mikelmaron has commented on the following diary entries
|Picturing Proposed Development at Josephite Seminary in DC||about 1 month ago||
@dieterdreist yes, this is more for conversation. I certainly hope the eventual project is more sophisticated, and that it seriously takes into account other ideas put together by the community.
|A new version of the OSM Edit Report is here!||about 2 months ago||
Thanks for the suggestions @imagico. Both of these improvements have been discussed, and are both complicated for different reasons. Looking forward to share more, when the knotty problems get sorted out.
|Conflation engine Cygnus now in public beta||2 months ago||
Very curious to read more about the process and code Cygnus applies behind the scenes, and how it can be extended to other kinds of features.
|The most inefficient way in North America||2 months ago||
@bdiscoe nice work. would love to see a TileReduce version of this, to make it easy for anyone to run repeatedly in any country
|The history and completeness of OSM||2 months ago||
My understanding is that the methodology is based on random sampling and visual inspection, not on assumptions of distribution of roads. We should be able to investigate more once the code is opened. I agree, 90% sounds a bit high overall, but it is an estimate after all (not something true or false). Many of the numbers align but not completely with https://www.mapbox.com/blog/how-complete-is-openstreetmap/ (where the completeness numbers are comparison against CIA World Factbook), so will be an interesting comparison The trajectory graphs are helpful in a lot of cases to spot some dynamics in communities.
|HOT Voting Member Nomination||3 months ago||
Love the focus on validation ... there are connections to HOT's documentation, activation protocol, and technical developments.
|Missing Maps Workshop at Mapbox-BLR||3 months ago||
Great wisdom Maning!
Some things we put together over the last year on organizing an event, from MapGive http://mapgive.state.gov/box/en/process/event-planning/
|OSM-PH tagging suggestion||4 months ago||
Just seeing this now @maning and it is awesome. I don't think I've seen anything like this before, except in my mind after too much mapping! Super useful perspective, illustrates the process of observation and data creation in the real world.
|How we apply map feedback||10 months ago||
There should be and are many levels to contribute to OSM, so this is a good concept, and thanks for the transparency. To pull out a productive idea, offering a path to users giving feedback (and notes), to get more involved in OSM, is a useful idea.
|HOT 2014 Review||about 1 year ago||
Thanks for your sharing this Sam. I encourage you to open your ears a bit more to what's happening in HOT community and organizationally the last six months. You're already doing this a bit, since you answered the call to document HOT activities in 2014. I see things as substantially improved. Eager to hear more ideas on how we all can be more constructive, together.
|Vision?||over 1 year ago||
Non-editable requests from HOT? You must be confused. Reference please.
|Moabi at State of the Map US||over 1 year ago||
@butrus_butrus: Some data might be appropriate for sharing in OSM, or even being based in OSM. No specific plans at the moment, but something we are continually looking at.
|Moabi at State of the Map US||almost 2 years ago||
Yes, definitely maning. We're gearing up for that, will let you know.
|You can't do this with any other map but OpenStreetMap||almost 2 years ago||
Thanks @lxbarth. I like the idea of highlighting what you can only do with OpenStreetMap, we should collect these. Here's a few more: http://brainoff.com/weblog/2012/02/02/1756
|Is the OpenStreetMap Rails App Appropriate for Other Data Sets?||almost 2 years ago||
@nfgusedautoparts: they may work. but since our use is outside of osm.org properly, we have more latitude in implementing new features.
|OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike||almost 2 years ago||
"require time, good lawyers and programmers" ... that's key to me. Where to invest our time and effort to reach OSM's best potential.
I agree with a lot of the intention @lxbarth lines up, especially making it easier for governments that have made Open Data open to benefit in kind.
But as we can see from the discussion kicked off here, there's not really anything with more opinions in OSM than the license. Moving from cc-by-sa to ODbL was a lengthy, frankly painful, process, and while we learned a lot, I unfortunately couldn't say that any further license change wouldn't take just as long, or longer. Is this a place to invest time again?
