jongleur1983 has commented on the following diary entries
|Can someone replace all blvd with boulevard||4 months ago||
Hi Charles, unfortunately big parts of the US are tagged with short names, including Blvd, St, Dr and more. The first that should be done IMHO is to agree in the US community that names should not be abbreviated - as it's the most common sense in the rest of the world of OSM.
I'm from Germany and very careful to mass-retag stuff like that in a foreign country, although sometimes it's itching to do so when looking at the map in areas where that's happening a lot.
|Does it render?||8 months ago||
Hi, still a nice tool - but still open issues IMHO... it says it renders the tag name - yes it does, but only for some objects, as the name tag isn't rendered anywhere any more. natural=coastline in fact is rendered as well, but treated differently and thus not occuring in the stylesheet.
And of course it would be really(!) great to get a list of sample renderings for a tag that DOES render ;) (which of course may be out of scope for you)
|OSM in Ostwestfalen-Lippe||8 months ago||
wenns irgendwie passt wär ich dabei.
|Wie man falsche Straßennamen in OSM ausmerzt.||10 months ago||
Herzlich willkommen bei OSM, obwohl du zeitlich gesehen ja gar nicht mehr so neu bist ;)
Ich möchte darauf hinweisen, dass Google nicht nur stellenweise fehlerhaft ist, sondern vor allem ist Google Maps keine erlaubte Quelle für OSM. Die Straßenlistenauswertung verlinkt Google, damit wir als Mapper ungefähr wissen, wo wir nachgucken müssen. Dadurch kann man gut seinen nächsten Mapping-Spaziergang oder -Umweg planen, aber die Daten von Google dürfen bitte NICHT in OSM verwandt werden!!!
Vielleicht willst Du das auch nochmal deutlicher machen. Nichts ist schlimmer, als hinterher Zeugs wieder löschen und auseinanderklamüsern zu müssen, weil jemand doch Daten z.B. von Google Maps übernommen hat.
|OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike||11 months ago||
I disagree in many of your points. Where I agree with you is the issue with documentation and decisions: What's allowed and what is not? What's possible, what is not? There's too less information on that, too less use cases by example in the field of mixing data; but that's not a problem of the license or one of the share-alike principle, but a problem of documentation and clear communications.
Where do I disagree? You take the Wheelmap as an example. In fact the wheelmap bases it's data approach on the OSM database as a foundation. It's not possible to add POIs there but only to mark existing ones as accessible or not. If they would use another foundation for their POIs, even if they would use osm as a background map, sharing these POIs on all maps would be indeed possible. They could even use different POI sources as well and allow marking these with the corresponding accessibility tag; but as far as I know the operators of the wheelmap I guess they in contrast are happy to have a useful application based on free data and free applications, incontrast to what they had in the early stages of their project, where they as far as I remember started by using Google as background map. What's google maps useful for Wheelmap if you consider missing stairs, steps, footways and so on? Not to mention missing information about the existence on footways etc we are incomplete yet in OSM too of course. Who should use google maps if there are usable, useful apps based on osm data?
You take the example of the public sector that is not using osm because their data is public domain (in the US) and therefore they're not allowed to publish the mixed database (osm + pd data) under the more open license (PD) again. But what's the problem? If they have better data they don't need osm, if their data is worth they should be free to publish the combination under ODbL and their own stuff as PD. Nobody, neither any company nor any government, can control the dataset of osm, so working on osm directly with their database isn't helpful for any government as long as mappers are free to change the data according to the facts, other tagging schemes or whatever else. So the duplication of the database (one internal, one external, even if the internal is published in the same state) will remain. In some areas Governments in fact use OSM today: for online maps (e.g. the white house, many cities in Germany and so on), for issue reporting systems (missing an example link, but I remember at least one example), maintaining fire hydants internally and many more. What's perhaps different in the US compared to most parts of the world is, that the public data is even more freely licensed than OSM. In other countries (e.g. Germany) the opposite is the case, and especially in Germany governments often are happy to have OSM as the public data is located at another division/ministry/level of the government and the using agency would have to pay there, too.
About Wikipedia: In fact Wikipedians much less care about licenses of their sources as they count most sources as citation source with less barriers about copyright. As single coordinates, manually taken from OSM are below most barriers according to copyright, this isn't a problem, but I'm sure - no, I KNOW, that wikipedia even takes coordinates from Google Maps which is far more restrictive licensed. The import from Wikipedia to OSM isn't that big problem either because most data Wikipedia has is much less detailled than we want it to be, e.g. according to coordinates, so most often we have to check ground truth before, and then looking into wikipedia for inspiration is allowed of course. To complete your argument (as that's not clear from your article): In fact Wikipedia uses osm as the base map, too.
If we would drop the share-alike, players like Google would pick the best additions from OSM, adding OSM as one of many data sources and even less people would be lead to OSM as possible mappers. In contrast Google nobody would need OSM any more as the google maps would be worth to be corrected by google map maker and the like.
If you drop share-alike, you democratize the data, but monopolize the users to some very few, where OSM might not be part of itself.
To the quote of Serve you gave I would add for many parts of Germany: Because OSM has better and more detailled data. The only thing we don't have (yet) are aerial imagery we can use directly. We have building that Google doesn't have in most parts of the world; we have footways google doesn't have, and we have many more cycleways google lacks of.
|OpenWeatherMap for Leaflet - an update||almost 2 years ago||
Hi. Is that update not online, yet? Your screenshot shows correct attribution, but the owm website itself claims osm data still to be under CCBYSA.
|Rapid adding of building=entrance (and similar) nodes||about 3 years ago||
I'm a little bit confused about your advise to "nicely distribute the entrance nodes". Please don't do that. Place entrance nodes where the entrances are.