OpenStreetMap

dieterdreist has commented on the following diary entries

Post When Comment
Towers and Masts 4 days ago

@TomH while I agree it can be seen like this, (and is actually the case with some tags), it is kind of risky, because most people do not look up definitions, and editors presets present the tags mostly with a one-word description that repeats the tag name, so the actual word used for the tag IS important. It's almost impossible to establish a tag with a different meaning than the word that is use to describe it.

Towers and Masts 4 days ago

Actually there is more to towers and masts than just looking whether they are freestanding or guyed. There are indeed "guyed towers". There are several definitions, and there are subtypes. For example a "power tower" is quite different from a man_made=tower. For towers, the key "tower:type" is quite important.

Another distinction for example is whether the structure is made for people to access (and maybe remain as opposed to maintenance only). Masts are not buildings (in a technical way of "building") while towers are (in OSM "building" is also often used for what technically are structures and not buildings).

This being said, I do agree that the difference between a mast and a tower is not the size. I would use a criterion like: can you (people) enter the structure, and would also look at freestanding vs. guyed, but accept exceptionally towers to be guyed, and generally masts to also be not guyed, for instance to me these are all masts: http://www.windturbinestar.com/uploads/images/Type%20of%20towers.png This one could be seen as tower: http://media05.myheimat.de/2014/04/26/3077610_web.jpg?1398514834

Basically, accessibility (for more than maintenance) should be the main distinctive criterion.

Short history of name editing in MAPS.ME about 1 month ago

Yes, I agree with Polyglot that keeping name:.. makes sense in all cases, but unfortunately it is not sufficient. We should rather go for something more explicit in the long run, e.g. dropping the "name"-tags all together and always require a language postfix for all names. Additionally there could be a tag to say which is/are the local default names, e.g. ground-language=de or "de;it" etc. Why are name:... tags not sufficient? Example: an place: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/72959652 name=Roma and also name:ace, name:an, name:ast, name:ay, .... are all "Roma", you can't tell in which of these languages the name tag is.

Short history of name editing in MAPS.ME about 1 month ago

regarding your list of countries and languages, Germany has a few more languages, but very restricted to small regions, e.g. sorbian (code wen): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbian_languages

In Italy there's a bunch of languages in different regions, officially recognized at the same level as Italian is AFAIK only German in Southtyrol, but there are other areas with different languages in use, e.g. in Sardines or in the Aosta area.

Generally it seems useful to add both, name and name:local-default language code, because otherwise you can't tell. In these multilingual areas both names are tagged in the name tag plus both name:language =*

In Italy there's currently discussion and maybe a vote how to deal with officially less recognized but used local names in local languages, e.g. on the sardinian island.

Super-broad "self-explanatory" tags 3 months ago

I agree with BushmanK.

While it is true that the precise meaning of what you can expect labeled under a certain term will vary across regions (for example in a German supermarket or petrol station you can expect to be able to buy cigarettes, in Italy you will never see cigarettes at a supermarket and very rarely at a petrol station (only if there is a tobacco shop integrated)).

BUT: the big issue with the midwife proposal is that the description of the tag, although it is very short and doesn't describe a lot, explicitly excludes some services that are part of the profession in many countries (assisting with giving birth outside of a hospital) and it includes services that are specific to some countries (e.g. advisory services for contraceptives, generally non-pregnancy/birth related services).

Bing contra Wirklichkeit 3 months ago

sorry, hatte überlesen dass Du die Stelle kennst

Bing contra Wirklichkeit 3 months ago

Bist Du mal zu der Stelle hingefahren? Nur auf Basis von GPS-Tracks, auch wenn es viele sind, kann man sich nicht 100% sicher sein, es könnte zum einen sein, dass die immer vom selben Gerät mit derselben Korrektur aufgenommen sind (Strecke die ein bestimmter Mapper regelmäßig fährt), oder dass es einen systematischen Fehler durch Reflexion gibt. Wahrscheinlicher ist allerdings ein Problem in Bing, im Detail sind die voller solcher Probleme.

Why Search and Rescue Organizations Must Map Out Cellular Phone Towers in OpenStreetMap 4 months ago

These stories sound like those sensational tv "documentaries" the US is selling worldwide. Typical fud. If you really need phone coverage in the middle of nowhere you should have a look at satellite phones. With any modern smartphone you hardly can get a day of operation (batterywise), a good paper map(s) should be one of the things you bring on your expedition into the remote areas, a good tent and enough water supplies are also helpful.

A look into a sample of edits from MAPS.ME contributors 4 months ago

I agree with the analysis of Tomas Straupis, from my experience the edits with really nothing to criticize are more in the 5-10% range, while the rest has more or less severe issues, including changing name tags to localized names, creating duplicate features (for both, node and area features creating duplicate nodes is quite common), creating features without classification (just a name and maybe a tag that says nothing, like tourism=attraction), adding housenumbers to areas that are much bigger than to where the number actually applies, bad positioning of objects (in areas where buildings are mapped and displayed in maps.me you shouldn't put the features (like hotels and restaurants) right between 2 buildings or in the middle of the road), or bad classification (e.g. B&B added as hotel or hostel), and bad formatting (of phone numbers, website urls, addresses, etc.). Very few of them are actual vandalism, most of them seem to stem from little knowledge how stuff works in OSM and little time dedicated to perform the edit.

