Minh Nguyen's Diary Comments
Diary Comments added by Minh Nguyen
Post | When | Comment |
---|---|---|
'Tower of Hanoi' technique for mapping buildings | The second screenshot shows the result of moving the building areas to align them with the base of the building rather than its roofline. For tall buildings, the subject of this diary post, it will appear misaligned unless you pay close attention to the shadows. This is relevant when using an imagery layer that isn’t perfectly orthorectified – which is essentially every available layer. Sometimes if I know that most of the buildings are approximately the same height, I’ll temporarily offset the imagery layer so I don’t have to move the buildings after drawing them. But in this example, the buildings appear to have varying heights and even uneven roofs. 😣 |
|
Dismistifying Wikidata and standards compliant semantic approach on tags on OpenStreetMap to make tooling smarter on medium to long term | I don’t want to distract from the main topic, but since you seemed to be troubled by Mapbox’s flag in this sidenote:
Sorry you found this intimidating. OSMCha has an API that allows individual features in a changeset to be flagged as “suspicious” for a particular reason. Not every flagged feature is rejected; OSMCha itself sometimes applies suspicious reasons like “New mapper” and “Possible import” that only serve as a heads-up to someone doing a manual review at Mapbox or elsewhere. Mapbox’s data team flagged this way as appearing to be fictional, as it looks like someone doodling a road through a populated place without any resemblence to aerial imagery. (You can find the specific feature by clicking the ⚠️ tab.) Perhaps you had meant to draw something else but accidentally tagged it as a road? You’re welcome to use these flags to detect and fix errors too. In any event, Mapbox accepted the rest of your changeset; for example, you can already see this road in Mapbox maps. If you don’t have a Mapbox account, you can check using this example page or a map by one of Mapbox’s customers. OSMCha doesn’t track how many flagged features you’ve accrued, so even a false positive shouldn’t be an ongoing problem for you. OSMCha does track how many changesets its users rate as good or bad. Review teams at Mapbox or elsewhere could theoretically consider this statistic when judging whether to scrutinize a changeset more closely. Hope this addresses your concern. (For full disclosure, I work at Mapbox but not on the teams involved with this software or process.) |
|
Dismistifying Wikidata and standards compliant semantic approach on tags on OpenStreetMap to make tooling smarter on medium to long term | Thanks for taking the time to explain more about the purpose and reasoning behind Wikidata and Wikibase. It’s entirely possible that some of the misunderstanding and reticence that persists today can be traced to some early missed opportunities to explain these unfamiliar concepts patiently and effectively. At least that was my takeaway when compiling a bibliography of OSM discussions about Wikidata. As many of us discovered at this weekend’s joint conference, “WikiConference North America + Mapping USA”, an increasing number of people in both the OSM and Wikimedia communities are interested in exploring what our projects can accomplish together. Personally, I think the best way to overcome the skepticism about Wikidata is to demonstrate the value of the currently limited integration in the form of creative visualizations, analyses, and tools. |
|
Adding buildings with RapiD - what to do with existing address nodes? |
I think a more general way of putting it is that sometimes an address applies to the entire building (every room on every floor) or even the entire property encompassing the building.1 In this case, tagging the building itself with address tags explicitly tells other mappers that the building is complete in OSM and there are no more addresses to add. It also makes it easier for data consumers to determine the extent of an address (similar to how a boundary provides information that a lone place node does not). The prevalence of this case depends on the local addressing practices. In parts of the U.S. that I’m familiar with, it’s quite common for a retail or commercial building in an urban or suburban area to have just one street address (often but not always with individually numbered units within). Some postal codes in New York City consist of just one tall building with one street address. On the other hand, if a single building occupies an entire city block, the whole building may have as many as four overlapping street addresses, one for each bounding street. The addresses may be used interchangeably, or each address may be for a specific purpose (e.g., mail versus wayfinding versus taxation). One way to account for both of these cases while preserving the benefits above is to draw an address area coincident with the building. This already happens sometimes due to 3D and indoor mapping. However, some data consumers (such as openstreetmap-carto) are currently unable to handle address areas unless tagged with another primary feature tag. So tagging the building itself would be a more compatible approach. Either an addressed building or a coincident area would make it easier for geocoders to associate entrances with an address for routing purposes. By comparison, if a geocoder encounters an address node floating within a building, it can’t be sure that all the building’s entrances can reach the unit with that address, versus another address that may or may not have been mapped yet.
