[talk-ch] vandalism under the pretense of "simplifying"
tanrub at gmail.com
Thu Jun 30 18:30:20 CEST 2022
I am sorry but I don't agree with their arguments and I have addressed them
before. Let me restate.
Sarah makes the argument that the forest changes. Of course it does. I
think that precise mapping in this case is a feature not a bug as it will
in the future allow us to study the evolution of the vegetation.
Mark makes the argument that some of the precise forests are "wrong" and
again, in some cases, he is right. I am afraid it applies to the complete
set of OSM data. At some point, it should be deleted and corrected with
Both these statements are valid but not as a counter argument to the
precise mapping in general.
I do however agree that at times, the mapping, below let's say one meter,
doesn't make sense as the source doesn't have this accuracy. It is probably
the only objective point in the discussion and I will pay attention to the
zoom levels in JOSM.
"4) On the appropriate pages in the Wiki, we insert the points made by
Marc and lay down that it is not appropriate to map forest limits with more
than one node every 10 m (or so). This in order to prevent that mappers in
a “gamification-mood” come to the idea to artificially create an excessive
number of nodes with the main purpose of improving their ranking in the
contributor’s statistics (@Pan: Maybe you did notice that you are currently
ranked #1 in Switzerland’s OSMstats?)."
This is again offending.
1. It is not my motivation
2. The motivation behind people mapping is totally irrelevant (why do
people map camping places instead of water streams?
3. If you look at this page, you will see that I have mapped a lot of other
features. A lot.
Le jeu. 30 juin 2022 à 18:12, Michael Flamm <michael.flamm at micoda.ch> a
> Hello RB/Pan,
> To be honest, debating with you Is a bit frustrating because you seem to
> obviously ignore the strong points made by Sarah & Marc, and furthermore
> you don’t answer the precise questions that were directed to you.
> As I see it, Sarah and Marc have demonstrated that your over-use of nodes
> is simply wrong from a conceptual point of view. Thus, we are not anymore
> in the realm of “tastes and colors”, as you seem to understand it. Frankly,
> I hope you will acknowledge that because, if not, this thread will not come
> to a constructive conclusion.
> My “Swiss Compromise”-Proposal to get there would be:
> 1) The community acknowledges your effort in detailing landuse=forest
> mapping on a quite impressive area.
> 2) On your side, you acknowledge that you created landuse cover objects
> with an excessive number of nodes and you adapt your future mapping
> activity in accordance.
> 3) The community does not start a massive effort to simplify the objects
> you created, because there are lots of other things where mapping energy
> can be directed at, bringing much more added value to the map.
> 4) On the appropriate pages in the Wiki, we insert the points made by
> Sarah and Marc and lay down that it is not appropriate to map forest limits
> with more than one node every 10 m (or so). This in order to prevent that
> mappers in a “gamification-mood” come to the idea to artificially create an
> excessive number of nodes with the main purpose of improving their ranking
> in the contributor’s statistics (@Pan: Maybe you did notice that you are
> currently ranked #1 in Switzerland’s OSMstats?).
> What do you think about these proposals?
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk-ch