Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } Paul, thanks I hadn't seen that before, and it's a good response. Mikel On Friday, January 6, 2017, 7:05 PM, Paul Norman

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

> It is fatal for the project... It's difficult for me to see how more respect, patientience, and clarity is an existential threat to OpenStreetMap. Perhaps I'll feel different after I run through a few of these cases... Mikel On Friday, January 6, 2017, 11:52 AM, Simon Poole

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Friday 06 January 2017, john whelan wrote: > > We have more lakes in Canada than exist in the whole of Europe. [...] As Oleksiy already hinted you probably can get useful input from Russian mappers in that regard. They have a vast country and a lot of lakes too and somehow managed to map

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Am 06.01.2017 um 22:22 schrieb john whelan: > >When Simon says "Canvec and broken import is essentially a synonym" > that is not an > exaggeration, if you mention Canvec in a typical European community > meeting you usually just get a big sigh in return. > > I think you have to understand a bit

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Canada is the second largest country in the world by area. I understand only too well how inaccessible and unexplored a land with a harsh cold climate could be as I was born and grew up in a remote part of Siberia. However, the situation changes nowadays. There is now a lot of innovation in

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 1/6/2017 7:37 AM, Mikel Maron wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39517002 is an example. There were issues with this import, sure. This was not vandalism, advertising, or a fatal breakage of the map -- not a situation where an immediate action was justified (and definitely there

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

>When Simon says "Canvec and broken import is essentially a synonym" that is not an exaggeration, if you mention Canvec in a typical European community meeting you usually just get a big sigh in return. I think you have to understand a bit more about CANVEC data what it is and how the quality

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Friday 06 January 2017, john whelan wrote: > > I think we should be trying to build the community. We need a > balance between adding data without limits, and building the > community and building the community is hard. Well - as overzealous as Nakaners intervention in this case might have

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

I think one issue to try and define is what is the local community? Canada is big, parts are closer to London UK than Vancouver. Yes we have a bandwidth of opinions but so does the rest of OSM. At the moment I'm trying to clean up a bit in Africa. In many parts there is no local community.

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Am 06.01.2017 um 16:37 schrieb Mikel Maron: .. I would suggest that using this case to make your point is seriously misplaced. Reverting a broken import asap to allow for a) the guidelines to be followed, b) address technical and legal issues, is the sensible, logical and low impact and only

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Friday 06 January 2017, Mikel Maron wrote: > [...] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39517002 is > an example. There were issues with this import, sure. This was not > vandalism, advertising, or a fatal breakage of the map -- not a > situation where an immediate action was justified (and

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

> "Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports" and "well documented >and visible plan" I read it as meaning "I want you to stop doing what you are >currently doing in the way that you are doing it", and want to understand >why.> I'd much rather the direction on this came from the

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 6 January 2017 at 12:01, Christoph Hormann wrote: > It seems to me by the way that negative feelings of people whose > activities have clashed with the DWG are natually more voiceful than > those of people who contacted the DWG in despair because they are > swamped with

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Friday 06 January 2017, Andy Townsend wrote: > > I'd much rather the direction on this came from the community rather > than the board (and yes, there will obviously be as many different > views as there are OSM mappers). If "the communication I've seen > from community members making reverts

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 05/01/17 12:23, mi...@groundtruth.in wrote: * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron ... As Frederik said, better reporting and processing can benefit DWG. This is something I want to spend time on. I think that it's important that how we do this sort of thing as a project is

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Hi Mikel I would like to offer a different view on community friendliness. On 04/01/17 22:18, Mikel Maron wrote: > Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports (outside of > obviously urgent problems). That means a well documented and visible > plan, community discussion. Rob's comment

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 04/01/2017 22:24, Mikel Maron wrote: Ok I hear you. Let me walk this back a step. Not the same standard, but a standard beyond now that gives some visibility to the process. I know there is a process of monitoring, analysis, communication and action followed by the DWG. Let's document that.

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Hi, On 01/04/2017 11:24 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: > Ok I hear you. Let me walk this back a step. Not the same standard, but > a standard beyond now that gives some visibility to the process. I know > there is a process of monitoring, analysis, communication and action > followed by the DWG. Let's

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } Ok I hear you. Let me walk this back a step. Not the same standard, but a standard beyond now that gives some visibility to

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Mikel Maron wrote: > Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports (outside > of obviously urgent problems). Where a revert of an import (or other automated edit) is done by DWG because an import did not follow the rules, reverting that import just goes back to the status quo ante.

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Wednesday 04 January 2017, Mikel Maron wrote: > Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports (outside of > obviously urgent problems). Definitely not - if the only way to counteract an undiscussed mechanical edit that goes against the community principles is to have a discussed

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

I disagree with this. A revert is putting right the wrong of an undiscussed mechanical edit or automated import. *All* undiscussed imports should be reverted. That will be part of the enforcement of the mechanical edit guidelines. If we want high quality data (and I certainly do) we must

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Rob Nickerson wrote: > > All, > > May I remind, that whilst we have no mechanism to *properly* vote on the adoption of new tags, we also have no mechanism to *properly* vote on whether a mechanical edit can go ahead or not, including mass

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 04/01/2017 21:01, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 4 January 2017 at 19:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: we can afford to wait until someone who actually knows the area they are working in has the time to add Wikidata tags. As has been made clear in other discussions in which you have

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports (outside of obviously urgent problems). That means a well documented and visible plan, community discussion. Rob's comment shows that it is not possible for someone eyeing a revert to judge this from a quick look at the data or discussion

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Are your continuous claims of FUD more FUD? Or is me questioning this more FUD of FUD of FUD? You see this can go on towards infinity. Am 2017-01-04 um 22:01 schrieb Andy Mabbett: > On 4 January 2017 at 19:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> there's quite a few people in OSM who

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 4 January 2017 at 20:41, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Please don't revert the ones near me. We spent considerable time with a > contributor (not Yuri but someone else) to ensure that my local community > were happy with the proposed edit before it was completed. This is

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 4 January 2017 at 19:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: > there's quite a few people in OSM who think that > low-quality Wikidata tags are better than no Wikidata tags at all Are there? Or is this more FUD? > we can afford to wait until someone who actually knows the area they

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Frederik, Please don't revert the ones near me. We spent considerable time with a contributor (not Yuri but someone else) to ensure that my local community were happy with the proposed edit before it was completed. All, May I remind, that whilst we have no mechanism to *properly* vote on the

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

> This all conversation confort my (un-educated, I confess) idea of the > uselessness of cross referencing the Wikipedia ecosystem with OSM with OSM > tags. > > Automated addition of wikidata id to OSM objects seems worthy, so why not > doing it on the fly instead of writing it to the database?

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Hi, On 01/04/2017 07:25 PM, nebulon42 wrote: > I would revert it then. > Violations of the automated edits policy should not be tolerated. Some automated Wikidata additions have been reverted by me in the past, mainly where they came from an algorithm that used proximity (and not existing

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 04.01.2017 20:04, Yves wrote: This all conversation confort my (un-educated, I confess) idea of the uselessness of cross referencing the Wikipedia ecosystem with OSM with OSM tags. Automated addition of wikidata id to OSM objects seems worthy, so why not doing it on the fly instead of

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

This all conversation confort my (un-educated, I confess) idea of the uselessness of cross referencing the Wikipedia ecosystem with OSM with OSM tags. Automated addition of wikidata id to OSM objects seems worthy, so why not doing it on the fly instead of writing it to the database? Next

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 04.01.2017 19:52, Christoph Hormann wrote: It is not the check that needs to be manual, it is the edit. In other words: finding errors can often be automatized to a high degree with good reliability - just look at the OSM Inspector coastline and area views which are very useful for the

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Wednesday 04 January 2017, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote: > > Well - in OSM use of and reliance on this expensive resource is the > > core of the whole project and we use automated edits only when they > > are deemed desirable by the expensive humans on a per case basis. > > I agree with this idea

