SimonPoole has commented on the following diary entries

Post When Comment
Welcome to the new Missing Maps 8 months ago

@mikelmaron woodpecks transparency concerns are IMHO quite well founded particularly considering the direction MM is going in.

At least some of the funds seem to be funelled through the ARC. Given that the ~$3 billion ARC budget is quite opaque at the level that would interest OSM, it doesn't seem to be unfair to ask for:

  • pro-forma accounts (as I understand MM is not formerly incorporated and as a consequence is essentially not subject to any formal controls financial and other)
  • a list of any donations and associated donors that were earmarked for MM and either given directly or via member organisations.

A further note. MM and the ARC seem to assume that repeatedly spending funds on and talking to the same companies inside the beltway amounts to engaging the OSM community, it doesn't.

Addressing scheme (why not?) 8 months ago

While most OSM contributors will agree with you that the two cases you list turn up often enough that they need a solution, the solutions are already here and have been in use for a long time:

  • multiple addresses in one building: multiple address nodes, or if known addresses on the entrances nodes

  • large site with multiple buildings: site relations.

The former doesn't need any special support, the later is currently not rendered in the standard style (there are some technical hurdles before that happens). But as always there in OSM there is always an interaction between use of a specific mapping scheme and its support in the tools, simply use it more and it will get more support.


Volunteered Geographic Information … why, that's us! 8 months ago

Hmm the underlying issue in the analysis is that it is somehow based on the assumption a) VGI has specific quality issues that "professional" information doesn't have, and b) that the liability issues are significantly different for VGI based sites. Neither would seem to be true.

Statistical data of the Dutch OSM mappers. 9 months ago

There are regularly mappers that return after numerous years of no activity (numerous as in more than half a decade). Obviously not a large number, but then OSM was a -lot- smaller then.

Whats in the pipeline for the next Vespucci release? 9 months ago

@mikke see unluckily the oh spec is very complex and difficult to map to a reasonable UI which is the only reason it is delayed.

Myth of Newbie 9 months ago

@all, not new, many times discussed:

We not only have an aversion against mass mailings, to do so with the current user base would be at least in a legal grey area in many many countries (which also happen to be those in which we have the largest new mapper influx).

Obviously the legal bit could be circumvented with an opt-in option during the sign-up process, which however would have its own problems and would only effect new sign ups.

Whats in the pipeline for the next Vespucci release? 9 months ago

@RobJN You are spinning what I wrote for political leverage.

Naturally I value the hit and run contributions just as I said, it is just that trying to force them to use an OSM editor -doesn't- value them as what they are, people that what to add something small that they noticed was missing or fix a spelling error etc. without having to actually engage with OSM. Editors are the --COMPLETLY-- wrong tool for that, (that includes all the so called (broken) "simple" editors).

Whats in the pipeline for the next Vespucci release? 9 months ago

@RobJN that naturally leads to the question: what is a non-OSMer supposed to be doing with an OSM editor?

Seriously, the changes are mainly geared towards making the common use cases faster and simpler for users with a reasonable knowledge of OSM. It is not targeted at users that have no further interest than a hit and run contribution, just as any other editor in OSM space (iD, P1/P2, JOSM). For hit and run contributors (nothing against them except that we don't cater for them) we don't really have any non-broken solution outside of submitting a note.

Whats in the pipeline for the next Vespucci release? 9 months ago

@santamariense you don't have to change anything see (note that vespucci uses a different (better) translation system).

OSM braucht ein neues openstreetbugs 10 months ago

Ich kann mich nur MarkusHD anschliessen irgendwie hast du die letzten 2 Jahre verpasst, OSM Notes erlaubt essentiell alles was du forderst und es gibt auch genügen Apps die die API unterstützen. D.h. nicht das es an der Notes API nichts zu verbessern gäbe, aber das ist eher im Detail als grundsätzlich.

Du kannst auch falls du das Gefühl hast gewisse Tags fehlen oft einen entsprechenden TEst für OSMOSE vorschlagen (aber vermutlich gibts den eh schon).

Updated contributor stats 10 months ago

@EdLoach there has at least been hint at some seasonality in the past. I had a look at the per country new contributor stats and they really show that there was a bit of shortfall across the board with the exception of Germany, the US being something over 300 new contributors lower than average.

OpenStreetMap active users 10 months ago

Paul did you remove zero-edit changesets? Up to at least March 2011 they are quite significant distorting factor see

How to draw the buildings in ID editor 10 months ago

Not to mention that per object source tags are in general not needed and worse tend to be nonsensical in the long run.

What comes first, Map or Database? Should we tell newbies the truth? 10 months ago

@BushmanK ehhh I was actually agreeing with you, pls go back and re-read my comment. The only thing I was pointing out is that the discussion is not in any way new. For example the reoccuring theme of if we should actually show a map on at all, or if something more like would be better.

10.000 broken Turn_Restriction in the OSM Planet File 10 months ago

Funneling the information in to maproulette would probably make more sense (or in to osmose)

What comes first, Map or Database? Should we tell newbies the truth? 10 months ago

You've touched on a subject that is rather controversial and I've pointed out many times that there is no point on jumping on newbies, sometimes not even "new", screaming it's a database when we don't actually say that upfront or even anywhere hidden. The text on the wiki you are referring to goes back to at least so this has been a problem that has been with the project since the beginning.

We have a similar "we a can't tell newbies the truth" situation with relations (which are in reality a simple concept).

Improving the OSM map - why don't we? [12] 10 months ago

Actually ... the concept of attaching a source tag (except in extraordinary) circumstances to an object has been defunct since the introductions of changesets,, 5 years or so ago and it has been not considered good practice for multiple years.

Portable OSM 10 months ago

I wasn't suggesting that JOSM would fit your needs, just that the basic principle is not new, and that there is a large body of experience with the issues. Matter of fact every non-broken OSM editor has to handle the problems with syncing edits to the central API and dealing with conflicts to some extent. Naturally there is some value in being able to stage edits in some fashion to avoid network problems and similar, none of the current editors really deals gracefully with that, but that is a long long way from requiring a full OSM stack replacement.

Portable OSM 10 months ago

The main issue I see is that this is being developed in its own sub-culture without any interaction with major parts of the OSM dev community. More specific OSM has had distributed editing and syncing with the central API for ages, for example with JOSM (not to mention any other editor that support offline storage and conflict resolution ie Vespucci).

However anybody who has edited over longer periods with JOSM without syncing knows that the end result can be very very messy, and the project as outlined has the potential to produce conflicts in abundance. It is unclear how the AMR is proposing to avoid this. No go Zones? Zap any non-AMR edits? ????

Non-searchable = Non-existent 10 months ago

google used to return individual OSM objects quite prominently, they seem to have stopped doing that. Can't blame them, they -are- a competitor and why should they give us preferential treatment.

There has been some work on providing OSM data in a more search engine friendly way (well actually in a more search result friendly way) however that hasn't been completed yet and in any case it is completly unclear if that would help with the competitive issue.