There are probably millions of "false" nodes of building and landuse digitized with older sources. Here is one of many examples. As stated at least two times earlier, of course they should be corrected whenever better sources are available. In the case of a huge forest, yes it probably does imply cutting some ways of the relation, deleting them and correcting them. That's not the point I am trying to make, though. 

Le mar. 28 juin 2022 à 23:02, Marc Mongenet <marc.mongenet@gmail.com> a écrit :
The user of a map always expects the ground to be more detailed than the map, not less. So an untrue angle on a low-detail map is just an expected imprecision. But an angle on a high-precision map that cannot be found on the ground is an error. That's why a map should never contain more nodes that can be actually sourced on the ground.

Here is an example of what I think is map-damaging over-use of nodes:
the landuse limit is straight from the road to the broadleaved tree. 
But the OSM way contains at least 22 nodes (and as many angles) between the road and the tree, which are wrong, and should be deleted from the map. But it is so much work to fix so many nodes that I would probably delete the whole way and trace a new one if I decided to fix it.

Marc


Le mar. 28 juin 2022 à 22:19, RB <tanrub@gmail.com> a écrit :
That's the whole point. We clearly see a regression, untrue angles, etc because the user uses an simplifying tool (probably https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Action/SimplifyWay ) instead of manually simplifying while staying as close to the ground truth as possible.  That's the whole point I am trying to make. Of course improving incorrect data is desirable. Of course achieving the same "truth" with fewer nodes is desirable.

Altering the data and regressing from the truth with automated tools because of personal opinions of what the data should be or not be is not.



Le mar. 28 juin 2022 à 22:11, RB <tanrub@gmail.com> a écrit :
Why not both? The surface and the individual trees when available? And if possible the species of the trees... It would be time consuming though. It reminds me a nice short story of Borges, but I am afraid we digress. 

Le mar. 28 juin 2022 à 21:58, Kt47uo5uVzW <kt47uo5uVzW@protonmail.com> a écrit :
You are right that "map for the server" should not be applied. But in my opinion, this discussion is not primarily about this argument, but rather about the discussion of how precise mapping makes sense for a forest.

Just for my interest: when you talk about "precise data", could you possibly explain with this example what you find "precise" about it?
Presumably you could have tagged every single tree with less number of nodes. Why not just like this? Wouldn't it be more precise?

I also don't think that these mappers had bad intentions or even "attacked" OSM. It's just different views on what level of detail makes sense in reality. At least I and some others share the opinion of these mappers. That is why I find the discussion important and hope that we would find a good Swiss compromise.


Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, June 28th, 2022 at 3:58 AM, RB <tanrub@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks a lot for the various replies.

There are several things to unpack and the discussion is quite interesting.

Regarding the risk of "memory overload", the wiki states that "(technical) increase of volume will increase requirements in processing power, but Moore's law and cheaper hdds every year are always there. This might be more complicated when we will speak about geospatial queries rather than simple linear read/write patterns." and there isn't any clear direction against micromapping. We are clearly dealing here with an arbitrary decision by one user. Similar to the principle of not "mapping for the renderer", I don't think that anyone should "map for the server", especially when acting upon a personal intuition in contradiction with the wiki and particularly before damaging other people's work.

Regarding the possible imprecision, as Danilo pointed out, the appropriate way to deal with it would be to correct it / shift it, not to damage the data.

Finally, I understand that different people have different more or less valid prejudices (including of course me) regarding openstreetmap. The healthy attitude consists in mapping differently, not attacking existing precise data. The argument thant "Valais still has so much potential" very much also applies to the data attackers. I would like to point out that this argument is somewhat childish considering the amount of "useful" data that I have contributed in Valais as well as in the developing world.

Le lun. 27 juin 2022 à 22:36, Michael Flamm <michael.flamm@micoda.ch> a écrit :
In my point of view, the debate about the optimal precision of mapping is an important one. I would very much welcome inputs from experts that are able to evaluate potential memory overload impacts as well as increased rendering calculation times linked to a massive rise of the number of nodes for a given object.

This being said, my main concern with « too precise » mapping is data maintenance over time. For a lot of objects, « Ground Truth » is not a permanent feature! For example, forest limits evolve over time, as well as parking spaces alongside a street (just to mention another parallel discussion thread).

@RB: Having looked at some regions you pointed out, I saw quite a number of imprecise landuse cover objects if checked against the SwissImage aerials (that are only a few years more recent than the Digital Globe 2017 used for your initial mapping). How are you going to restore ground truth for those objects? It will imply to slightly move hundreds or even thousands of nodes, in other words a tremendous amount of work!

If you like precise mapping, maybe checking buildings and landuse cover in urban areas might bring more added value to the map? (especially in areas where construction works continually lead to much more relevant map changes).


Le 27 juin 2022 à 16:08, Sentalize <sentalize@yahoo.de> a écrit :

I'm not sure this is an "attack" .. in the case cited, I find the simplified version not that much worse. How many nodes do we want in an object? 10 per meter? 10'000? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course, and I as well prefer a somewhat nicely rounded road than a triangle etc .. but it's not very clear where too much becomes too much. Extreme detail doesn't necessarily provide a better rendered image or more information and could just lead to overloaded mobile devices. But I have no idea where the ideal nodecount should be.

Am Montag, 27. Juni 2022 um 11:38:26 MESZ hat RB <tanrub@gmail.com> Folgendes geschrieben:


A user is destroying precise landuse mapping in Wallis. "Simplifying" in this case turns precise landuse cover into weird angles and destroys the work done by the previous contributors while harming the OSM database. Such moves could furthermore clearly be perceived as aggressive.
Typical examples of the vandalism can be observed there https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/965324922/history#map=19/46.02973/7.11287

What is the appropriate way to react to such attacks against the project?
_______________________________________________
talk-ch mailing list
talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch
http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
_______________________________________________
talk-ch mailing list
talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch
http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

_______________________________________________
talk-ch mailing list
talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch
http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

_______________________________________________
talk-ch mailing list
talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch
http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
_______________________________________________
talk-ch mailing list
talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch
http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
_______________________________________________
talk-ch mailing list
talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch
http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch