Changeset: 63276497
Canton Fribourg: add and update info about more villages
Closed by donovaly
Tags
changesets_count | 5611 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.11.1 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Bing aerial imagery |
locale | de |
Discussion
-
Comment from Marc_ch
Bonjour,
je ne saisis pas pourquoi vous avez créer un village pour Belmont-Broye alors que c'est une commune et qu'elle est déjà renseignée.
Par ailleurs quel est la source/date pour les maj des populations ?
je pensais que l'information par village n'était plus disponible depuis la fusion.
Salutations,
Marc -
Comment from donovaly
> je ne saisis pas pourquoi vous avez créer un village pour Belmont-Broye
My French is too bad, thus I reply in English (use Google translate):
Every municipality has to appear in the map. This is common for all printed maps I know. Take for example the german municipality "Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/240043543#map=14/50.5417/7.1236It consists of former 3 villages. In all printed maps, as well as in all online maps, the new name of the merged villages is printed.
I stumbled over this issue for Swiss municipalities because I was recently invited to come to the Lucerne village "Escholzmatt-Marbach" but there was not such a village when I searched for it in OSM. In my printed route map I have as backup in my car, the village was printed.
-----------
For merges villages I put in the last known number if inhabitant because i see this is done everywhere in the Wikipedia, not only in Switzerland. Of course it will become outdated soon, so it could also be omitted.
-
Comment from Marc_ch
Hello,
yes feel free to reply in English if you prefer.
adding missing village is fine but Belmont-Broye is not a village, it's a municipality.
every map style decide if it want to render village or municipality, we don't tag for the render, we don't create fake village only to force a "village-name-map" to show municipality name like a village.
the search work fine for a municipality https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Belmont-Broye
for population tag, the main issue is the licence of the source. wikipedia, because it allow to copy not-open data, is not a allowed source for an import into osm.
see no 2 in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Wikipedia_users
and also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata#Importing_data_from_Wikidata_into_OSM
I 'll ask talk-ch for a valid source to update population tag with an allowed source.
it's why the source tag before uploading your changeset is so usefull, despite iD doesn't make its input intuitive.Regards,
Marc -
Comment from donovaly
> Belmont-Broye is not a village, it's a municipality.
Yes, I talked about municipalities. As I wrote, you can grab any map of your choice and you will find there printed e.g the name of e.g. "Dessau-Rosslau". This is just a municipality without a center because it consists of 2 former towns.
As I see the official admin.ch statistics, Belmont-Broye is a normal subject like e.g. Murten. So I cannot see why OSM should
- not treat municipalities as villages or towns like all other maps around
- differentiate between subjects merged recently or in the past. I mean, take e.g. "Freital" (means "free valley") in Germany. This is the result of merges in the 1920s and nobody would come to the idea that this is just a municipality without a real grown center. Thus OSM also uses Freital as tag "town":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/240024401> wikipedia, because it allow to copy not-open data, is not a allowed source for an import into OSM.
Wikipedia takes the data automatically from admin.ch. These date are free to be published and that's why Wikipedia uses them. I cannot read out from your link that taking official admin.ch values grabbed by Wikipedia with free license cannot be used for OSM.
If this would be forbidden, then please write this down clearly for average users than me. I am a normal guy with cycling as hobby and I benefit from OSM and just ant to give something back. I am not a law expert and I don't think OSM can expect this. -
Comment from Marc_ch
Creating fake villages to see the name displayed on the map is NOT a good argument. Murten is listed as a city and as a municipality because the city and the municipality have the same name, it has nothing to do with the date of creation or merge.
Avenches for example is a merged municipality. The main village is also called Avenches, which is why Avenche is in osm as a city + municipality.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1425180889
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1868682
but each of the 2 objects describes something different, a village is not the same as a municipality.
As there is NO village called Belmont-Broye, there is no place=village in osm with the name Belmont-Broye.for admin.ch/swisstopo invalid licence
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/Datasources#Not-compatible_data_sources
I think you're perfectly aware of that, given the massive problem with street names before that, isn't it ?Regards,
Marc -
Comment from donovaly
> Creating fake villages to see the name displayed on the map is NOT a good argument. Murten is listed as a city and as a municipality because the city and the municipality have the same name,
You don't understand me. Take these villages and towns:
"Clermont-Ferrand"
"Attnang-Puchheim "
"Dessau-Rosslau"All are the result of a merge. The name did not exist in advance not do they had a historical center. Take any map of your choice and you will find them there as towns. So in 3 other countries in Europe municipalities appear on maps like villages and towns but not in Swiss OSM? And note that also Bing and Google do so for Swiss municipalities.
