commented on a user's changesets use a URL 
like http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=61942 .




However when I wanted to contact them it was for the opposite problem, 
they were putting bicycle=yes on paths that didn't allow cycling. I 
have only ever seen changeset comments of 'updates' ,


They've now specifically been asked about that in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111016252 , so they do now 
definitely know that it is an issue.  Sometimes it might also help to 
mention https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments to 
explain things a bit more.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [talk-au] Friend requests from 'Porn Bots'

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/09/2021 12:44, Matthew Davalle wrote:
Having some weird friend requests coming through after submitting 
changesets to OSM, one I account was deleted however the second 
account still exists


That's normal - it just means that someone has reported it and it has 
already been deleted.



and has a hyperlink in their bio linking to what seems to be some 
dodgy porn site with the link using openstreetmap.org 
 as a referee in the URL.


Dunno if it's appropriate to attach the URL of said account to this post


It'll hopefully be deleted by the time that anyone gets to read this, so 
not much point really.




but I was wondering if anybody else has seen dodgy friend requests


There were a few last month: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-August/014922.html 
and they just seem to have kicked off again.  I've seen reports 
elsewhere and have had a couple myself.


The best thing to do is to click the "report user" button in the user 
profile and report it as spam. The admins tend to delete them fairly 
quickly.



(It's the first time I've seen it and I've been mapping for nearly 2 
years)


Welcome back!

Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [talk-au] [EXTERNAL] Re: Low quality road classification contributions in SA via Microsoft Open Maps Team - contact point?

[Andy Townsend]

At the risk of repeating what might have been said earlier, I'd suggest 
commenting on one or more of the problem changesets, explaining why 
"residential" (or whatever) isn't a good fit.


If the users concerned don't reply then we (the DWG) can try and draw 
their attention to the comments before they make future changes.


Best Regards,

Andy

(from the DWG)

On 8/29/21 2:15 PM, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
Through overpass, plus random sampling as I'm editing; I'm still 
seeing a substantial amount of misclassifications.


https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1aIk 

~2400 ways.

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1aIl 

Most of these outside of townships appear to be still very poorly 
classified, and last edited 2 months ago.


Has any correction been done whatsoever?

On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 3:39 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:



Thanks everybody for your comments.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 16:23, cleary mailto:o...@97k.com>> wrote:


I am insanely jealous that you can go driving in the countryside.


Sorry to make you feel bad! :-(

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

Re: [talk-au] Strange friend request?

[Andy Townsend]

I've had a few of these as well (different names to the ones mentioned). 
In the one example that I got to before the user was deleted, the 
profile had a link that claimed to be to a porn site.


If anyone sees any of these, the best thing to do is to click the 
"report user" button in the user profile and report it as spam. The 
admins tend to delete them fairly quickly.


If "there is no user with that name" then it means that someone else has 
reported the user already and they have already been deleted.  I believe 
that (or the user renaming their own username) is the only way that a 
user can appear as not existing.


Best Regards,

Andy


On 8/29/21 2:12 AM, nwastra wrote:
I have also been added as a friend by user ‘Debra_Devries’ but on 
going to the link which seems legitimate, the user does not exist.
Maybe my new friend has to do some edits before coming in to existence 
for the link?

Thanks,
nevw

On 29 Aug 2021, at 9:51 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote:



Bit of a weird thing to ask about ...

Open up the e-mail this morning & there's an OSM message (which 
certainly appears legit?) to say that "this person" has added me as a 
friend.


That's nice, but it appears to be a real name that I don't know, & 
when I go to look at their user page, it says that that user doesn't 
exist?


Anybody seen this before?

& if it possibly is a scam of some sort (?) who should I report it to?

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

Re: [OSM-Talk-ZA] Road merge problems in South Africa

[Andy Townsend]

On 30/05/2021 20:35, Andy Townsend wrote:


Hello,

Just to let everyone know, in the absence of any other options, I'll 
be reverting these in the next day or so.


For completeness there are two user accounts - one for the changeset I 
mentioned below and also one I got in touch via 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5046 .


I've had a look at a sample of both users' edits, and unfortunately a 
full revert followed by a review of those changes does seem the best 
way forward - it'll restore lane information and turn relations, and 
also undo other problem merges such as 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10632491 .




Hello,

Just to give everyone an update, I've finished the first of the initial 
reverts (corresponding to https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5047 
) in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105878073 , and then 
reviewed the conflicting ways in changesets such as 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106180041 .  Next, I'll look do 
the revert corresponding to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5046 and review the 
conflicting ways, and after that look at the relation changes.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG).



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

Re: [OSM-Talk-ZA] Road merge problems in South Africa

[Andy Townsend]

Hello,

Just to let everyone know, in the absence of any other options, I'll be 
reverting these in the next day or so.


For completeness there are two user accounts - one for the changeset I 
mentioned below and also one I got in touch via 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5046 .


I've had a look at a sample of both users' edits, and unfortunately a 
full revert followed by a review of those changes does seem the best way 
forward - it'll restore lane information and turn relations, and also 
undo other problem merges such as 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10632491 .


Best Regards,

Andy


On 16/05/2021 11:51, Gerhardus Geldenhuis wrote:

Hi
I would say revert the changeset made by the user. There has up to 
date been no reply to the changeset discussion by the user in question 
so based on lack of engagement I would say that is the best course of 
action currently for preserving data integrity.


Regards

On Sat, 15 May 2021 at 18:37, Andy Townsend <mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Hello,

Andy from OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group here.

A relatively new mapper has merged a number of roads together
which has
caused a few problems - one is that some turn restrictions now don't
make a lot of sense, another is that where detailed tagging had been
added to part of a road, it has now been applied in error to the
whole
road (likely incorrectly).

There's no suggestion that these edits were made in anything other
than
good faith, of course - just that they have caused unanticipated
problems.

Currently, we're trying to figure out the best way to resolve things.
I've commented at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104256975
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104256975> to
ask both the original mapper and someone who's noticed the problem
what
they think is the best way forward.  There are a couple of ways
forward:

1) One possibility is to fix everything manually, but as there are
over
1000 changesets to look at, that's a lot of work (and more than
the DWG
would be able to do on their own). Some problems have already been
fixed
by other mappers.

2) Another option is to revert all changesets and look at what has
been
lost, and then re-apply those. Some manual work would also be
needed to
look at things that have changed since these edits.

3) A third option would be like (2) but starting at a later date.

I'm asking on this list as well to try and find out what people think
would be the best way forward.  We'll hold off doing anything for
a week
or so to let everyone discuss the best way forward.

Best Regards,
Andy("SomeoneElse" in OSM)



___
Talk-ZA mailing list
Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za>

--
Gerhardus Geldenhuis

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

Re: [talk-au] Australian maps for Garmin devices

[Andy Townsend]

On 01/05/2021 00:31, Ian Steer wrote:

Ian, where did you go to learn what to do with this data ?  (eg a nice little 
website somewhere ??)

Ian

(not Ian, obviously but) I wrote 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/38613 a while back 
to try and explain the basics to someone in Romania who was insisting on 
changing all the highway=track in Romania into unclassified roads so 
that they showed up on the (downloaded from elsewhere) Garmin maps he 
was using.


It doesn't cover contours but it might still be helpful.

Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of historic 'stink pipes'

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/12/2020 08:39, Edward Bainton wrote:

Morning all

My local civic society is collecting the location of 'stink pipes', 
Victorian sewer ventilation shafts in cast iron. Pics here: 
https://twitter.com/TobyWoody/status/1339679166371926017/photo/1 



I've suggested they use OpenStreetMap and suggested a node with tag 
historic=ventilation_shaft. Does that seem the right tag?



That isn't a tag that anyone else has used - 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11jU finds only the one that you've added 
recently.  Having said that, when I looked at "historic" usage in the UK 
I didn't see anything that looked a better option.


When I looked at vent shaft mapping in the UK a while back I came up 
with this list:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L3875

These are physically very different features (though sharing some of the 
same function) as your stink pipes.  If you're going to use 
"ventilation_shaft" I'd definitely also add 
"ventilation_shaft=stink_pipe" or similar to make it clear that you're 
talking about:


https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3590/3390912112_b70a3fb156_z.jpg

not:

https://www.picturesofengland.com/img/L/1106616.jpg

Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

[Andy Townsend]

On 14/12/2020 20:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
A barrier=stile on a long-established UK bridleway is 99.9% a mapping 
error. Bridleways are open to horses and bikes, and so stiles are 
forbidden - PRoW officers are pretty hot on this.


That may be the case in the comfy Cotswolds but I'm not sure that 
necessarily the case everywhere else in the country. :)


Actual steps on bridleways are common enough that I had to add a 
rendering for them at map.atownsend.org.uk (see 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=19=54.417701=-0.525549 
).  I might have recently mentioned 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=21=54.0087259=-1.0201263 
(a bridleway with an electric fence across it) on this list as well.


