Tomas Straupis has commented on the following diary entries

Post When Comment
Sorting route relations 9 months ago

lonvia: brilliant! Putting way twice would also solve a problem of actual route length calculation.

Sorting route relations 9 months ago

So how do you expect non linear and non circular routes being mapped/sorted? Say the route of the shape Q - you start on the end of tail, get into a curcular part, then go back the tail route section to get back to start/end point? Or what has to be done with side trips? Because when its simple linear/circular, you can do as well as josm button "sort relation members" (except showing the start point).

Analysis Walk-thru: How many contributors are editing in each Country? 11 months ago

Normalising with countries population would also be interesting thus giving proportion of mappers in the country.

A look into a sample of edits from MAPS.ME contributors from August over 1 year ago

Ok. So now it looks clear enough. People with little or no OSM experience make some fake* "analysis" just to give some "reference" pages just some days before the conference for garage hacker Zverik to say that "some people say is not SOO bad". Good! Brilliant! Very "trump style"! :-D

From long term OSM mappers attitude: results are still the same. 50% of edits are revertable rubbish. And can be promoted to "the worst thing to happen to OSM ever".


[*] edits from which region? what period? who analysed? what rules? :-D

Responding to suspicious changes almost 2 years ago

Check the image in this blog post:

You can clearly see the contours of Lithuania. That is because people in Lithuania take care and TAKE ACTION fixing errors instead of bragging or enjoying statistics of "increased contribution" which only increase the number of errors much more than increase the amount of useful data (like CRAPS.ME does).

That is there is already enough of QA done with results ignored. Fix that before doing other arbitrary "observations".

Responding to suspicious changes almost 2 years ago

And one more point. Subjective "checks" are pointless. Please add an objective and clear description (rules) what makes a change "bad". HOW do you decide if a change is good or bad (and how do you decide it is "good"). Is it the error rule like one in or osmose, is it a simple rule like "user=Komяpa" (actual rule which was used to find crap) or something else? Otherwise your findings are pointless.

Responding to suspicious changes almost 2 years ago

Do not make simple problem larger. After ten years of practice:

  • If the change brakes something seriously - you revert or fix it straight away and notify the user.
  • If it is a small bug, you fix it and notify a user.
  • If it is something with little impact - just notify a user (and take appropriate action after a day or so if the user does not react).

That is: QUALITY of the map is the priority and then you want a mapper to understand what he/she did wrong and why.

P.S. With one exception. If the change comes from CRAPS.ME user - revert the change and don't even try contacting the user because its pointless. CRAPS.ME users do not realise they are changing OSM maps, they think they are changing "CRAPS.ME" "offline" maps, so they ignore messages from OSM as "irrelevant".

Mapbox reacting to 78 changesets in 3 months!!!! only means they do not understand which changesets are good and which ones are damaging ones.

A look into a sample of edits from MAPS.ME contributors almost 2 years ago

ЮрийИ is one of few who have made numerous edits, but he is not the only one with problem edits. From those in the first page of change stream with clearly rubbish: Totmorgan, Tetukas007. (I'm not counting notes, those are ok anyway, because somebody will review them anyway). In previous two months I have deleted/reverted more than 100 changesets from mapsme users so it is clearly more than those 4% stated in this blog post.

A look into a sample of edits from MAPS.ME contributors almost 2 years ago

Very small number of changesets for good analysis. Maybe that is the reason why results are so different than noted by experienced mappers. It could also be that you simply did not have experience to understand where the problems actually are. You did not present a list of "ok" changesets.

My results from >200 changesets in Lithuania:

  • 50% total rubbish - non existing points, adding russian names, adding addresses to names, adding artworks or castles for "my home" or "a place to meet"
  • 40% more or less clear idea of what was being mapped but it was mapped incorrectly: position hundreds of meters away, duplicate objects etc.
  • 10% more or less ok edits (tags have to be fixed, missing information added, but otherwise ok)

With only 10% of more or less good edits and 0% of edits which could go through without wasting any time of experienced mappers there is a big question if it is better to waste time fixing or it is more practical to simply revert mediocre changes.

Current natural=water scheme inconsistency about 2 years ago

I have nothing against new mappers and new ideas. But people should understand, that we do not start mapping each day from zero. So at least most widespread tags should not be rearanged without a very good reason and wide discussion. There are a lot of data consumers who depend on consistency of tagging. And in the case of water tagging change gives no benefit whatsoever so it should not had come through in the first place.

Current natural=water scheme inconsistency about 2 years ago

Zverik (at least his username) is registered in 2010-05, and in 2011-03 (after 10 MONTHS of participation) he makes a proposal to change one of the most widespread tags... I remember that proposal, but at that time I skipped it because it looked pointless and ungrounded (looks terrible now).

Current natural=water scheme inconsistency about 2 years ago

landuse=reservoir is included in JOSM presets. And most (if not all) power mappers use JOSM.

taginfo says that 367 133 objects are tagged with landuse=reservoir, 145 633 as landuse=basin That is half a MILLION of objects :-)

And it is a known problem when anybody (even people who do more talking than mapping) can have their own "voting" and change tag status...

Current natural=water scheme inconsistency about 2 years ago

This idea of reinventing the wheel in water tagging is totally pointless and onthologically useless. If 10 people voted "in favour" of abandoning landuse, it does not mean that we should all now change our tagging habbits. In some countries we have an agreement to mark specific objects with landuse tags and that agreement predates Zveriks proposal. This new water tagging gives absolutely no benefit I do not see why should we change our conventions and retag all objects. So we continue to tag with landuse and change newbies natural=water to landuse as well.