Yet, I think we may be able to get a long way with the ODbL. I think it at least worthwhile to share more details on possible legal interpretations. I remember at SotM-US last year, a productive BoF about licensing. Seemed to me like one question, geocoding into 3rd party databases, seemed close to a workable and widely supported realization. There was a lawyer who was interested and seemed to have some ideas about how it could work.
I know lawyers aren't really able to share opinions into the commons themselves, just to their clients. I wonder how we could build up a more collaborative, commons of solid interpretations of the ODbL, which would be clear, and make it easier to answer questions without IANAL. This seems doable to me, but I'm not sure how.
Likewise with the workarounds of using OSM in various. Which while not ideal, I think are also solvable. Can we build up a collection of guidance and recipes by people have built real projects using OSM data in license compatible ways?
|A Social OpenStreetMap.org Without Groups||over 2 years ago||
Just came back here after some time, this post was referenced on another thread. And see, there's some replies. Wish I had a notification!
Alex: Sure, that kind of flexibility on posting permissions/subscription/joining make sense to me. This is how github works, and works well. But earlier you said "Do away with joining groups.", and I disagree. You should be able to join a group, be listed as interested, and tailor your notifications (email or not for all posts, or just in your "news feed").
Tom: That's absolutely what I have in mind, to make all the plethora of OSM activity and tools tailored and convenient to that place/topic. Afaik, hasn't been approached yet in the groups code. Question on my mind is how to make integration of other tools flexible enough, but not too bespoke. What's the easiest way to get started on this?
Now, I think we're close to common ground. Good moment to boil down the discussion here, and pull out the agreed points into design guidance and issues on the groups tree, and do a coding push to get these features out into the wild.
|UN Collaborates on Zaatari Camp Data in OSM||over 2 years ago||
Update, on October 3, UNOSAT released a new analysis. http://www.unitar.org/unosat/node/44/1832. The officially released Shapefile version did not contain the objectid, so asked for another extract, posted at http://cern.ch/unosat-sdn/temp/Al_Zaatari_Shelters_20130930_formikel.zip. Had to adjust the conflation script slightly for changes in columns. Ran without issue, except for one warning "ERROR Deleted feature missing in past import: 63911". This feature was both detected and deleted on the same day. Otherwise, all stats match up with reported changes from UNOSAT. Import is here
There's some concern about the tags, unosat:acquisition_date, unosat:event_code and unosat:objectid, to be discussed on imports list.
|GeoGit and GitHub Geo||over 2 years ago||
@tmcw: separate from the implementation (and I understand your misgivings) curious your thoughts about concept of versioning a graph database, structured as some kind of "OSM JSON". I don't see why topological data couldn't fit in a Git model, with additional checks for consistency when features refer to each other. It's not Git's responsibility to ensure your code compiles, nor would it be data consistency.
|A Social OpenStreetMap.org Without Groups||over 2 years ago||
Ok, interesting thoughts. Resonates with what @migurski hacked on before the Birthday Sprint, gathering of changesets by hashtag. Overall, seems like we're just disagreeing on what these features are called, not the features themselves.
In my mind, social features, whatever you call them, gather relevant OSM "objects" together in one place, like diary entries and changesets, and also most definitely mappers. Whether you call it "subscribe" or "join", "group" or "topic" is only a semantic matter. In any case you do want to see a listing of users who had opt-ed in / contributed to what or where you are interested. Functionally, I don't only want (selective) emails, but also a summarized listing of activity on osm.org, in everything I'm interested in.
Now, places are where this concept gets interesting, and challenging. How is a place defined? It needs to be pretty intentional. By contributing to that place, by editing there, does not mean you have necessarily joined the place? No. We need to see some notion of intentionality and commitment.
So in summary, I think good and well linked notifications management is a good idea. But there's really no significant technical changes, because if you posted to a group, you should also definitely be subscribed in some way. You're suggesting some semantic changes (which might be ok, would be curious to hear others thoughts), and perhaps interaction changes (once you post, you have joined), but no changes to the underlying Model.