There are plenty of signed bridleways where horse access might be 
difficult for other reasons:  I set horse_scale=demanding on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/762748920 , but on balance it should 
perhaps be a higher value due to the difficulty in negotiating the 
descent.  A subsequent mapper added bicycle=yes there - that's entirely 
correct, but the depth of the mud and the thickness of the trees would 
would be a challenge to even the keenest MTBer.


With regard to this alleged stile, the previous tagging and location 
would suggest to me a barrier=horse_stile (mentioned earlier in the 
thread) on the bridleway rather than a barrier=stile off it, but so much 
here needs remapping or at the very least rechecking (the stream differs 
greatly from the imagery, at least one of the bridleways looks like a 
track to me, no designation tags) that personally I'd just stick it in 
the "needs survey" bucket.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary

[Andy Townsend]

On 14/12/2020 19:21, Edward Bainton wrote:


Glad I'm not going mad. Does it say anything useful or interesting 
that the "GPS trace" is a few metres away from the boundary as marked 
on the map? (Sorry if this has been answered recently: there was 
extensive discussion on alignment not long ago, but too technical for 
me to follow easily.)


That "county boundary GPS traces" has been there about 10 years or so at 
a guess?  According to OSM's GPS traces, my first mapping in Rutland was 
around 10 years ago and I think those boundaries were there then.  I 
can't see that it ever added any value; it just serves to confuse people 
like me trying to use GPS traces to help align other imagery.


I don't remember it being discussed recently, though it has cropped up 
before (maybe 8-10 years ago?).


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Andy Townsend]

On 13/12/2020 11:30, ael via Talk-GB wrote:

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 10:44:24AM +, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:

IMHO, if it leads on to another road, track, etc. it is not a "driveway", but 
could be a track, a bridleway, a service road, or something else.

FWIIW, I would very definitely tag that as a service road. Driveway
seems quite inappropriate.


Based on what I've seen, I'd probably tag the whole thing as a track 
with appropriate surface tags :) , but I can think of plenty of 
unequivacal driveways that have public rights of way along them.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/529287631 is pretty typical, 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/119h finds lots more.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

[Talk-GB] map styles on osm.org; other sites (was: Re: driveway-becomes-track)

[Andy Townsend]

On 13/12/2020 11:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:

Note that someone who wants to show their map style at OSM website can
be included, though they must sponsor hosting

See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tile_layers/Guidelines_for_new_tile_layers


As far as I know, the main blocker seems to be
"Capable of meeting traffic demands. The proposed tile layer 
server/server farm
must be capable of accepting the traffic volume from the OpenStreetMap 
website."


ÖPNVKarte is map style that joined recently.

Dec 13, 2020, 12:08 by n...@foresters.org:

Seems to me that apart from the tagging, the issue highlighted
here is with how the general public can easily use OSM? Going to
the OSM map, the layers on offer are Standard, Cycle Map (which
does show the driveway connected) etc. but if a user wants a more
specific use this is not easy to find. To my mind this is where
more options from the worldwide map fail to deliver and is a
bigger issue that can be resolved by understanding the 'customer'
journey better?

The main blocker for a map that shows public footpaths etc. would 
actually be the "Global scope and coverage" requirement on that page, 
since public footpaths only exist in England and Wales.


It used to be possible to easily replace tiles from one of the map 
styles at osm.org with another one, but since the move to https-only 
tiles that's now much harder to do.  You can replace (say) 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/hot/9/253/166.png with 
https://tile-a.openstreetmap.fr/hot/9/253/166.png at the hosts file 
level, but need to click through a "scary browser warning" every few days.


More generally openstreetmap.org isn't really designed as a "general 
public" map destination, which is fair enough (it can't do everything).  
It's easy to make suggestions like "it should do X as well" - the tricky 
bit is actually doing it and maintaining it.  I'd definitely prefer a 
project landing page that's closer to the German one 
https://openstreetmap.de/ , but I don't have the skills, energy, time or 
enthusiasm to make that happen.  I particularly like the "showroom" 
there - a link to lots of different map styles, separate from the main 
openstreetmap.de map.


Another example that is surely worth mentioning here is 
https://cycle.travel - that's designed for a particular use case. I 
suspect that most people become aware of OSM by seeing the name at the 
bottom-right of a completely different site that someone sent them to 
because it was useful.  Another indication of this is the number of help 
questions that we see where people are having problems with "the 
openstreetmap app" or "the site gives an error" (and that site clearly 
isn't openstreetmap.org).


Best Regards,

Andy


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

[Talk-GB] Map styles and rendering various things (was: Re: driveway-becomes-track)

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/12/2020 21:11, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote:

That allows maps such as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16=52.28208=-2.42987 
to display it as a public bridleway (in blue)




Hi Andy,

That's a great map! It seems you have already done what I would be 
interested in doing - to provide a better map for walkers and others 
showing footpaths, stiles and gates, etc. much more prominently.


What I'm wondering is how the typical recreational country walker 
would find that map, or get it on their mobile phone app in place of 
the awful Google maps? It's a lot of work to create if no-one ever 
uses it?


Well I use it :)

More seriously, it was designed more a s proof of concept map style than 
anything else - an answer to some people saying "it is not possible to 
do X in a map style".  If you leave aside the whole "presenting 
advertising to the viewer" and "data collection from the user" parts of 
Google Maps there are still things that it does that people would want 
"a map" to do, not least:


 * being able to search for things
 * being able to get directions to things via various modes of transport
 * being able to work offline (a little bit, in the case of Google Maps)

There are fully-fledged offline map apps out there that use OSM data - 
OsmAnd and MAPS.ME are a couple that spring to mind.  See also 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Android#OpenStreetMap_applications 
and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Apple_iOS#OpenStreetMap_applications 
.  OsmAnd in particular offers a huge number of map styles (and can be 
customised too, although I wouldn't describe the process as "easy").





One thing I would ask for is more prominent rendering of benches. They 
appear only at maximum zoom on the OSM standard map, and only as a 
very small symbol. I don't suppose younger OSM mappers roam the 
countryside looking for somewhere to sit and eat their lunch, but at 
72 years of age I do (cheese & pickle sandwich and a hard-boiled egg, 
since you ask)!


At the risk of stating the obvious you can find things like this using 
Overpass as a front-end for the main OSM site - for example, 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/118H will find you benches in a certain area.


https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=17=52.452965=-0.55873 
shows benches a couple of zoom levels lower than the standard map, but 
the icon is still (deliberately) fairly small.




Something I feel strongly about, and would be a prime motivation for 
doing something about myself, is to map and provide rendering for the 
area:highway tag:


 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway



You want something like 
https://osmapa.pl/#lat=52.24738=20.98893=19=os for that...


If you look at the underlying data needed to support that, it's pretty 
complex though.




Country walkers often need to include a stretch of public road in a 
planned walk, and it is very difficult to discover whether a road will 
be safe to walk along. Sometimes there are wide verges, but sometimes 
high banks or close hedges with nowhere to leap to out of the way of 
approaching traffic. It's necessary to look on Google Streetview 
before setting out, but not all country roads are covered. At present 
even apps which do render it (I believe OsmAnd) can't do much because 
it is not commonly mapped between the hedgerows along country roads. 
Legally the entire area between the property boundaries on each side 
is the public highway.


https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=13=54.0689=-0.9323 
shows verges (and "sidewalks" i.e. pavements)


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/12/2020 19:47, Nick wrote:

Hi Andy

Yes I understand the tag that has been used (i.e. designation) 
although I was suggesting the tag "Bridleway", the question that 
Martin posed was that "at zoom level 15, driveways are not shown", so 
the work around in this case might be to make a way with feature type 
= Bridleway?



Hi Nick,

"highway=bridleway" is in use, and is used to mean something designed 
for horses to use.  In rural areas that might coincide with something 
that also has the legal "designation=public_bridleway", but sometimes 
not - farmers may add "permissive bridleways" through their fields to 
allow access as an existing horse route.


From the description given, I don't think this is an actual bridleway 
as such (see the picture at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway ), and so I 
don't think it would make sense to map it in OSM as a "highway=bridleway".


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/12/2020 13:59, Nick wrote:


I had to check the Council GIS - so the designation is Bridleway. 
Because of the complexity, if this was tagged something like 
'Bridleway=Yes' and get that displayed on maps of footpaths, surely 
that would solve the problem?



Hi Nick,

Yes that is pretty much what is already happening here.  One of the ways 
here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/661519636 has a tag on it 
"designation=public_bridleway".  That describes the legal status of 
"bridleway" (rather than what it actually looks like on the ground).  
That allows maps such as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16=52.28208=-2.42987 
to display it as a public bridleway (in blue)


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/12/2020 14:30, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:



Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it. 
Perhaps that someone is you?


Hi Andy,

Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus, 
Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory 
space and bandwidth. I have been thinking of making better use of it, 
possibly by hosting something from OSM.