So why is there a different rule only for Swiss OSM? and where is this defined and who defined this?> for admin.ch/swisstopo invalid licence
You just claim this. But why does then Wikipedia, take these values automatically? Do you say, Wikipedia is violating the Swiss law? I cannot imagine that. And if you think so, please contact the Wikipedia guys because they have lawyers and can tell you why they are using the data and why this is legal.
> I think you're perfectly aware of that, given the massive problem with street names before that, isn't it ?
No and I am still pissed of how I was treated. Some OSM guys said I did something illegal. I organized a lawyer who said, he doesn't agree and that he thinks I did nothing illegally. I send some OSM admin my real name and offered help in clarification of the issue. And you know what? Nothing happened. I was not invited to a meeting to discuss it there, nobody wanted to hear what my lawyer said nor did anybody had an interest to start a lawsuit to get a final decision by a court and/or to get some attention from politicians to change the rules accordingly.
I was even blocked without a possibility to speak. That is like a trial where the accused person is not allowed to show off and speak how he sees the issue. -
Comment from Marc_ch
Clermont-Ferrand is a CITY (it doesn't care if it's a new or old one), you see "welcome to Clermont-Ferrand city" traffic sign when you go there, you see it on traffic sign destination it's why a place=city exist for Clermont-Ferrand.
it's also a municipality and it's why osm also have a 2nd objet for the municipality.
For Belmont-Broye, the traffic sign said : "Domdidier/Dompierre/Léchelles/Russy village (a part of Belmont-Broye municipality)". it's why osm have one place=village for each of the 4 villages but no place=village for Belmont-Broye.that's not a special rule for Swiss, that a commun rule for osm : add objects for what they ARE and not for what YOU want to SEE rendered on the map. don't tag for the render, don't tag "to make a clone of Bing/Google/another map" !
Wikipedia : did you clic and read my previous link ?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata#Importing_data_from_Wikidata_into_OSM
Wikipedia and osm rules are NOT the same.
I never said that wikipedia is wrong nor illegal, i said wikipedia/wikidata/osm rules for source are not the same.Licence for SwissTopo : I would be very happy to see a court decision or a political decision to switch all Swisstopo datas to an open licence but today this is not true. you are free to sue Swisstopo if you want, you don't need anyone's agreement. but osm is not the right place to experiment with data import when the (c) does not allow it.
I didn't participate in the discussion about street names, but by reading your 11 comments on the changeset found in the block message, I think everyone have talked, the problem is that you don't seem to accept the osm rule about the valid source. What is certain is that even if you don't agree, you can't ignore that copying Swisstopo data is a PROBLEM. you can't say it's not written or that you don't know ! I very unhappy that we can NOT copy data from Bing/Google/SwissTopo but deliberately breaking the rules is a waste of time for everyone since it will end up in a revert. there's a lot of useful things to do.So please don't use Bing/Google/SwissTopo to create osm data and don't create place=village with the municipality when no village exist with this name.
Also don't import wikidata without looking at the source. wikidata is not a bypass to import not-allowed source for osm.
osm is not wikipedia. a source maybe be valid for widipedia/wikidata but not for osm. every survey I made is valid for osm but doesn't allow me to create a wikipedia for every objet I add in osm.I hope you understand what I mean.
PS: for the population value, I've posted to talk-ch to check what is possible/allowed.
Regards,
Marc -
Comment from donovaly
Clermont-Ferrand is a CITY (it doesn't care if it's a new or old one),
As I wrote also according to Swiss law it doesn't matter if a merged municipality has a new name or an existing one and if it is a city or village. They all get a BFS number and in all maps I see so far (just checked the printed maps they sell at gas stations) they print merged municipalities as if they are normal villages. And so does also other online maps do. Moreover also for Germany and Austria OSM does so as well. So why should there be a special rule for the Swiss part of OSM?
> Wikipedia : did you clic and read my previous link?
Sure. And there is a red box with "Do not copy any information from Wikidata into OSM without checking its legal status"
I met the German Wiipedia guys once in Berlin and discussed with them. They are very accurate with the things the automatically import and their work cannot be compared to e.g. the English Wikipedia. The Germans won the vast majority of copyright lawsuits and they check everything as best as possible with their lawyers.
I am no lawyer and cannot discuss with you legal issues. But I encourage you to speak with the German/Swiss Wikipedia guys before you forbid yourself to use their data while its usage is most probably legal. If the Wikipedia guys state that their admin.ch import might be problematic for OSM, I accept that. If this is the case, please communicate this to the OSM users.
Nodes (5)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |