> but also checks with the local community, if there is any, > what special agreements rule in the local community. for Panamá, I > would like to have such activities listed in a dedicated page in the > *wiki*.
This is doable and we try, without making an excuse, it is hard to determine who to coordinate with in “each” community. This may be because mappers are active, not active, want to be communicative and others don’t. I would also be hesitant to agree to “special agreements” which might take away from the idea of open, free data for all to utilize. Utilizing the main OSM wiki for editing standards is preferred, with limited country specific editing guidelines. This creates a more global map for all. > good news Kaart collecting experience and building on it. may I suggest > you also help local communities make their rules more explicit. to make > a concrete example, again for Panamá, did not agree on (did not discuss) > *how to categorize highways*, nor do we know where to collect 'ref' values. We do this. For example, we note what we did in country and then offer some suggestions to advance the editing process there. We have working with editors around the world on road classifications. In this incident, we didn’t do it well enough. Example from South Africa (we started this after Panama): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/South_Africa#Kaart_Groundwork_.26_Mapping <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/South_Africa#Kaart_Groundwork_.26_Mapping> > we also hardly have any factual information about rural bus routes. why > is this relevant? a road on which you have a regular service, however > crummy, can hardly qualify as "unclassified", but would be promoted to > "tertiary" at the least. could serve as reference. also, knowing what > kind of car runs the service would help with the "smoothness" tag. > collecting this information needs to happen locally, and I don't manage > to picture the difficulties and the costs associated to doing this. I think we agree on this classification and it illustrates why we travel so much, to get the local context for the data. We really try to understand the ‘function’ of the road more than the infrastructure and legislation for the road. Indicators like vehicle traffic density (imagery shows lots of cars driving as opposed to parked), trucks, buses, etc are useful to decide even if the road looks like it was built to be residential or unclassified. Construction, landslides, hurricanes, etc can alter which roads are classified as what because repairs don’t always happen within weeks of the closure event. This is why constant maintenance is so important. Your idea for GPS units is a good one. I’d encourage smartphone usage, perhaps drivers can passively run apps to record info to upload to OSM. GoMap!! Is iOS based and works great for this purpose. Aaron > On Feb 6, 2020, at 1:10 PM, talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > Send talk mailing list submissions to > talk@openstreetmap.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of talk digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: it's not a fake, but "it's complicated" (Mario Frasca) > 2. Re: Crimea situation - on the ground (Imre Samu) > 3. Old maps from Royal Collection UK (Andy Mabbett) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:43:47 -0500 > From: Mario Frasca <ma...@anche.no> > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] it's not a fake, but "it's complicated" > Message-ID: <f5cfced9-adb3-38cf-cfb7-b5b9cbc96...@anche.no> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > Hi Aaron, > > thank you for your writing! > > On 05/02/2020 23:50, Aaron Young wrote: >> in this instance we slipped up and didn’t communicate well enough. We are >> working to improve that now both in Panama and elsewhere > > I had a pleasant chat yesterday with Jorge Aguirre, and he insisted in > explaining that in 2015 Kaart as an organization was very early in its > learning process. I suggested adopting/adapting the *Directed Editing > Guidelines*, and my personal point of view, which I'm sharing now here, > is that whoever organizes edits should not only follow the global > guidelines (I like to think of them as "Brexit on World Trade > Agreements"), but also checks with the local community, if there is any, > what special agreements rule in the local community. for Panamá, I > would like to have such activities listed in a dedicated page in the > *wiki*. if you could describe them in Spanish, it would be much better, > but if you're putting an English language page in the wiki, I'm sure > there are enough non-Kaart people who would help translate that. > > in fact, editing the local activities page in the wiki would be > sufficient to *alert the local community*, or at least anyone watching > that page. > > On 05/02/2020 23:50, Aaron Young wrote: >> maintain the data to make sure it is as good as it can be, which is what >> initiated this conversation > > good news Kaart collecting experience and building on it. may I suggest > you also help local communities make their rules more explicit. to make > a concrete example, again for Panamá, did not agree on (did not discuss) > *how to categorize highways*, nor do we know where to collect 'ref' values. > > we also hardly have any factual information about rural bus routes. why > is this relevant? a road on which you have a regular service, however > crummy, can hardly qualify as "unclassified", but would be promoted to > "tertiary" at the least. could serve as reference. also, knowing what > kind of car runs the service would help with the "smoothness" tag. > collecting this information needs to happen locally, and I don't manage > to picture the difficulties and the costs associated to doing this. > > [[as a complete *side thread*, a concrete example: I recently tracked a > "chiva" only doing a short round trip from Santa Fé, travelling through > El Pantano, which cost me $4. I uploaded the trace as private, that was > a mistake. https://www.openstreetmap.org/trace/3198854/data, one of the > GPS lost power on the way back, I should upload the data from the other > device. with some extra cheap GPS devices (I own 5, not all equally > good), and some official-looking piece of paper from an organization, > one could spend half a day distributing phones running OSMTracker to bus > drivers and collecting them when they're back. and moving to the next > "piquera" for a different round. rural routes here may come back after > more than 5 hours, and I know of routes where a one-way ticket costs $8. ]] > > I am considering how to describe the above, but did not yet create the > relevant wiki page/paragraph. since Kaart is helping reclassify roads > (in Panamá), it would be nice if we had some agreements on how to do > that. and given we did not have it yet, in Panamá, it would be nice if > you publicly offered your thoughts for discussion, so we can reach an > agreement we can describe and follow. > > for *old edits*, I would consider very helpful if someone within Kaart > would receive notifications on changesets produced under the Kaart > flag. see BlueSombra, and all other Kaart abandoned accounts, with all > the comments still waiting for a reply. > > a point which I'm afraid has been missed: the reply I received by Vigo > gave me the impression "past is past, and we don't look back (but you > may tide up our mess)". I understand that you're not focusing on > mapping businesses any more, and I realize it's too much work for > anybody, to look up the mess and clean it up, but there must be other > ways to *profile yourself as responsible for the data you added*, even > if it was while you were early in your learning process. > > ciao, > > Mario > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200206/adeec835/attachment-0001.htm> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 14:59:31 +0100 > From: Imre Samu <pella.s...@gmail.com> > To: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > Cc: osm <talk@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground > Message-ID: > <CAJnEWwmGUgYUpi=RZu75TNzGw_HpeFZBm=0zwmsdbxdxj1c...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >> but also reaffirms that it supports the on-the-ground-rule > > I suggest to extend our manifesto [1] with the word "emphatic" > ( adding after the list: Truthful, Legal, Verifiable, Relevant, > +Emphatic ) > > With adding the "empathy" to the "on the ground rule" -> it is adding > the extra layer of the meaning. > > Without "empathy" - we can map* "nesting locations of vulnerable species"* > - because of the cold logic of the "*on the ground rule"* > With "empathy" we can fix the side effects of cold logic, and we can make > an "intelligent" decision [2] > > With "empathy" - it is easy to solve the diversity problems.[4] > Without "empathy" - just with cold logic - it is impossible. > > With "empathy" - this sentence has a deeper meaning: > *"OpenStreetMap values community cohesion over data perfection." [1] * > > and this is important for every organisation/community: > > *"Empathy deserves its buzzy status, and leaders are wise to desire it for > their businesses. But to succeed in making it part of their organization’s > DNA, they must pay close attention to how cultures build and change — > organically, collectively, and often from the bottom up." [3]* > > > And in the "Crimea situation" the empathy add an extra complexity .. > What is the real meaning of the "Our community is based on mutual respect, > tolerance ..." [4] in this case? > > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map > [2] Eugenia Cheng: "The Art of Logic: How to Make Sense in a World that > Doesn't" > https://youtu.be/YHZKX0H6cUE?t=2217 > [3] https://hbr.org/2019/05/making-empathy-central-to-your-company-culture > [4] proposed "Diversity Statement" *"Our community is based on mutual > respect, tolerance ..."* ~ empathy > https://gist.github.com/grischard/53e4e9defebe7912f3aab9c0d2d1b55a > > Best, > Imre > > > Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2020. febr. > 6., Cs, 12:42): > >> As most of you will know, the DWG on 14 Nov 2018 had reconsidered its >> original statement on Crimea from 5 June 2014, and decided to acknowledge >> that on the ground, Russia was controlling the territory and that the >> situation seemed fairly stable. On 10 December 2018, the OSMF board decided >> to return to the 2014 resolution. In its reasoning, board refers to the >> community as a whole ("The previous situation with the exception in place >> was obviously much more acceptable to the OSM community as a whole"), but >> also reaffirms that it supports the on-the-ground-rule: " >> >> We recognize that a lot of work has gone into the current Disputed Area >> Policy, and both DWG and LWG have assured us that the "on the ground >> rule" generally works well to avoid and settle conflicts. We, therefore, do >> not want to weaken that policy." >> >> My belief is that the reason for the on-the-ground rule to exist, is >> actually solving problems like the one in Crimea, and that we are weakening >> our position as "neutral", global community, if we make any exceptions to >> the rule. While I fully support the 2014 DWG resolution for the situation >> of 2014 (indeed potentially unclear if it would be stable), I also agree >> that in 2018 DWG couldn't decide differently than how they did. >> >> I therefore ask the current OSMF Board to reconsider the 2018 board >> decision and put the updated DWG statement from Nov 2018 into effect. This >> is not a question whether you believe, Crimea should belong to Ukraine or >> Russia, it is a principal question of creating together a truely impartial >> and indipendent map and adhering to our own standards. >> >> Like the former OSMF board, the DWG and LWG, I do not want to weaken that >> policy. >> >> Cheers >> Martin >> >> >> >> _________ >> >> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018-11-14_Crimea >> >> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2014-06-05_Special_Crimea >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2019-February/005972.html >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200206/348c66b3/attachment-0001.htm> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 20:10:03 +0000 > From: Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> > To: OSM talk mailing list <talk@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: [OSM-talk] Old maps from Royal Collection UK > Message-ID: > <cabixoenao1zzze4bgawmimo3enubtsvcby8qnp1vd+dfc1p...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > The UK's Royal Collection [1] have placed online [2] George III's > collection of military maps which, they say: > > comprises some 3,000 maps, views and prints > ranging from the disposition of Charles V's armies > at Vienna in 1532 to the Battle of Waterloo (1815). > > I'm sure these will be of interest to many OSM mappers. > > Remarkably, though, they are claiming copyright over these maps. > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Collection > > [2] https://militarymaps.rct.uk/ > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > ------------------------------ > > End of talk Digest, Vol 186, Issue 12 > *************************************
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