\o/





>  I'd suggest setting up a copy of the
> standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/
> (just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start tinkering with the
> logic that decides what sort of service road is what, such as
> 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b10aef3866bacf387581b8fea4eec265010b0d14/project.mml#L475 




Thanks. I have been looking at https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ 
but I have a lot to learn. I can do Windows programming, but on stuff 
for the web I'm only a dabbler. I looked at Mapnik and saw interfaces 
only for Python and C. If that had been Pascal, I would have dived in 
by now.


To be honest, I still struggle with the OSM Carto stuff too. That's why 
the logic stuff behind https://map.atownsend.org.uk is in lua as much as 
possible, such as at 
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L537 
.  Even if there are lots of brackets, at least they line up.  All the 
OSM Carto stuff has to do is do something with a highway value of 
"ucrnarrow" (which of course never exists in OSM).


If you get stuck either ask here or on IRC or at help.osm.org.  The 
"serving tiles"guides are designed to be able to be followed without any 
programming expertise (especially the Docker one).  Also see 
https://ircama.github.io/osm-carto-tutorials/ - there's a lot of useful 
stuff there too.





Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the 
cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm 
buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:


 https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg

It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. 
If I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded 
tagging for the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the 
world "track" means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.


This is where the farm drive leaves the road - this is definitely more 
than a "track" - note the double gates:


 https://goo.gl/maps/XEs4XKs5UUHNBt8E8


To be honest, there will always be edge cases where it's difficult to 
say where the OSM tag should change, or even what OSM tag would be best 
to start with.   I can think of plenty of places that are 50/50 
agricultural track and service road or driveway, and plenty more that 
are 30/70 or 70/30 etc.  Ultimately we've just got to pick the best tags 
we can, and sometimes there will be odd effects as here.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/12/2020 12:34, Martin Wynne wrote:
A common situation is that a service road/driveway continues as a 
track beyond the initial residential destination. This is common on 
farms.


On the standard map at zoom level 15, driveways are not shown. But 
tracks and footpaths are. This seems counter-intuitive in that 
driveways are usually wider and more substantially surfaced than farm 
tracks.


The result is that a track, and sometimes a footpath, appears to start 
in the middle of nowhere.


An example of that is at:

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.2816/-2.4320

What is the process for getting something done about this?

It's only a problem with one particular map rendering (other maps such 
as https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/52.2892/-2.4360=C look 
sensible), so you'd need to raise that with that map rendering.  In the 
case of the map that you are talking about, that would be 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto .  If you look 
through the issues list there you'll see that this problem has been 
discussed before, and (for the reasons that ipswichmapper has already 
mentioned, it hasn't been fixed because it's a hard problem to solve.


Once a problem has been reported and is already known about (as is the 
case here) someone would need to figure out a way to solve the problem.  
There are a few possibilities:  One is to "only suppress urban driveways 
not rural ones", which would require that somehow the map can tell 
whether a location is "urban" or "rural".  Another might be to "not 
suppress driveways that have other tags".  In your case 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/661519636 has foot, horse and bicycle 
tags that could potentially help here.  Any technical solution would 
still need to convince the volunteers that maintain this map style that 
the change is a "good idea", and would not cause more serious knock-on 
problems elsewhere.


Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it.  
Perhaps that someone is you?  I'd suggest setting up a copy of the 
standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ 
(just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start tinkering with the 
logic that decides what sort of service road is what, such as 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b10aef3866bacf387581b8fea4eec265010b0d14/project.mml#L475 
.


If you think "that someone is really _not_ me" then you can still use 
another map, and can make sure that all appropriate tags are added to 
things so that other maps can use them.  I certainly owe some thanks to 
that area's mappers as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16=52.28208=-2.42987 
(which shows designations and PRoW refs) is all filled in there.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/12/2020 09:59, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:



In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, 
like most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage 
would be light and limited to those in the OSM community. I use 
Hetzner for my hosting (OpenTrailView, Hikar, MapThePaths) - I pay 
around EUR 19/month but that is for a larger system that has to deal 
with the whole of Europe rather than just the UK.


https://www.hetzner.com/cloud?country=gb 



The second-lowest spec of these, the CPX11 is giving you 2GB RAM and 
40GB disc space for EUR 4.19 a month. OK we'd need more than that long 
term, but I suspect that would get us going in the early stages.



That'll depending on what you want the server to do, I think. For an OSM 
Carto Map style with automatic updates and reasonable performance you'll 
probably need > 6Gb memory for the whole of the UK these days.  Maybe a 
CX31 at €11 per month (i.e. about the price of a couple of pints and a 
"substantial" pork pie for those in tier 2)?  
https://map.atownsend.org.uk is a CX41 I believe, and renders Mapnik / 
Carto CSS map tiles that cover UK and Ireland. It could probably include 
another "medium sized OSM country" in the same map style as well without 
too many problems.



On the question of "could we show feature X" (e.g. "cycleways with 
foot=yes" different to "cycleways with foot=no) the answer is 
technically yes, but you need to decide which subset of features you 
want to show because there simply aren't enough ways of visually 
distinguishing things that users can actually tell apart, especially 
when combined with other features.



As an example, have a look at the legend at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16=-24.98988=135.10862 
.  That shows:


 * designation (public footpath / bridleway / retricted byway / BOAT /
   UCR / none)
 * width - either "narrow" (not wide enough for a 4 wheeled vehicle) or
   "wide" (wide enough)
 * trail_visibility
 * some surface information (unclassified unpaved roads rendered
   differently to paved roads)
 * tunnel yes/no
 * long ford yes/no
 * bridge yes/no
 * embankment yes/no
 * long distance foot / bicycle / horse riding routes
 * access=destination and =private viewed from a pedestrian perspective

and of course combinations of the above.


It does not show:

 * explicit OSM keys (e.g. footway/cycleway/path/bridleway)
 * explicit OSM access tags (e.g. "foot=yes or no on a cycleway")
 * undesignated cycleways differently from other undesignated paths

In order to one of those (for example just "displaying cycleways as 
cycleways") you'd need to remove something else that's already rendered, 
otherwise users won't be able to tell features apart.



Assuming that people are planning to go down the mod_tile / Mapnik / 
Carto CSS route, I'd suggest:


1. decide what zoom levels you want, which will influence exactly which
   software to use
2. deciding where to start from (e.g OSM's Standard style, mine, or a
   different one altogether)
3. deciding exactly what you want to change
4. make those changes,
5. see what "unintended consequences" have occurred
6. fix those and iterate round until happy

Assuming you can deal a couple of hours overnight downtime while the 
database reloads I'd suggest doing most of the "deciding what to show as 
different things" work in lua and the "deciding what to show it as" in 
Carto CSS.  It's much easier to understand and to maintain.



With regard to the "boring bit" (scripts to load databases, keep 
databases up to date etc.) most of the stuff used by 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk is public (links to everything are at the 
top of the changelog).  Much of the rest (e.g. automatic https 
certificate renewal) is standard and is documented in 1000s of other 
places around the internet.  If anyone wants any help or advice with any 
of the above please just ask.



There may be a temptation to think "the end goal is a phone app , so 
actually we probably want to look at $some_other_technology instead".  I 
would strongly suggest following a well-trodden path first while so that 
the things that are new to whoever is doing this are have 
well-documented solutions.  I haven't yet found a vector tile stack that 
is (a) well documented and (b) free of vendor lock-in that could go on 
https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ yet, for example.  Once whoever is 
doing this is familiar with things, trying something a bit more 
off-the-wall will be more likely to work without everything breaking.



The biggest requirement is for someone to actually commit to doing the 
work to set something up - nothing will happen without this.  If OSM UK 
are happy to fund a server, and for it to fit in their DNS somewhere 
then that's one less expense to worry about - but someone still needs to 
do the work.



Best Regards,


Andy




___
Talk-GB 

Re: [Talk-GB] Is "GB revert request log" wiki page something that should be recommended?

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/12/2020 10:17, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
It is about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log 
 that appears

to be abandoned.

I believe that that was set up to deal with a particular 
"overenthusiastic / fantasy contributor" a few years ago.


Similar requests for community action these days tend to be made in IRC 
or on this list, or (to the DWG) via the usual direct methods (email or 
"report user").


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/12/2020 12:24, Thomas Jarvis wrote:

(snipped)

I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that 
I ask the community here to see what the consensus is.
I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the 
sole reason being because it renders differently.


... actually I got a PM about this; I hadn't realised it was intended as 
a DWG question!


For completeness, the bits of my reply that were the answer to the 
question were as follows:


   Around the world people use both of these taggings, and often
   renderers will render them the same.

   In the UK, something like I imagine
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/582204090/history
    to be would
   typically be tagged “cycleway” even though it’s shared-use; in
   Germany it’d be typically “path”. Someone once did a bit of mailing
   list archaeology about the origins of “highway=path” within OSM (it
   wasn’t one of the original ones) and there are a couple of theories
   about where it came from.