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

I would revert it then. Violations of the automated edits policy should not be tolerated. Michael Am 2017-01-04 um 19:17 schrieb Philip Barnes: > On Wed, 2017-01-04 at 18:16 +0200, Tomas Straupis wrote: >> There was a flow of undiscussed automated wikidata additions in >> Lithuania with

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 04.01.2017 18:05, Christoph Hormann wrote: Well - in OSM use of and reliance on this expensive resource is the core of the whole project and we use automated edits only when they are deemed desirable by the expensive humans on a per case basis. I agree with this idea completely. At the same

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Wed, 2017-01-04 at 18:16 +0200, Tomas Straupis wrote: > There was a flow of undiscussed automated wikidata additions in > Lithuania with problems. I asked for discussion before automated > changes. I was given a promise that a discussion will follow. But > there was no discussion. And automated

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Wednesday 04 January 2017, AJ Ashton wrote: > > "The ID of the Wikidata item about the feature" > > > > suggests a one-to-one relationship and having the same wikidata ID > > on more than one feature would always be an error but taginfo tells > > us that there are more than 22000 wikidata

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017, at 08:22, Christoph Hormann wrote: > "The ID of the Wikidata item about the feature" > > suggests a one-to-one relationship and having the same wikidata ID on > more than one feature would always be an error but taginfo tells us > that there are more than 22000 wikidata

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 04/01/2017 16:43, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: * I think MapRoulette is actually the tool we should use to fix these issues. Hell no. Let's consider that when MapRoulette users have fixed all problems with the TIGER data in the USA - a task that it is far better suited to. MapRoulette's great

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 04/01/2017 16:05, Andy Mabbett wrote: Third time of asking: would you accept a single random bad tag/changeset on OSM as evidence that "tags in OSM are already of low quality"? What's that got to do with the price of fish? To be clear, this isn't one single changeset. It's just

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Wednesday 04 January 2017, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > [...] > Humans are a VERY > expensive resource, lets use it only when necessary. Well - in OSM use of and reliance on this expensive resource is the core of the whole project and we use automated edits only when they are deemed desirable by

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

I'm now trying to clean up the wikidata / wikipedia tags on administrative boundaries in Belgium. One of the problems seems that nyuriks automatically (?) added wikidata tags [1] without making sure the wikipedia tags were placed correctly in OSM. And now that same person asks to help him clean

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Like many conversations about Wikidata tagging, I think this one suffers from varying levels of stringency -- and perhaps letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. At the risk of stating the obvious, it is often the case that Wikidata's conceptual model of places does not exactly match

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

* I think MapRoulette is actually the tool we should use to fix these issues. I am not yet sure how to build an OT query that gets relations for the challenge, but this approach should automate the whole process. Any ideas? https://github.com/maproulette/maproulette2/issues/259 * Wikidata tags

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

There was a flow of undiscussed automated wikidata additions in Lithuania with problems. I asked for discussion before automated changes. I was given a promise that a discussion will follow. But there was no discussion. And automated changes resumed. I see it as violation of automated edit rules

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Wednesday 04 January 2017, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > > > Then you'd need to change the tag definition on the wiki to reflect > > that (and to explain what these circumstances are). > > You - and thus I - were talking about "Wikidata values", now you're > talking about a single tag. Which is it,

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 4 January 2017 at 15:55, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 04/01/2017 15:36, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> Please quantify that; against the total number of Wikidata tags. > 214 changes in that changeset; at first glance 82 civil parishes in there > likely to be in error if they have the

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 04/01/17 16:45, Andy Mabbett wrote: > And where is the link I requested? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/wikidata#values Go to page 429. That shows that the first ~22,000 wikidata values have 2+ occurrences. There are hundreds with 10+ values the number of actual duplicates is much

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 04/01/2017 15:36, Andy Mabbett wrote: Please quantify that; against the total number of Wikidata tags. 214 changes in that changeset; at first glance 82 civil parishes in there likely to be in error if they have the "Dunham on Trent" problem - about 38%.