Maps.me is a new evil (instead of Potlatch)? 5 months ago

Nice writeup, BushmanK. I agree with your points. The main difference between Maps.me editor and the ones we've seen in the past is the userbase. The amount of edits is unprecedented, and it takes more ressources of the established contributors to fix all the problems that get introduced.

I believe maps.me should fix very quickly: - the internationalisation problem (names overwritten or amended with foreign/translated names) - remove whitespace at start and end of values - integrate current data to avoid conflicts - better normalize tags in general (wikipedia, website, phone)

Also the measures suggested by Blackbird27 (more community integration, tutorial/text about osm, links to osm wiki) should be enabled.

From an Italian perspective, it is also problematic that users are encouraged to add housenumbers to buildings, because they only apply to entrances and buildings have many housenumbers.

A very frequent problem I've seen lots of times are POIs in the middle of the road, even if the buildings have already been present in OSM.

Arme OSMF 5 months ago

Ich verstehe ehrlich gesagt nicht ganz, was die Einzelförderung der KnightFoundation an Mapbox in der Aufstellung zu suchen hat. AFAIK hat Mapbox Millionen an Venturekapital erhalten, ist eine gewinnorientierte Firma, und mit der OSMF daher in überhaupt keiner Hinsicht zu vergleichen.

Interessanter wäre es evtl., Wikimedia, OKFN und andere freie Wissensprojekte mit der OSMF zu vergleichen. Bei HOT müsste man mal sehen, wofür das Geld ausgegeben wird, ob das nur Personalkosten in der Verwaltung sind, oder auch Auslandseinsätze in Krisengebieten finanziert werden etc. Nur die nackten Zahlen sagen nicht viel.

Group of buildings imported in Boscoreale, Italy 6 months ago

thank you for your notice, your diary post has been cited on the Italian mailing list and currently we are verifying the issue.

JOSM reaches version 10000 in its 10th year 9 months ago

A huge THANK YOU to all the people involved in the development! JOSM is by far the best editor for OSM, the richness of its feature set is uncontested and the workflow perfectly adapted to the actual needs of the mappers.

Mapping small / lesser known businesses in Slums of Mumbai 9 months ago

I think it's perfectly fine to add them to OSM. You can also add a phone-numer with the tag "phone", an Email with the tag "email" and a website with the tag "website", but I'd consider these as attributes to a main tag. This main tag should tell what it is about, e.g. with the tags "shop" and/or "craft" (wouldn't use shop for exclusive B2B I think). If these tags are not sufficient to describe what this is about, add subtags, try to formally describe what they are and what they offer. The tag "description" can be used as a last resort (free text, no formalization), but it isn't very suitable for describing stuff the osm way because it is working bad for semantic searches. I suggest you better extend the tagging system if the current tags are not sufficiently detailed rather than stuffing evering into the description.

building=terrace... 10 months ago

Hier ein Reallife Beispiel für eine signifikante Terrasse: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrazza_Mascagni

building=terrace... 10 months ago

ich finde den tag für Reihenhäuser auch extrem schlecht, weil es eine Verkürzung ist, Reihenhäuser als "terrace" zu bezeichnen, während es eigentlich "terraced_house" heissen müsste. Echte Terrassen, wie sollen die dann getaggt werden? Z.B. hier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrace_%28building%29

New Users 10 months ago

Inspired by your post I have counted the welcome messages that I have sent out in the past 2 years (exactly 100 if I do 2 years+1week), and how many replied (expected to be in the same range as you, but now discovered a significantly higher reply rate, for this term it was 27 replies). I often did not write to everybody just because she was new though, but rather picked those people that seemed more interested than the average newbie (i.e. more than one or two edits), and in particular I did often not write to apparent business owners (who had a profile name that sounded like a business and who only added this one business). In the more recent mails I also did not invite them to face to face meetings (because we don't do them right now). My text is like this: a welcoming paragraph, followed by a paragraph of stuff I have noticed looking at her first edits, followed by a paragraph where to find more information and help (e.g. regional and national mailing list, wiki, learnosm.org). I consider crucial the part where I comment their edits, because it shows them that it isn't just a standard copy and paste mail, and it makes them more involved.

Improving the OSM map - why don't we? [12] 11 months ago

actually I agree with Simon, a source tag on the object might at most make sense at version 1 but as soon as you modify something pre-existing you come into trouble: you have to weigh the importance of your modification and its source against the source of the previous edits. What do you do, add your source to the existing one? Replace the old one with the new one? Conceptually the source belongs to the edit, not to the object.

About Huts 11 months ago

nice post. I agree with Malenki, please don't advocate for nodes and parametric tags, use (reasonably noded) osm ways.

Picturing Proposed Development at Josephite Seminary in DC 11 months ago

My best compliments for your first steps in urban planning. Nevertheless, as an architect, I hope my colleagues who are going to design the project in your neighbourhood will come up with a more sophisticated project than what you are showing above ;-) (I'm allowing myself this comment as you state yourself that you suppose there's a lack of architectural finesse in this first sketch).