   Some people have strong views on this - for example
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333
    .

(and in answer to the renderer question)

   Indeed, “how it renders in a particular renderer” is rarely a good
   reason to tag something a particular way.

   However, it doesn’t look from
   http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=582204090
    that the status
   quo here was “cycleway” before you changed it, so I’d probably lean
   that way.

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

[Andy Townsend]

Hi Céline, hi all.

Like you, I'm just another participant in this list*.  However, perhaps 
it would be helpful to refer the existing etiquette guidelines adopted 
by the OSMF ages ago: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Etiquette .  
It's clear that Frederik's original post didn't abide by all of the 
points under "Mailing Lists" there (which include "Calmly adding to the 
discussion can help keep things tame on the mailing list" among others; 
clearly he did not follow those recommendations).  Rory's already 
rightly called that out at 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-December/085723.html 
("There are many examples of people excusing how Trump acted before the 
2016 election, claiming he would be “presidential” when elected, and you 
had to choose the example regarding sexual assault?").  It's also clear 
that your Google document doesn't abide by those either.  Note that that 
won't be visible to some quite large OSM communities who don't have 
access to Google docs due to US government restrictions.  I did try and 
include the text in this message but that caused it to exceed the list 
message limit; perhaps you could put a copy in the OSM wiki instead 
where everyone can see it?


You write "Power dynamics in OSM are controlled by a dominant 
contributor profile: white, western and male" which I doubt that many 
would disagree with.  However, you go on to say "This power dynamic 
leads to a communication style which includes misogynistic, hostile, 
targeting, doxing, unfriendly, competitive, intimidating, patronising 
messaging, which is offensive to us".


The first "mailing list" item in 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Etiquette is "Assume good faith".  I 
would always argue that an attempt at dialogue, which includes both 
sides listening, is always better that an escalation of rhetoric.  That 
doesn't mean there aren't actual "unfriendly"or "hostile" messages 
within OSM channels, as well as messages that were perceived as 
"unfriendly"or "hostile" even when they weren't meant as such, but it 
does mean that actually talking to the real person behind the messages 
is surely the way forward**.  Continuing with "... doxing, competitive, 
intimidating ..." without citing evidence of each of those doesn't add 
weight to the argument; it detracts from it.


That doesn't mean that people who want change have to somehow be 
restricted to "asking nicely" for it (throughout history change has been 
forced by people who refused to "ask nicely" - in the last century the 
Pankhursts, Dietrich Bonhoffer et al, the ANC and Stonewall all spring 
to mind).  It's entirely normal for both sides of a heated argument to 
view the other's as "unreasonable", but hyperbole really doesn't help to 
shed light rather than heat on things. We're all actually trying to 
achieve the same goal here*** and in an election, the community can 
decide whose vision of how to get there is best.


Speaking of which: it's a bit late for this year; but have you thought 
of standing for the board yourself?


Best Regards

Andy

(sending to the list this time after a previous attempt inadvertantly 
went astray)


* full disclosure: I'm a member of OSM's Data Working Group, so am far 
from without agency in OSM - I am also white, western and male.  With a 
DWG hat on I regularly see problems escalated to us where the language 
used has got more than a little out of control. 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-November/085658.html 
is pretty typical of the approach I'll try and use in those cases


** In the world of OSM edits I'm a huge fan of changeset discussion 
comments as the primary means of discussing an edit that has been made.  
They're not a perfect mechanism, but the fact that they're public and 
inherently person-to-person helps to detoxify dialogue.


*** I'm sure that both Michal and Frederik are striving for what they 
genuinely believe is best for OSM.  The fact that they fundamentally 
disagree about how to achieve that doesn't mean that one or the other is 
acting in bad faith.


On 09/12/2020 19:06, Celine Jacquin wrote:


Hello everybody
I hope you are all well

We, several groups, chapters, organizations and individuals, have 
reacted to the conversation in the osm-talk-list 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-December/085692.html 
) 
considering that it is an incident symptomatic of the problem we have 
faced for many years in the community, which is one of the greatest 
obstacles to diversity at all levels of OSM. Time to make a real change.
That is why we have developed a beginning of statement on the 
desirable mechanisms to work solidly on the rules of coexistence and 
improve diversity.


We bring it to your attention and invite anyone who feels represented 
to sign it. Translations are in preparation (any help is welcome):

Re: [OSM-talk-ie] AI mapping roads released in IE

[Andy Townsend]

On 08/12/2020 17:34, Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) via Talk-ie wrote:

Hi,

I never received a response about the question below.. Can I get a confirmation 
on the correct mailing address to use when proposing a posting to the talklist?


No idea what happened, but that mail never made it to 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ie/2020-January/thread.html 
.  This one is at 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ie/2020-December/002725.html 
so people should be able to see it.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] electric fences

[Andy Townsend]

To add a similar question about other common electric fence crossings - 
what do people normally do with "the bit of electric fence on a hook" 
(with an insulator that allows you to unhook it, let people through, and 
hook it up again) and "an electric fence with no crossing at all".


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8152509363 is an example of the 
former and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8152399307 the latter.  
Taginfo finds 167 "gate" values internationally 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/gate#values (not all gate types) 
and 63 "gate:type" values 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/gate%3Atype#values - but I've no 
idea what many of those actually mean.


For stiles, there's 1 use each of "insulated_hose" and 
"insulated_section" https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/stile#values 
, which sounds like what you're looking for here.


I don't think that there's a good example for the "electric fences move 
about" problem.  If they're moveable, they probably won't be there at 
all half the year either.


Best Regards,

Andy


On 23/11/2020 10:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
So it is a footpath where somewhere along it there is an electric 
fence, but location changes?


Maybe wheelchair=no + note tag with an explanation placed on path
would be a good solution?


Nov 23, 2020, 06:25 by mar...@templot.com:

There are several instances locally where a footpath across a
field is crossed by an electric fence.

The farmer usually fits a length of rubber hosepipe over the wire
so that walkers can safely step over the fence. Sometimes with the
aid of a couple of concrete blocks.

How to map? Technically it is probably a form of stile. But the
problem is that the location isn't fixed. Electric fences are
moved about according to which area of the field the livestock are
currently grazing. In a large field the position could change
significantly.

But walkers with restricted mobility do need to know that there is
one somewhere in the field. The position might be important if
there is an alternative gate or other access which could be used.

Martin.

___
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-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Andy Townsend]

Following a lack of answers to questions at 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=5229644 (in 
lots of cases they've responded, but have not actually answered the 
question) with a DWG hat on I've sent them a message that they have to 
read before continuing to map at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4214 .


I'd like to know the source used for the comment "You sometimes have to 
ignore signage as they are signed with convenient numbers rather than 
the real ones"at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60806661 .


I suspect the "signage to be ignored" referred to there are the large 
blue signs telling drivers "if you want to go to the M6 south, go this 
way".  However, I'd expect the information on the 100m markers to be 
more useful.  Is anyone aware of a previous changeset based on those, or 
photos on e.g. Mapillary that might help?


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] FWD: Revert the "Felixstowe to Nuneaton" relation

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/11/2020 15:56, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:



https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7521925

That is the relation I am talking about.

An edit made by user nplath seems to have made this relation into
a clone of the "Ipswich To Cambridge-Ely" relation. You can tell
this because the number of members went down from ~400 to ~150.


You can see the history of the relation at 
http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=7521925 .


The changeset that you're talking about, 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67930034 , claimed to be a 
revert, and a previous changeset that affected the line 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67336351 was reverted in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67709664 .  Comments made on 
changesets by this user can be seen at 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=8350466 , but 
unfortunately they don't include all of the reverts and counter-reverts.


>  If somehow to members of this relation can be reverted to back when 
there were 400 members, then that would be good.


Given that the original change happened in March 2019, no-one's going to 
be able to "wave a magic wand" and restore this relation to back how it 
was then, since there will be ways that existed then that don't exist 
any more.  However the restore is done there will be quite a lot of 
"manually filling in gaps" needed.


Are you asking the list because you'd like to check that it is a good 
idea, because you'd like to do it yourself but don't know how, or simply 
don't have time to do it yourself and just wanted to make more people 
aware of the problem?  All of these perfectly valid reasons of course.


If I was going to do it I'd probably start by undoing the relation back 
to the changeset 67822240 version with "undo.pl" from the perl revert 
scripts, and then fill in the gaps manually by looking at 
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/10rc (that's an overpass query of that 
relation on a date just after the last "valid" change).  However, there 
may be quite a few gaps to fill in, so it'd likely need someone with a 
bit of free time to do that part (which depending on the answer to the 
previous question, may or may not be you).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Bad coastline edits in Sweden

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/11/2020 10:42, Andre Hinrichs via talk wrote:

Hi!

Difficult to find, but here are the changesets where i left comments:

93965382
94097597
94134166

And the links to them:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93965382
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94097597
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94134166

Andre




Hello,

A couple of points immediately spring to mind.  Apologies to anyone on 
this list who's seen me make these sort of points before, but sometimes 
I think it bears repeating.  I'll use your messages here as an example 
but to be honest what I'm about to say applies to lots of inter-mapper 
communication within OSM.


One is that you've left changeset comments in English, and here this 
editor is editing in Finland with a "fi" locale, as you can see at the 
changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94134166 .  The Åland 
Islands (where this is) are actually Swedish speaking I believe, but the 
mapper has edited in other places in Finland too,  Not everyone in 
Finland understands English - my impression (from when I used to work 
there) was that many do, but plenty don't, and it often depends on the 
job that someone does or how old they are whether they are likely to or not.


Another is that your three messages are fairly abrupt and  by the second 
and third have got capitalised words in them.  Finnish as a language 
never uses 3 words where 1 will do, so this contributor will be used to 
terse communication, but you still need to communicate effectively.


Taking https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93965382 as an example, 
you've said that there is a problem with coastlines (but not said 
exactly which OSM feature they edited it was), told them not to edit 
coastlines again but then asked them to fix the problem.  At the very 
least the advice is self-contradictory.


The other two, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94097597 and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94134166 , are probably best 
described as "shouting at someone in a foreign language"**, and are 
unlikely to have the desired effect.  Also, well-meaning changes aren't 
"vandalism" - they may cause significant problems that need fixing, but 
they're not vandalism.


What I'd suggest instead is:

 * Write a longer initial changeset comment, as if you were
   communicating with another human being for the first time (which of
   course you are).
 * Look at the context to see things like where this mapper is mapping
   geographically, what language they are likely to understand, and how
   long have they been mapping in OSM.
 * Link to things that explain the problem - here perhaps
   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline#Tagging_coastlines_in_OSM
   , one of the QA sites that show these sorts of problems and the
   specific ways or relations in their changeset that caused the problem.
 * Try and be consistent - if you say "you've broken X please don't
   edit it again" then logically you must offer to fix X yourself;
   alternatively you need to explain how they can fix X themselves,
   since they clearly don't know how to, having caused the problem in
   the first place.
 * Also post your comment in a language that they are likely to
   understand.  An online translator such as translate.google.com won't
   be perfect*, but at least it'll convert your message into words in a
   language with which they are familiar.
 * As has already been suggested, by all means do ask the DWG to deal
   with it if you've tried to get in contact and communication isn't
   occurring.

Best Regards,

Andy


* actually (having just tested it) translate.google.com does a 
surprising good job of detecting cases in English and choosing the 
correct word ending, which is how those are expressed in Finnish


** yes - I know - I'm English, and it is something that we are somewhat 
renowned for.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/11/2020 13:20, Michał Brzozowski wrote:


- the e-mail notifications about changeset comments do not have either 
a definitive "call to action" nor any explanation what to do (or a 
link to Wiki page with such)


They don't, unless the person writing the changeset comment puts that 
information in there.


With a DWG hat on I see quite a few complaints about people not replying 
to changeset comments where the comment was just something like "this is 
wrong" or "it is wrong to do X", rather than a message that looks like 
it was intended to start a conversation.  OSM Messages are by their very 
definition being sent to people; it always helps to add the detail that 
you would to any other first message to a person.  I appreciate that 
this is frustrating given the low response rate from MAPS.ME users (for 
the reasons already discussed).


Incidentally, Mail.ru has apparently recently sold MAPS.ME:

https://corp.mail.ru/en/press/releases/10761/

Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Your experience in reaching out to Maps.me users ?

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/11/2020 09:55, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
Is it just me or are Maps.me Openstreetmap contributors unaware of 
Openstreetmap messages ? Does anyone here have seen Maps.me 
Openstreetmap contributors answer to Openstreetmap messages ?


They'll get an email just like every other email user.  What might 
happen with MAPS.ME is that someone might sign up with a throwaway email 
address, and they also might not expect a "mapping application" to talk 
back to them.


I've certainly had responses from MAPS.ME users, but there have also 
been cases where no communication has occurred.


If people really aren't seeing messages then send an email to the DWG 
asking them to send a message that the user can't ignore.


However, looking back through the history of edits in Bamako, the last 
"all caps MAPS.ME node adder" has received no comments on changesets 
(this might be a different one to the one that you are talking about, of 
course).  I'd suggest a comment, in a language that they are likely to 
understand, that says something like:


   Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

   Thanks for adding these government offices to OpenStreetMap so that
   everyone can see where they are.  Just to let you know - there's no
   need to put the name in all capital letters - names would usually
   added as you would write them normally, so for example "Total"
   rather than "TOTAL".  If you've got any other questions, please
   don't hesitate to ask.

   Best Regards,

   (your name)


Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/11/2020 10:55, Jon Pennycook wrote:
Returning to this subject, but not necessarily at roundabouts - turn 
restrictions are still being added even where they don't exist 
(apparently) - e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93759133 
 and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93750062 



I've commented on the first of these with a DWG hat on.

The contributor here adding turn restrictions that allegedly don't exist 
appears to be from https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/ . They've been active 
across several areas of England; it might be worth locals taking a look 
at some of the others to check that they match on-the-ground reality.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Multi-lingual tagging in Wales

[Andy Townsend]

On 31/10/2020 18:19, Jez Nicholson wrote:

I like it.

+ "in the event of dispute... the default language is English."? 
.although I'm not sure how to define dispute'.


On Sat, 31 Oct 2020, 11:07 Ben Proctor, > wrote:


(snipped)

"In the event of a dispute please discuss among a larger group and try 
and find consensus" might be better than being seen to "hard-code" a 
preference for one language or another.


With a Data Working Group hat on I've seen language disputes in various 
places, and it's often made worse by someone "overinterpreting" 
something in a wiki page or elsewhere that was perfectly well-meaning 
but not designed to cover the current situation at all.   If you wanted 
to refer to the DWG directly "in the event of a dispute" that wouldn't 
be a problem, since I'd expect that the first thing that we'd try and do 
is to get those involved to talk things through in a wider forum, 
possibly this list or something more local if appropriate.


Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] SPAM notes in Brazil again

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/10/2020 23:50, Erick de Oliveira Leal wrote:
Some time ago I reported that several anonymous SPAM notes were being 
created in Brazil, through the "Report" option available in the note. 
Someone told me it was not SPAM, so I showed the amount of notes in 
sequence, so they blocked the IP of this account. But now they started 
creating several SPAM notes again, I reported again and the user @mavl 
told me that I should close the notes and not report them anymore, but 
the "report SPAM" tool exists for that, if not to report SPAM cases , 
then it should be removed from the selectable options. For example, 
note 2401429 is a mere copy of note 1230095, another example: note 
2401510 merely copies the name of an existing element under it. All 
notes are sent in sequence, anonymously, copying from non-anonymous 
notes or existing elements. Please block this IP, it is getting in the 
way.


It would help if, when reporting new issues like this you explained what 
the actual problem is (such as "note 2401429 is a mere copy of note 
1230095").  Unfortunately on the issue here your report was instead just 
"SPAM".  You then (I presume after sending this email) explained the 
actual problem, and as soon as that was received the admins were alerted 
by the DWG member handling the issue to see if they could help.


However, as Mateusz has said, IP blocks are not effective, as most 
regular internet users won't have a fixed IP address (and anyone who 
wants not to be tracked by IP can ensure that every request is from a 
different one).  In some cases of unwanted notes it's possible to detect 
a problem note from content, but here that's not easy here because 
"detecting exactly the same contents as another note somewhere else" is 
(a) a computationally heavy task (b) will yield false positives and (c) 
is trivial to evade.


There will come a time, I suspect, when we no longer allow anonymous 
notes to be created in OSM (anonymous note comments are already 
blocked).  We already do get spammers (real spammers trying to advertise 
businesses, which this note adder in Brazil isn't) creating one account 
per edit.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)



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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/10/2020 04:49, Brendan Barnes wrote:


Back to my original post which I was seeking advice on, I was 
requesting clarity of mapping an official hiking route, which a small 
section of it happens to not follow a defined track/path and a compass 
bearing is required. The hiking route is _official_: it has NSW NPWS 
signage which I have personally surveyed at the start of the segment 
denoting the "off track" route, the Australian Alps National Parks 
Cooperative Management Program publishes a map also detailing it, and 
all popular hiking guides have it listed, too. This small off track 
section forms part of the official route.


I've taken Andrew's advice and added fuzzy=500 to the way.



Thanks - there's nore usage of that than I was expecting (see 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fuzzy ), although only 14 of 
those are lines rather than polygons.


On the other side of the world I've tended to use trail_visibility tags 
(which I think were mentioned earlier) to achieve the same thing; see 
e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/430909045 .  Something that 
renders the route but not the local path will show that as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16=54.40165=-0.93245 
.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Multi-lingual tagging in Wales

[Andy Townsend]

Hi Gruff, hi Ben,

On 16/10/2020 14:08, Gruff Owen wrote:


The ability to include an :en or :cy tag name field is really helpful 
for this but it's unfortunate that ultimately we have to choose a 
single name tag for each place name - giving the impression that one 
language has precedence over another.


Well, we really don't need to choose that "one language has precedence 
over another".  If the :cy and :en data is mapped it's available for 
everyone to use.  It's entirely possible, right now, to create a map 
using only :cy names (as Ben and Andy have pointed out, 
https://openstreetmap.cymru/ does exactly that already). Other maps can 
choose to use :en names in one area and :cy in others (see 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=9=51.93=-4.182 
for an example of that), or hyphenate names Welsh-first or 
English-first, or use different colours for different languages, or, or...


The whole point of OSM is that it is more than just one map.



With that in mind, and admittedly polemicising the debate a little. If 
we accept the premise that the native language of Wales is Welsh and 
that OSM is a community mapping project where we have an opportunity 
to respect native communities in a way that past colonial mapmakers 
didn't. Could we take this as an opportunity to prioritise authentic 
Welsh place names where that's possible?


OpenStreetMap's approach to disputed territories tries to be neutral - 
see 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf 
.  It favours "on the ground" current usage.  The Data Working Group 
gets _lots_ of requests along the lines of "the official language of 
country X is Y, therefore all placenames in country X should be 
displayed at osm.org in language Y".  Where the majority of people in an 
area speak a different language to the majority of people in the rest of 
the country, it is only fair to reflect that local language in the 
"name" tag.  OSM should not be making decisions about which placenames 
are more "authentic" than others via some sort of "historical 
authenticity test".  Imagine trying to apply that to Kaliningrad 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1674442 (look at all the 
"old_name" tags there for context).  In Wales, OSM has occasionally had 
mappers making "forced language changes" both ways - either changing 
names in predominantly English-speaking areas to Welsh versions of the 
original English and English speakers changing original (and most common 
in local usage) Welsh names to English versions.


One other way to settle this would be to seek guidance from an 
external body. Does the Welsh Government have a position on place 
names that we can refer to? I notice that the Welsh Language 
Commissioner provides a recommended list of standardised place names 
for Wales which is licensed under OGL 3.0:


http://www.comisiynyddygymraeg.cymru/english/commissioner/placenames/Pages/Search.aspx 



Different OSM communities do this in different ways.  I believe that in 
Ireland name:ga is usually the "official" version, which may differ from 
local usage.  Sometimes that loses some local colour - in Dublin 
"Anglesea Road" used to be signed as "Bóthar Môn" but now in OSM it's 
just "Bóthar Anglesea".  See also 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/52241235 which I've heard referred to 
as "Dingle / An Daingean" (there's lots of politics both national and 
local associated with that).




All of the above is written with the big caveat that I'm new to OSM 
and not a Welsh language or place name expert in any way, I wouldn't 
go against the group decision on this and have been quite conservative 
with my edits so far because I know it's a huge topic to get into. 
Overall I think you should be congratulated for broaching the subject 
and trying to pin down a policy on it as it really does stir up a lot 
of strong sentiment in this part of the world!


As I'm sure Ben and Mapio Cymru would echo, thanks for making sure that 
Welsh names of places are recorded where they currently are not.  It 
always strikes me as a bit jarring to see English names jumping out in 
predominantly Welsh areas at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/ (which will 
use the default "name" tag if name:cy is missing in areas where it's 
trying to show Welsh names).


Moving on to Ben's original mail:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 14:06, Ben Proctor > wrote:



From a Mapio Cymru perspective we'd like to propose, for
discussion, replacing this text with the following (reasoning
follows):

/[starts/---]
In Wales the name tag should be used for the name by which the
place is widely known in Wales. This could be English or Welsh but
not both. So name: Wales or name: Cymru would be acceptable but
not name: Wales/Cymru.
/

/Where I suspect there may be further questions is where a place is 
known in 

Re: [Talk-es] Que hay de las AGUAS TERRITORIALES ESPAÑOLAS de CEUTA y MELILLA?

[Andy Townsend]

On 08/10/2020 11:20, Miguel Sevilla-Callejo wrote:
El tema del Sáhara Occidental es similar, algún editor o editores 
decidió/decidieron unilateralmente que se los anexionaba a Marruecos y 
ahí sigue. Creo que hay documentos de las Naciones Unidas que 
reconocen que ese territorio no es marroquí.


(apologies for English answer)

For more information about the situation there, see my answer at 
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/53812/contested-border-sahrawi-morocco-decision-to-display 
and the links from there.


That links to 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf 
, which explains what OSM typically has as borders.


If anyone has any further questions, please email the DWG via 
d...@osmfoundation.org.


(traducción automática)

Para obtener más información sobre la situación allí, consulte mi 
respuesta en 
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/53812/contested-border-sahrawi-morocco-decision-to-display 
y los enlaces desde allí.


Eso se vincula a 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf, 
que explica lo que OSM suele tener como fronteras.


Si alguien tiene más preguntas, envíe un correo electrónico al DWG a 
d...@osmfoundation.org.


- Andy (from the DWG)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Can you recommend good introduction to JOSM for 100% osm newbie?

[Andy Townsend]

On 05/10/2020 08:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 5. Oct 2020, at 00:58, Michael Booth  wrote:
Not sure I'd recommend JOSM for a 100% OSM newbie unless there was a specific 
reason or feature required when editing.


I would, because they will have to learn from scratch anyway, so why not 
starting with the most popular (by numbers of edits), most powerful, most 
versatile, closest to the community consensus and longest standing (i.e. most 
reliable that it will remain) editor?


Telling potential new contributors that they need to use JOSM to 
contribute to OSM will have two effects:


1. It'll put lots of people off contributing to OSM at all.
2. It'll cause lots of errors in OSM where people don't understand what
   they're doing do things by accident.

All tools have their strengths and weaknesses and it makes sense to use 
the right tool for the job in each case.  JOSM is great for some things 
- I regularly use 4 different OSM editors on a regular basis and by some 
measure of "most edits" JOSM may well be "the editor that I use most", 
but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't familiar with the basics 
in OSM at all yet.  People need to find out how "what they see in the 
real world" and "what they see on a map" relate to "what data is 
actually in OSM" and JOSM really isn't good at explaining, or in some 
cases even representing, that.


Best Regards,

Andy

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

[Talk-GB] Blocked / overgrown / inaccessible footpaths and bridleways

[Andy Townsend]

Hello,

How do people normally map things like "I know there is a public 
footpath that goes through here but it is currently inaccessible"?


A taginfo search finds a few candidates:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=overgrown#values

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=inaccessible#values

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=blocked#values

So far https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/overgrown seems the 
nearest (it's undocumented but mentioned on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking ).  However, I'm sure that 
there are examples that I've missed.  Most seem to be used within note 
tags which can of course contain any old text - are there any actual 
non-note tags and values that are used for this that I'm missing?


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/09/2020 16:28, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:


I am importing a subset of nodes from UK (those tagged with 
amenity:pub) for a pet project.


Firstly - welcome!




When analysing the data I realised that some of these nodes contain a 
website: tag that does not contain an appropriate URL schema (http/https).


Ie: www.mypub.com  rather than 
http://www.mypub.com  or https://www.mypub.com 



I'm not actually convinced that's a problem - as others have said, web 
browsers are perfectly capable of converting "www.mypub.com" into either 
"https://www.mypub.com"or ""http://www.mypub.com"as appropriate, so this 
doesn't really add any value.  "Letting the browser sort it out" is a 
great approach as it can deal with now/near future things such as 
removal TLS 1.0 and 1.1 support as well.





This goes in contradiction with the Wiki documentation for website. 



Unfortunately, OSM's wiki doesn't always reflect actual usage and this 
is one example.  Changing "www.mypub.com" to "https://www.mypub.com; 
doesn't really add any value unless you're actually updating something 
else about the pub.  Actually, using "www.mypub.com" has some advantages 
here as it allows the user's web browser to negotiate https if available 
(the default nowadays) but fall back to http if not.




I created a proposal for a one-off, scoped, automated edit for these 
nodes to find the appropiate scheme for the existing URL and retag the 
nodes.


I added the proposal to the Automated edits log. You can read it here 
.



What would be rather more interesting would be detecting websites that 
"don't or no longer represent the pub" in some way:


 * Perhaps the pub had a website, but now has new tenants, and they now
   communicate with customers on the facebook page?
 * Perhaps the website is (like one of your examples) just for the brewery?
 * Perhaps the website now points at domain parking?
 * Perhaps the https certificate has expired, which at the very least
   indicates that the website is unlikely to be kept up to date?

Any problems found would likely need to be resolved manually, but some 
at least of the above should be detectable automatically.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/09/2020 10:25, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:


Anyone know if there's a way to at least use a UK based server or to 
conveniently ping multiple websites directly? 