|
|
New York minor civil subdivisions - status and progress |
Last year, there was a proposal to use the Census Bureau’s urbanized areas as the basis for Ultimately, there’s no purely data-driven method for correctly sizing every place label on a map without some degree of human judgment. As you say, the
To me, this use case doesn’t sound fundamentally different than searching for your state legislator’s constituent service office, police precinct, school board office, or power utility office. In general, we aren’t mapping service areas as boundaries, but some government offices happen to have service areas that conform to an administrative boundary. Even so, it’s up to the user to do their homework about which local office can help them. In some states, things get too complicated to express in tags. For example, San José’s water utility – a bona fide part of city government – serves only 12% of the city, not including where I live. For most purposes, the county sheriff’s office serves unincorporated areas but not cities and towns. In a neighboring county, the county’s public health department doesn’t serve one city that has their own public health department. There’s a contract city nearby that contracts with other governments to provide basic services and generally doesn’t provide services “in house”. As long as there’s a distinct item for the government as opposed to the place, then both the boundary and office could be tagged with the same |
|
New York minor civil subdivisions - status and progress | The thought you’re putting into this boundary mapping and cleanup effort is setting a great example for us to follow in other states that have their own vagaries.
You’ve just justified a one-off exception for Saranac Lake, which would allow you to set a rounder overall threshold that doesn’t sound so arbitrary. Some mappers may be inclined to second-guess or ignore arbitrary-sounding rules.
It sounds like these particular imported CDPs are coincidentally coincident to real places that should have been mapped as administrative areas but, like minor civil divisions, were omitted from the TIGER boundary import. You may want to add
I’ve been using If the office must be a member of the boundary relation, then a
|
|
Adding buildings with RapiD - what to do with existing address nodes? | Cool challenge! In both iD and RapiD, you can select the building area and node and use the Combine operation. (In RapiD, you have to accept the candidate building area first.) As long as the area is being added in your current changeset, the node becomes the area’s northwesternmost vertex, but the tags get transferred from the node to the area. This preserves the node’s history while keeping you from having to manually transfer any tags. If you ever need to transfer tags without combining features, there’s a button above the table of raw tags that switches to a key=value textbox, similar to the Level0 syntax. You can copy-paste tags freely between features using this syntax. Alternatively, you can use the Copy operation to duplicate the original feature, then Combine it with the target feature. |
|
Highway shields, state by state |
By way of an update, the OpenStreetMap Americana project has developed a much better collection of SVG images you can use as shield backgrounds. These images are in the public domain, so you can use them freely. Another resource is Rebusurance, which is designed for user interfaces rather than maps but may be suitable if you need something at a larger size. |
|
What does "privacy" mean for OpenStreetMap? | The Streisand effect is essentially what the original post is about. But I was referring to a question posed in OSMUS Slack about the longtime residence of a politician. The residence’s location had been well-known to residents of the city for many years, but now the politician is important enough that there are security considerations. The question was whether to map the house as anything special or even have it on the map at all. The on-the-ground rule rules out special tagging for the house, and mapping all the houses in the neighborhood skirts the question of whether mapping this particular house will cause any problems. |
|
How I classify urban roads | Thank you for thoroughly documenting your thought process for classifying roads in some of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. As a community, we need more writeups along these lines in order to help us come to a shared understanding about how to classify, not just what classifications have been applied. Traffic control devices are a crucial tool for understanding the intended accessibility and mobility of a given road. I’ve especially found two-way stops to be a bright line between
I agree with distinguishing
While I agree that traffic counts shouldn’t influence road classifications as a matter of first impression, I have found them useful for objectively breaking ties and for mitigating classifications that don’t pass the sniff test, subjectively speaking. Caltrans collects traffic volume data statewide across California and publishes it as Excel spreadsheets and PDFs and as a FeatureServer. Despite ostensibly being licensed under the Creative Commons Attribute license, the dataset is actually in the public domain as a work of a California government agency, and the traffic counts themselves aren’t being copied into OSM anyways.
The needs of various modes of transportation are often at odds with each other. Genuinely accounting for public transportation, cycling, and pedestrian network connectivity would effectively average out and flatten the classification system. For example, the arterial roads across Tucson aren’t equivalent to the city’s bicycle boulevards by any means. Non-car modes of transportation can also benefit from tagging that suggests some kind of road hierarchy, but it’s better to keep these concerns separate and explicit rather than baking some kind of compromise into the primary feature tag. |
|
Towards unified tagging of schools |
How do we know that ISCED is a fitting school classification system in most countries besides the U.S.? Its authors are pretty clear that it isn’t designed for this purpose. The official mappings only go in one direction, from a national classification to ISCED, so mappers have come up with unofficial mappings in the other direction. But even the official mappings use national terminology very loosely, because the goal isn’t really to preserve local distinctions. If ISCED happens to line up well to national classification systems for the countries of interest to you, have you considered replacing the
That’s a fair point: as far as I can tell, |
|
Towards unified tagging of schools |
Some of the other criticisms of the previous ISCED proposal could be applied just as well to the current one, if not moreso. To be clear, these criticisms arise because of the use of ISCED levels in classifying school facilities, but there are possibly other niche uses of the scheme.
