Hi all
I noticed this large changeset ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71075752 ) from 3 years ago around Châtel-Saint-Denis that introduced duplicated buildings.
Is someone interested in having a closer look and trying to revert/repair things? I already left a changeset comment.
Best regards
Lukas
Hi Lukas, hi all
Looking at this and a few other changesets of this user with Achavi, it seems that he did an undiscussed import of buildings in that region using an unclear source. (The changeset comment says Federal Register of Buildings and Dwellings, but as far as i know this does not include building outlines.) During this import, a lot of building duplicates have been created, some of which the user has since deleted.
Another user already left changeset comments, but the user that did the import did not answer the questions and wrote that he will leave (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71078382).
Because of the unclear source this seems to me to be a case for the DWG.
Best regards
Raphael
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 13:45, Lukas Toggenburger ltoggenburger@swissonline.ch wrote:
Hi all
I noticed this large changeset ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71075752 ) from 3 years ago around Châtel-Saint-Denis that introduced duplicated buildings.
Is someone interested in having a closer look and trying to revert/repair things? I already left a changeset comment.
Best regards
Lukas _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Hello,
I suspect that it is the same user who creates an account each time, makes an import (the previous time it was an import of the addresses before the licence changed) and then leaves without cleaning anything up when there is an opposition... to then create a new account and start again (mousse, bulla, I don't remember 2 others nickname doing exactrly the same there)
I can easily revert the changeset, the real problem is that there may be buildings from another contributor that have been deleted by aanother user because of duplicates, and that is complicated or impossible to recover
at some location, we have now 4 revert and still a mess https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/215890288/history https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/695714180/history
Le 25.02.23 à 19:20, Raphael a écrit :
Hi Lukas, hi all
Looking at this and a few other changesets of this user with Achavi, it seems that he did an undiscussed import of buildings in that region using an unclear source. (The changeset comment says Federal Register of Buildings and Dwellings, but as far as i know this does not include building outlines.) During this import, a lot of building duplicates have been created, some of which the user has since deleted.
Another user already left changeset comments, but the user that did the import did not answer the questions and wrote that he will leave (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71078382).
Because of the unclear source this seems to me to be a case for the DWG.
Best regards
Raphael
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 13:45, Lukas Toggenburger ltoggenburger@swissonline.ch wrote:
Hi all
I noticed this large changeset ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71075752 ) from 3 years ago around Châtel-Saint-Denis that introduced duplicated buildings.
Is someone interested in having a closer look and trying to revert/repair things? I already left a changeset comment.
Best regards
Lukas _______________________________________________ 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
Hi all
Oh dear, what a mess...
I would not oppose involving the DWG (and accept the risk that this could mean nuking some of the villages from orbit).
If we plan to do so, I guess we should collect some usernames/changesets to start with...
This is what I got after having a quick look:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71075752 (bulla) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71037404 (bulla) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71004756 (bulla) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50392035 (unare-314) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15642244 (mousse) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15641998 (mousse) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15637247 (mousse) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15633517 (mousse)
Best regards
Lukas
Hello
Yes, unfortunately it's a big mess.
I've checked all 20 edits of user bulla. All but one of his edits seem problematical either because he added or changed a large amount of building outlines at once (citing the Registre fédéral des bâtiments et des logements as the source) or because he deleted many buildings:
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71004754 - modification of hundreds of building geometries (originally added by user mousse and after user marc_marc_repair reverted previous edits by user unare-314) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71004756 - modification of hundreds of building geometries (originally added by user mousse and after user marc_marc_repair reverted previous edits by user unare-314) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71004963 - addition of one building (later altered in changesets 71004999, 71005031 and 71005052) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71037388 - addition of 10,000 nodes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71037396 - addition of 10,000 nodes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71037404 - addition of hundreds of buildings - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71075743 - addition of 10,000 nodes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71075748 - addition of 10,000 nodes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71075752 - addition and modification of hundreds of buildings - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71075887 - deletion of 10,000 nodes (almost but not entirely a revert of own changeset 71037388) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71075894 - deletion of 7922 nodes (almost but not entirely a revert of own changeset 71037396) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71077316 - deletion of hundreds of buildings (originally added by user mousse) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71078382 - deletion of hundreds of buildings (originally added by user mousse) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71078505 - deletion of dozens of buildings (originally added by user mousse) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71078747 - deletion of hundreds of buildings (originally added by user mousse) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71079485 - deletion of hundreds of buildings (originally added by user mousse)
I hope to find time to also review the edits of the users unare-314 (107 edits) and mousse (328 edits).
Best regards
Raphael
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 21:41, Lukas Toggenburger ltoggenburger@swissonline.ch wrote:
Hi all
Oh dear, what a mess...
I would not oppose involving the DWG (and accept the risk that this could mean nuking some of the villages from orbit).
If we plan to do so, I guess we should collect some usernames/changesets to start with...
This is what I got after having a quick look:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71075752 (bulla) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71037404 (bulla) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71004756 (bulla) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50392035 (unare-314) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15642244 (mousse) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15641998 (mousse) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15637247 (mousse) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15633517 (mousse)
Best regards
Lukas _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Hi Raphael
I've checked all 20 edits of user bulla. All but one of his edits seem problematical
Thanks for your efforts!
What shall we do?
- Keep them and trying to repair things? - Remove them (maybe with help from DWG), optionally do a PotM ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Project_of_the_month_Switzerland ) and re-map it from aerial imagery? - Something else?
Best regards
Lukas
Hello,
Le 11.03.23 à 17:56, Lukas Toggenburger a écrit :
I've checked all 20 edits of user bulla. All but one of his edits seem problematical
What shall we do?
