On 20/03/2020 19:00, Mikel Maron wrote:
But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step imports.
No they're not. It's a couple sections in a blog post that is being wildly
misinterpreted.
It's perhaps worth remembering how we got here:
> Today's blog posts are the press releases of past years. It would have been
>quite possible to run it past the responsible organs of the organisation they
>were writing about, as it would have been customary in earlier days.
Good enough idea, but I have seen very few or even no examples of
Am 20.03.2020 um 20:00 schrieb Mikel Maron:
>> But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step
>> imports.
> No they're not. It's a couple sections in a blog post that is being wildly
> misinterpreted.
Today's blog posts are the press releases of past years. It would
> But this thread is from Facebook trying to change that. To side step imports.
No they're not. It's a couple sections in a blog post that is being wildly
misinterpreted.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Friday, March 20, 2020, 02:18:54 PM EDT, Rory McCann
wrote:
On 19/03/2020 20:15, Mikel Maron wrote:
This whole thread is blown out of proportion, and rehashing old
theoretical debates about imports that are more or less resolved in
practice.
Yes, we have an import guideline. But this thread is from Facebook
trying to change that. To side step
On 19/03/2020 17:28, Christoph Hormann wrote:
I think I have said that in the past already: "Assume good faith" as a
general principle can on OSM only work w.r.t. individuals taking full
and permanant responsibility for their own actions. There cannot be an
assumption of good faith for
On 3/19/2020 3:17 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
> How would a mapper performing imports via RapiD comply with the
import guidelines?
By complying with the guidelines before setting up an import process
that leveraged RapiD for conflation.
That doesn't sound so bad to me, pending further details.
On 19.03.20 20:02, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> But (at least to me) "dissemination of authoritative data sets" sounds like
> "overwriting OSM data with external dataset" or "importing just because
> it is official".
>
> Just yesterday I was explaining to one of mappers that it is OK to
The fundamental point of this discussion is that the AI, the Artificial
Intelligence, does not exist yet. It is kind of a marketing gimmick.
Sure, there are good computer programs, there are sophisticated
automatons, but there is no AI, except in movies and serials.
Let me give you an
> What's your guess, who will care more for the map, people who have copied AI
>generated data or those who have created it, or doesn't it matter and it's the
>same?
Germany is awesome but not the only way things can develop. People who already
care about OSM and have for years think rapid can
> How would a mapper performing imports via RapiD comply with the import
>guidelines?
By complying with the guidelines before setting up an import process that
leveraged RapiD for conflation.
Mikel
On Thursday, March 19, 2020, 11:28 AM, Jmapb wrote:
On 3/19/2020 7:57 AM, Mikel Maron wrote:
Some imports are good, some are bad. We have ways to asses them with
guidelines. There are tools to help the technical process. Maybe there’s more
possibilities with rapid on tooling, maybe not. Seems pretty simple.
This whole thread is blown out of proportion, and rehashing old theoretical
Mar 19, 2020, 12:57 by mikel.ma...@gmail.com:
> Frederik, you’re crying out against phantoms, and getting stuck on one
> interpretation of the word “authoritative”, and using that misinterpretation
> as an excuse to beat on one of your favorite punching bags, and try to exact
> radical
Mar 19, 2020, 12:28 by frede...@remote.org:
> Hi,
>
> a propos a recent statement from our friends at Facebook in which they
> make plans for the future of our project,
>
> https://tech.fb.com/map-with-ai-updates/
>
>> Beyond AI-based data sets, one of the biggest challenges for OSM is
>>
Mar 19, 2020, 17:54 by j...@betra.is:
> However I believe including them is beneficial for OSM and its users and so
> have been doing updates as I can. However it is not an easy process for large
> areas, having to chop the huge Vatnajökulsþjóðgarður (over 15% of Iceland) up
> due to max
On 19.03.20 17:54, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
> So - why are authoritative data sets an unwelcome addition?
At its core, OSM is a platform for collaboratively editing geodata. So
the following would be strong reasons not to import a dataset:
- other mappers should not edit it (because the
I second Jóhannes -- every dataset, including OSM itself (hehe) has errors.
Consuming each additional dataset is a complex task -- each dataset has its
own structure and conventions, thus the fewer datasets one has to work
with, the better. The fundamental problem with 99.9% of the datasets
As someone who started as a foot mapper but who is now also in an
"authoritative position" I'd like to answer Frederik here.
Amongst my professional responsibilities is the dissemination of the
authoritative data set for protected areas in Iceland. Many of these are huge,
do not have lines
On Thursday 19 March 2020, Mikel Maron wrote:
> Frederik, you’re crying out against phantoms, and getting stuck on
> one interpretation of the word “authoritative”, and using that
> misinterpretation as an excuse to beat on one of your favorite
> punching bags, and try to exact radical unrational
On Thursday 19 March 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of
> OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what
> gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software
> that interacts with our database. I
On 3/19/2020 7:57 AM, Mikel Maron wrote:
There is nothing here about circumventing our well defined import
guidelines, or disrespecting our basic tenets.
The blog post says "The process of creating an import is too onerous for
many users" and "Our hope is that RapiD can become a tool that’s
Am Do., 19. März 2020 um 13:01 Uhr schrieb Mikel Maron <
mikel.ma...@gmail.com>:
> Martin, have you actually tried RapiD? It doesnt resemble what you
> describe and does not disempower anyone.
>
it changes the way we add things, or at least has potential to
significantly shift the relation of
Martin, have you actually tried RapiD? It doesnt resemble what you describe and
does not disempower anyone. From talking to mappers in places with less
developed maps than Germany, there is enthusiasm about a tool that will help
their mapping processes, and a thorough understanding of the
Frederik, you’re crying out against phantoms, and getting stuck on one
interpretation of the word “authoritative”, and using that misinterpretation as
an excuse to beat on one of your favorite punching bags, and try to exact
radical unrational restrictions on a piece of software.
What Facebook
Am Do., 19. März 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
frede...@remote.org>:
> I think that someone who cannot respect these basic tenets of
> OpenStreetMap - that mappers on the ground have the last word on what
> gets into OSM and what not - shouldn't be allowed to publish software
> that
Hi,
a propos a recent statement from our friends at Facebook in which they
make plans for the future of our project,
https://tech.fb.com/map-with-ai-updates/
> Beyond AI-based data sets, one of the biggest challenges for OSM is importing
> even readily available authoritative data sets
> ...
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