In this case I don't see how that helps - it wouldn't detect domain 
parking pages, which is usually where a domain goes after the business 
that registers it folds and the domain has actual words in it (often the 
case here I suspect).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/09/2020 17:43, Dave F via talk wrote:

Nick's description is "overgrown, unclear, prone to flooding"

These are all subjective interpretations.
There are many official PROW's in those conditions.


(for the benefit of people outside of England and Wales a "public right 
of way" is a special legal designation here)


To be fair, what Nick was talking about wasn't a PROW though.


It doesn't mean they're "abandoned" or "disused".
It doesn't mean someone isn't prepared to wade or hack their way through.

Accurate descriptions of the path's state(s) are required. Tags 
something like: Overgrown=yes, flooding=intermittent  etc.


Indeed - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/overgrown has some usage 
and and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/flood_prone has a lot of 
usage.  https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/trail_visibility has even 
more.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/09/2020 16:04, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Hi,

Wondering if there was a consensus on tagging an abandoned, no longer 
very usable path (e.g. a path which has become overgrown or is unclear 
and prone to flooding in wetter periods). Something like "path=abandoned"?



My 2p:


Perhaps use "trail_visibility" through the lifecycle of the path as it 
changes from "being obvious on the ground" to "not being there at all"?



Once it's definitely disappeared, I'd have no qualms about deleting it 
altogether.  Sometimes I update the tags on a path before deleting it to 
something like "note=nothing on this alignment any more".



If it's still visible on imagery, I'd be tempted to leave that note 
there (without a highway tag) to stop someone retracing it.



Best Regards,


Andy


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

Re: [Talk-us] While we're fixing things in iterations

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/09/2020 00:00, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 5:56 PM Andy Townsend <mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>> wrote:



On 23/09/2020 23:01, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:37 PM stevea mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com>> wrote:

Paul Johnson mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote:

> 2. Tagging route information on ways.  It's about a decade
too long at this point for ref=* on a way to be completely
disconnected from the entity the tag applies to:  That's why
route relations exist.  Biggest problem child on this at the
moment:  OSM's own tilesets.  Let's drop rendering for ref=*
on ways and just render the route relations already, this and
multipolygons are why relations came to exist in the first place.

Yes, 100% agreement.  I think this is simply pure inertia
(the kind that says "broken process") on the part of renderers.

Can anybody (renderer authors included, maybe even
especially) are welcome to offer reasons why "the old
machinery" remains in place?  Are there legacy use cases that
remain unclear to the wider community?  Please tell us here,
if so.


The US is unusual in that it doesn't have a single ref per section
of road.  Most places in OSM map what they see on the ground, and
the current OSM Carto rendering works just fine for them

Right up until there's more than one kind of route on the way.


No-one's disputing that this is a major problem for mappers in the US - 
I'm just saying that it's really not a major problem in most other 
places.  That doesn't make it any less of a problem in the US but does 
help to explain why people elsewhere seem not to see it as a problem.




It's not strictly a Mapnik problem.  It's certainly possible to
render information from relations in Mapnik (I've done it, for
different sorts of relations, and written diary entries about
it).  There are a couple of tricky bits* though:

 1. You'd need to derive the shields from the ref and the road
itself from the way, and you're going to get some edge cases
where they "don't seem to match".
 2. I expect that it would be _really_ difficult to render refs
from relations in the one country where that's needed and refs
from ways in the other 190-odd.  The OSM style is a global
style, and that means that local edge cases (which is what the
US is here) can't get the "special-case handling" that might
be nice.

There's no reason the rest of the world shouldn't be mapping routes 
this way.  For the reason I gave above.


By all means try and persuade the entire rest of the world to do things 
differently, but I suspect that that will be unlikely to succeed when 
the problem you're trying to solve isn't visible there.


That's why I suggested trying other approaches that would at least 
enable people in the US to see route refs rendered as they would expect 
them to be.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-us] While we're fixing things in iterations

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/09/2020 23:01, Paul Johnson wrote:



On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:37 PM stevea > wrote:


Paul Johnson mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>>
wrote:

> 2. Tagging route information on ways.  It's about a decade too
long at this point for ref=* on a way to be completely
disconnected from the entity the tag applies to: That's why route
relations exist.  Biggest problem child on this at the moment: 
OSM's own tilesets.  Let's drop rendering for ref=* on ways and
just render the route relations already, this and multipolygons
are why relations came to exist in the first place.

Yes, 100% agreement.  I think this is simply pure inertia (the
kind that says "broken process") on the part of renderers.

Can anybody (renderer authors included, maybe even especially) are
welcome to offer reasons why "the old machinery" remains in
place?  Are there legacy use cases that remain unclear to the
wider community?  Please tell us here, if so.

The US is unusual in that it doesn't have a single ref per section of 
road.  Most places in OSM map what they see on the ground, and the 
current OSM Carto rendering works just fine for them.





While I still find murky and mysterious exactly "how" to effect
change in renderers (who you gonna call?), 

When it was clear that the direction of travel for OSM Carto wasn't 
going to be useful t me I forked what was there at the time and started 
going in a slightly different direction.




my two best efforts along these lines are to "tag well" and "wiki
well."  (And that can include a great deal of discussion and
consensus building on its own, no doubt).  Eventually, (and I've
discovered it can take years), renderers do catch up.


To be clear, I don't want to throw any humans under the bus on this, 
since the Carto folks really do make an elegant style for Mapnik.  
Though if this is a Mapnik issue that's preventing this, maybe it's 
time to either fix Mapnik or consider alternatives?


It's not strictly a Mapnik problem.  It's certainly possible to render 
information from relations in Mapnik (I've done it, for different sorts 
of relations, and written diary entries about it).  There are a couple 
of tricky bits* though:


1. You'd need to derive the shields from the ref and the road itself
   from the way, and you're going to get some edge cases where they
   "don't seem to match".
2. I expect that it would be _really_ difficult to render refs from
   relations in the one country where that's needed and refs from ways
   in the other 190-odd.  The OSM style is a global style, and that
   means that local edge cases (which is what the US is here) can't get
   the "special-case handling" that might be nice.
3. The infrequency with which OSM data is loaded now means that more
   has to be done "on the fly" rather than "at data load", which
   somewhat limits the options for how to solve the problem.

I'm actually surprised that someone associated with the OSM US community 
hasn't created a proof-of-concept "good US road route rendering" variant 
of the OSM Carto style on a live server that people can use for 
reference (I'm guessing ongoing server costs wouldn't be huge - a couple 
of $ a day at one of the cheaper hosters).  Of the issues above (1) you 
can ignore in a proof of concept (or deal with some of the edge cases), 
(2) isn't an issue if you're just rendering the US and (3) isn't a 
problem if you can live with downtime at the occasional reload (or have 
two databases - one live, one available to be reloaded if you can't).


Best Regards,

Andy

* I've deliberately simplified things here for legibility - there's lots 
of discussion about these issues in OSM Carto's github, and there are 
also osm2pgsql options available now (see 
https://pavie.info/2020/03/09/openstreetmap-data-processing-osm2pgsql-flex/ 
) that weren't an option previously that may really help here.



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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Changeset Comments Copyright

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/09/2020 08:49, GITNE wrote:
Unfortunately, no. I do not use Slack. So, I cannot provide a specific 
link or
something. What I know is that @SomeoneElse reported that Slack has an 
automated
feed which pulls changesets comments from OSM and republishes them on 
one of

their channels.

For completeness, this discussion spun out of one at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90157565 which in turn spun off 
from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/90174987 .


For those unfamiliar with it, the OSM US' Slack instance has a 
"feed-changeset-comments" channel which shows new changeset discussion 
comments shortly after they are added.  There are lots of other ways of 
getting at that data as well of course - including on osm.org itself.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

[OSM-talk-ie] Townlands in Monaghan

[Andy Townsend]

Hello - Andy from the DWG here.

A recent emailer has written (of townlands.ie/monaghan): "This page 
states that there are 4 Baronies in Monaghan.  There are actually 5 
Baronies in Monaghan, Farney is missing from the list. Barony Farney can 
be found on the website, but not on this page". I think "the website" 
here probably means 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Baronies_of_County_Monaghan .


I've already suggested that the DWG's correspondant contact the OSM IE 
community directly via https://www.openstreetmap.ie/contact/ , but I 
haven't seen anything on IRC or here, hence I'm posting this.  They may 
of course already be in contact via Facebook or similar (in which case 
my apologies for the noise).


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/09/2020 15:17, Mike Thompson wrote:


I will thank Ron for the change and try to start a dialog with our DWG 
about AllTrails asking their users to contact the DWG directly with 
map errors.



Yes - that'd be great.

The wider issues in addition to their support process are that (1) lots 
of trails in the USA don't have access mapped (and are missing other 
detail as well)*, and (2) even when these details are mapped AllTrails' 
maps and apps simply don't do a very good job of showing what there is 
in the area (see my previous comment in the thread about that).