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 4 January 2017 at 15:38, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Wednesday 04 January 2017, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> There are circumstances where it is legitimate for a >> Wikidata value to be used more than once. > > Then you'd need to change the tag definition on the wiki to

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Wednesday 04 January 2017, Andy Mabbett wrote: > There are circumstances where it is legitimate for a > Wikidata value to be used more than once. Then you'd need to change the tag definition on the wiki to reflect that (and to explain what these circumstances are). -- Christoph Hormann

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 4 January 2017 at 15:24, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 04/01/2017 15:08, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> >> On 4 January 2017 at 13:09, Andy Townsend wrote: >> >>> Do my comments on http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43749373 count >>> as >>> "evidence" or

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 04/01/2017 15:08, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 4 January 2017 at 13:09, Andy Townsend wrote: Do my comments on http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43749373 count as "evidence" or "anecdotes" in your book? It is evidence that /one/ tag is wrong. To quote from the

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 4 January 2017 at 13:22, Christoph Hormann wrote: >> Oh, please stop with this FUD. > > Back at you. My request was for evidence to support the original claim. Do you have any? > taginfo tells us that there are more than 22000 wikidata values that are used > more than

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 4 January 2017 at 13:09, Andy Townsend wrote: > Do my comments on http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43749373 count as > "evidence" or "anecdotes" in your book? It is evidence that /one/ tag is wrong. It is an anecdote so far as the claim "Wikidata tags in OSM are

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Thank you. Great tool! It makes an inconsistency visible to people to make a final decision. It is probably like in chess. It is not a man alone, neither a supercomputer, but a team of strong human players with usual computers who win no-holds-barred championship. On 04.01.2017 13:22, Imre

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On Wednesday 04 January 2017, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > Wikidata tags in OSM are already of low quality because of mindless > > mass-addition by people with zero local knowledge > > Oh, please stop with this FUD. Back at you. It is fairly obvious that the majority of wikidata tags in the OSM

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 04/01/2017 12:19, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 4 January 2017 at 10:11, Frederik Ramm wrote: Wikidata tags in OSM are already of low quality because of mindless mass-addition by people with zero local knowledge Oh, please stop with this FUD. Unless you have evidence* to

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

>.. this coordinates correction ... Before this correction it had wrong coordinates placing it erroneously on absolutely another mountain. ... As I see there is a tool for detect distance differences : *OpenStreetMap - Wikidata Validator* Each circle is an OpenStreetMap feature with a Wikidata

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 4 January 2017 at 10:11, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Wikidata tags in OSM are already of low quality because of mindless > mass-addition by people with zero local knowledge Oh, please stop with this FUD. Unless you have evidence* to support this assertion, you should

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

On 3 January 2017 at 09:11, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > To my knowledge, there is no site where one could add a set of OSM IDs that > need attention There is, and you can edit it yourself: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Certainly a tool to check and correct obviously broken or duplicate wikipedia=*, wikimedia_commons=*, wikidata=* links from the OSM map would be very useful. However, I've met inconsistencies which could be noticed only by a knowledgeable human on the ground. For example, this coordinates

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Hi, On 01/04/2017 10:27 AM, Jorge Gustavo Rocha wrote: > Nice work. > I'm interested in make such validation a service, to identify and fix > any inconsistencies between OpenStreetMap and Wikipedia/Wikidata. > I'll be working on that on the next days. Please ensure that you do not

Re: [OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

Hi Yurik, Nice work. I'm interested in make such validation a service, to identify and fix any inconsistencies between OpenStreetMap and Wikipedia/Wikidata. I'll be working on that on the next days. Regards, J. Gustavo Às 09:11 de 03-01-2017, Yuri Astrakhan escreveu: I have been steadily

[OSM-talk] Wikipedia/Wikidata admins cleanup

I have been steadily cleaning up some (many) broken Wikipedia and Wikidata tags, and would like to solicit some help :) To my knowledge, there is no site where one could add a set of OSM IDs that need attention (something like a bug tracker lite, where one could come and randomly pick a few IDs