The medium of instruction is more commonly tagged as |
|
textual/ortographic fixes to names | It’s officially San José in English, based on the Spanish name, so the debate is about which English name is the main one. As the wiki page suggests, it’s pretty complicated, but currently the unaccented name is the |
|
textual/ortographic fixes to names | (También hay una discusión relacionado sobre los errores tipográficos en los nombres de las iglesias en español.) Thank you for thoroughly documenting your process here. I’ve also encountered a lot of similar spelling mistakes in Spanish-speaking neighborhoods of San José, California. The signs of taquerías, panaderías, and carnicerías are usually posted in ALL CAPS, so the diacritics are omitted for convenience.1 Non–Spanish speakers either don’t know that there should be diacritics or don’t know which ones to use. Sometimes people even remove the diacritics, thinking that’s more faithful to the on-the-ground principle.2 The same problem affects the city’s Vietnamese-speaking neighborhoods so much that I added a short tip to the wiki about how to tag
|
|
Thoughts on the shared bus stop dilemma | Thanks for this detailed description of the problem. My metropolitan area has some 40 different public transportation agencies that all overlap in exciting ways. For example, this train station is shared by two regional commuter railroads and an Amtrak-branded service run by a consortium of local governments. They share the same platforms, more or less, but all have different names, codes, and websites for the same station. One station is especially confusing because one of the railroads calls it by one name, but the railroad is part of the Amtrak network that calls it by a different name. For the most part, we’ve been handling this situation using ad-hoc subkeys like I don’t think we should duplicate nodes to handle these situations. It’s still one bus stop, just with multiple signs and multiple services. The one feature principle comes to mind: duplicating the bus stops would throw off any statistics about the distribution of bus stops, and duplicating stop positions would require fudging some positions at heavily shared stops. (I would favor mapping multiple coincident traffic sign nodes if you’re getting into that level of micromapping, but that’s because there are multiple physical signs.) Instead, I think it would be elegant to add the single bus stop node and single stop position node to multiple Redundant stop areas don’t seem like a big problem to me, because stop areas are abstractions anyways. By analogy, the multiple bus routes that serve this stop can have different networks and route numbers, but there’s no ambiguity as to which network corresponds to which route number, because each route has its own relation. That said, it would be nice to hear the opinion of someone more familiar with public transportation renderers, routers, or QA tools. |
|
What does "privacy" mean for OpenStreetMap? | In the past, when mappers were unsure of whether a feature violates an expectation of privacy or not, a useful rule of thumb has been to consider whether the owner would perceive their property to have been singled out. This has even been a relevant consideration for the otherwise ordinary residences of very famous people. If this episode had played out in a different order, with the woods and other nearby buildings and driveways being mapped alongside the one in question, en masse, perhaps the owner would not have felt threatened by the inclusion of their property. I myself have always ensured that my various places of residence were only ever mapped as part of a large addition of residences and other features. I can see others wanting at least the same level of obfuscation. Unfortunately, in this case, things kept escalating. It’s impossible to say with certainty what would’ve headed off the back-and-forth. But sometimes just waiting for the “wrong” edit to persist for a little while can allow cooler heads to prevail with a more durable solution. They were persistent, but maybe they felt compelled to be extra persistent because of the involvement of multiple mappers, a siege mentality of sorts. Thank you for documenting this case so we can learn from it as a community. Hopefully the time and effort you spent on it won’t be in vain. |
|
Getting to know you | Voting has been suspended, but let’s not lose sight of the problems that this proposal identified and attempted to address. I hope everyone who voted will stick around to help us improve the state of the wiki’s translations. |
|
The unfixable state of township boundaries | The fourth topmost level is the entire focus of this post. 😉 In the U.S., addresses generally follow the format “City, State”, so the municipal boundaries are arguably the most important. But addresses don’t respect boundaries at all anyways. |
|
The unfixable state of township boundaries | The state already thought of that by providing for maritime township boundaries. |
|
Evaluating school classification tagging schemes for the United States | I think what this means for us is that we can only recommend tagging |