We (the DWG) have fed these issues back to AllTrails' support on a 
number of occasions but we have yet to see meaningful change. Obviously 
the support people within an organisation can only work within the 
parameters that are set for them - if they see "complaints about 
cartography" then it's up to the people responsible for that to fix it, 
not the support staff, and AllTrails' maps suggest they outsource that 
to MapBox.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)

* to pick an entirely random example, see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/547170922 for the sort of thing I'm 
talking about.  To be fair, that's a trail 60km from the nearest town so 
I suspect it isn't going to get that much attention in OSM.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway

[Andy Townsend]

On 03/09/2020 10:58, Gareth L wrote:

I think the permissive tag is due to it being yet another perceived public 
space which is actually private, so there’s no public right of way.

Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that 
also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know!

Gareth


Yes - bicycle=permissive seems correct based on the description so far 
(not that I've been there) if there's no public right of way.  We're 
talking England here, not somewhere enlightened like Scandinavia or 
Scotland.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [OSM-talk] New API suggestion: Allowing contributors to easily track their OSM-objects over time

[Andy Townsend]

> How/where was the notes addition proposed and implemented?

If I remember correctly, it was done as a "Google Summer of Code" 
project - effectively a sponsorship deal.  However, that project 
requires a clone of the OSM website, which is a much harder job than 
merely doing something with OSM data as it is updated.


>  I intended to write it myself it others find it useful.

Great!

> I would prefer that it is an official api so I don't have to cover 
the hosting costs.


Well if you start writing it locally and start initially with a small 
extract of OSM data your hosting costs will be zero.  Even if you 
absolutely need to go for a hosted server it needn't cost more than a 
Northern European cup of coffee a month to start with (see e.g. 
https://blog.jochentopf.com/2019-03-07-the-new-osmdata-service.html )


>  Is there anywhere to post an issue to implement this and later pull 
requests?


I'd suggest creating such a place in a shared code repository such as 
github (which is where lots of OSM-related stuff already is).  Don't 
worry that it isn't "official" - very little in OSM is.  If it becomes 
valuable it can easily be built on or incorporated into osm.org 
centrally later.


Best Regards,
Andy


On 22/08/2020 11:22, Egil wrote:
(snip)


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

[OSM-talk] Default access rights (was: Re: Use of OSM data without attribution)

[Andy Townsend]

On 22/08/2020 08:56, Simon Poole wrote:

To add to what Andy has already said, complaints about people using
private paths etc are relatively common, not a large number in absolute
terms, but there tend to be a couple each month which either land with
the DWG, or LWG, or naturally with the local community (I've handled a
couple of them with a different hat on locally, but they are rare).


Over the last 6 months the DWG's had 46 tickets created mentioning 
"Alltrails".  Others will go elsewhere (e.g. as Martijn described 
previously).  For comparison we've had 19 directly mentioning 
"instagram" in that period (though that may undercount - we sometimes 
see complaints about "your map" from users of Facebook properties where 
it's not immediately clear what map they're complaining about, and what 
data on that map.




AllTrails is just one of a handful of sources for such issues. I suspect
that it is simply that such ways that are not part of the public road
network tend to be less stable and sometimes not as well surveyed that
makes this more likely to happen. On top of that right of way and access
legislation tends to differ widely among countries, and what is
completely OK in one may find you at the wrong end of a shotgun in
another and that AllTrails et al are not very good in reflecting that.
Example:  highway=track in the UK, which should probably default to
access=private, but here and say in DE, in general would always have
public access except if signposted differently or gated.


Yes - and it's even more confusing than that!  In Scotland (part of the 
UK but with a separate legal system) there is a "freedom to roam 
responsibly" similar to the Swedish "allemansrätten".  in the US there 
has been discussion going on about how people should tag imagery-derived 
service roads and how people should interpret that tagging state by state.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] New API suggestion: Allowing contributors to easily track their OSM-objects over time

[Andy Townsend]

On 22/08/2020 10:32, Andrew Harvey wrote:


Nothing is stopping such a system being built at the moment as a 3rd 
party service, just needs someone motivated enough to build and 
support it.


Yes - exactly that.

Until such time as someone writes a "mailing list post to software 
translator"* it'll need someone to sit down and actually write some code.





On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 19:11, pangoSE > wrote:



I would like to track all objects that I ever created or edited.
I suggest we implement a system to make this easy.

I suggest we create a new system that is updated every time a
changeset is uploaded. The new system tracks userids and osmids
and date of last change/edit.


The changeset feed and the OSM updates feed are both public. There are 
things similar to what you want that you can borrow from, but I doubt 
that there's anything that does _exactly_ what you want right now, so 
you'll need to write it.


Best Regards,

Andy

* People were making jokes about how it was impossible to do this 40 
years ago.  I remember people humorously suggesting "add-ons" to program 
generator "The Last One" 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_One_%28software%29 ) saying that 
"this, really, is the last program you will ever need".  I laughed at 
the time, but then spent quite a few years in the 80s and 90s writing 
code generators :)




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

[OSM-talk] Let's think about how we use mailing lists (was: Re: Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !))

[Andy Townsend]

On 22/08/2020 09:12, pangoSE wrote:

Here is yet another example of bad data in our database:


(to "pangoSE", via the list):

Sometimes it helps to think about how we react to things in the spur of 
the moment.  Martijn's anecdote was about something that he mapped 9 
years ago that was _correct at the time_ .


People occasionally claim that open mailing lists are "toxic" or 
similar, because they allow people to say things quickly without 
thinking, and anything posted can't later be deleted because it has been 
emailed to everyone.  Posts like the above don't help people who might 
be reserved about posting here from doing so.


Some of your recent posts (e.g. 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-August/085281.html ) 
look indistinguishable from those that a troll might make to me.  You 
probably don't think of yourself as a troll - you just thing that you 
are asking "serious and pertinent questions". You're right that there's 
a discussion to be had about exactly how OSM and wikipedia et al are 
linked, but taking unrelated comments out of context doesn't help your 
argument - it'll just make it more likely that people will file all of 
your posts in the "round filing cabinet in the corner of the room" 
rather than read them.


Best Regards,

Andy (writing in a personal capacity, and not - thankfully - any sort of 
list moderator here)




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

Re: [Talk-us] VANDALISM !

[Andy Townsend]

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



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


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


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


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


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Andy Townsend]

On 20/08/2020 14:43, Mike Thompson wrote:
From Ron's quick and positive response to the attribution issue I am 
guessing he might be open to having a discussion about these other 
issues. Once the attribution issue is actually fixed, should I send 
him a note along those lines? Would you (Andy) be the appropriate 
contact for that discussion?


Yes, that'd be great, and I'd be happy to be involved in any discussions.

The https://www.openstreetmap.org/fixthemap landing page is probably the 
best one right now for "the map is wrong" questions (better than 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/help in this instance I'd suggest).  I'm 
not aware of any wiki page that explains the whole "OpenStreetMap 
contains all sorts of information, including private roads, and it's up 
to mapmakers to display information appropriately to their users" thing, 
but I could be wrong.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Eat out to help out data

[Andy Townsend]

On 20/08/2020 09:38, Ken Kilfedder wrote:

What data are available in the EOHO set that we don't get from the FHRS?


Perhaps "opening_hours:covid19=open"?

Even that's a bit tricky - if an establishment is registered with the 
scheme I guess it doesn't guarantee that it is _currently_ open.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/08/2020 22:44, Clifford Snow wrote:
...  Instead of suggesting their users edit OSM, they instead instruct 
them to email d...@openstreetmap.org ,



Indeed, and by the time they get to us they are usually "rabbits of 
negative euphoria"* because of the less than stellar support experience 
they've had at AllTrails.


Looking at e.g. 
https://www.alltrails.com/explore/list/yorkshire-wolds-way?b_tl_lat=54.06089919948305_tl_lng=-0.7765960693359375_br_lat=53.9918264806059_br_lng=-0.6293106079101562 
I'm not surprised - to my eyes that really is a crime against 
cartography.  Zoom in, and you'll see that that useful-looking 
north-south path just southeast of Thixendale is actually marked 
"(PRIVATE)", but at any scale you might want to plan a route on it isn't.


The explanation we have to give every time goes something along the 
lines of:


 * No, we're not Alltrails support, and can't directly affect the way
   that their map represents things.
 * Yes, it's perfectly normal for the OpenStreetMap database to include
   ways along which there is limited access (such as only the
   householder, or perhaps other people in an emergency).
 * Individual maps can choose what data to show and what not, and if a
   map does a poor job of it that's really not an OpenStreetMap problem.
 * While we'd love you to update OpenStreetMap yourself** (since you
   know your local area better than we do) we're more than happy to try
   and fix the OSM data if it's wrong - but we can't guarantee when (or
   even if) any particular OSM-based map will show the changes.

Best Regards,

Andy (from the Data Working Group)

* not a happy bunny

** I'd also, if it seems that it might help, try and introduce them to 
the local OSM community.



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