- Keep them and trying to repair things?
it is necessary (as there were already some buildings before these problematic imports)
- Remove them (maybe with help from DWG),
removing duplicates is necessary I am testing with josm, in some cases it offers a one-click repair that deletes the 2nd building, in other cases you have to repair manually. I will open a ticket to see if josm can be improved to correct the trivial cases automatically in total there are 755 duplicate buildings to delete. the other solution is an integral revert, the problem is that the 4 accounts make multiple imports problematic since 2013 and that it is thus difficult to keep what is legitimate
optionally do a PotM
if we want a "high-quality", "low false positive" revert, yes maybe
- Something else?
reverse the logic: - ask these 4 users if there is anything from an osm compatible source (in the past, no positive response) - delete all the buildings of these users (except hypothetical buildings with a valid source) - make the procedure for an import from the microsoft building database + addrs from RegBl
but I must confess that I am tired of intervening for the 4th time on this same problem in the same place (and maybe with the same guy) and in the future, to avoid detecting this problem so late, it would be necessary to spend time correcting the errors present in the database, that would make it possible to see immediately a brutal increase in the number of anomalies and make a revert without lost/damage/conflict/...
Regards, Marc
Hello everyone
I've now also looked at all edits by user unare-314. Most of them were problematical (import of copyright protected objects), but at least they have all been reverted (thank you, Marc!). Nearly all of his problematical edits have also been censored (redacted) with the exception of the following edits, the imported objects of which still need to be deleted:
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15660935 - import of 476 rivers and streams with source="Hydrologique Canton Fribourg" (has been reverted with changeset 15677529, but not deleted) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15660939 - import of 902 rivers and streams with source="Hydrologique Canton Fribourg" (has been reverted with changeset 15677523, but not deleted) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15660956 - import of 582 rivers and streams with source="Hydrologique Canton Fribourg" (has been reveted with changeset 15677503, but not deleted) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15661022 - import of 50,000 nodes without tags (has been reverted by the user itself with changesets 15668839, 15669855, 15670004 and 15670012) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15661023 - import of 329 rivers and streams with source="Hydrologique Canton Fribourg" (has been reverted with changeset 15661724, but not deleted) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15661025 - import of 466 rivers and streams with source="Hydrologique Canton Fribourg" (has been reverted with changeset 15661588, but not deleted) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15661027 - import of 766 rivers and streams with source="Hydrologique Canton Fribourg" (has been reverted with changeset 15661587, but not deleted) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15661028 - import of 573 rivers and streams with source="Hydrologique Canton Fribourg" (has been reverted with changeset 15661583, but not deleted) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15661030 - import of 573 rivers and streams with source="Hydrologique Canton Fribourg" (has been reverted with changeset 15661579, but not deleted) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15661031 - import of 522 rivers and streams with source="Hydrologique Canton Fribourg" (has been reverted with changeset 15661572, but not deleted) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15661032 - import of 235 rivers and streams with source="Hydrologique Canton Fribourg" (has been reverted with changeset 15661568, but not deleted) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15661033 - import of 312 rivers and streams with source="Hydrologique Canton Fribourg" (has been reverted with changeset 15661565, but not deleted) - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15661122 - import of 647 rivers and streams with source="Hydrologique Canton Fribourg" (has been reverted with changeset 15661535, but not deleted)
Marc M. wrote:
What shall we do?
- Keep them and trying to repair things?
it is necessary (as there were already some buildings before these problematic imports)
If i understand you right, this would mean that some (or all) illegal elements would remain. I think this isn't an option.
Should i report the collected, problematical edits to the DWG? (I guess it won't help if i revert the problematical edits of users mousse and bulla and the DWG later removes the illegal version from the database.)
Best regards
Raphael
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 at 16:59, Marc M. marc_marc_irc@hotmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Le 11.03.23 à 17:56, Lukas Toggenburger a écrit :
I've checked all 20 edits of user bulla. All but one of his edits seem problematical
What shall we do?
- Keep them and trying to repair things?
it is necessary (as there were already some buildings before these problematic imports)
- Remove them (maybe with help from DWG),
removing duplicates is necessary I am testing with josm, in some cases it offers a one-click repair that deletes the 2nd building, in other cases you have to repair manually. I will open a ticket to see if josm can be improved to correct the trivial cases automatically in total there are 755 duplicate buildings to delete. the other solution is an integral revert, the problem is that the 4 accounts make multiple imports problematic since 2013 and that it is thus difficult to keep what is legitimate
optionally do a PotM
if we want a "high-quality", "low false positive" revert, yes maybe
- Something else?
reverse the logic:
- ask these 4 users if there is anything from an osm compatible source
(in the past, no positive response)
- delete all the buildings of these users (except hypothetical buildings
with a valid source)
- make the procedure for an import from the microsoft building database
- addrs from RegBl
but I must confess that I am tired of intervening for the 4th time on this same problem in the same place (and maybe with the same guy) and in the future, to avoid detecting this problem so late, it would be necessary to spend time correcting the errors present in the database, that would make it possible to see immediately a brutal increase in the number of anomalies and make a revert without lost/damage/conflict/...
Regards, Marc _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Le 19.03.23 à 18:27, Raphael a écrit :
- Keep them and trying to repair things?
it is necessary (as there were already some buildings before these problematic imports)
If i understand you right, this would mean that some (or all) illegal elements would remain. I think this isn't an option.
no, I mean deleting all the import leads to losing the buildings that existed before these imports
I find it hard to believe that no one else has ever added a building in this municipality and these perfectly valid buildings have been touched or worse erased given the length of time there have been duplicates. We can ask for help from the DWG, it will be the same headache for them
idea : load the id of the buildings existing before the import with overpass and those of today and to make a difference to have those which existed before the import but which were erased
Marc M. wrote:
I find it hard to believe that no one else has ever added a building in this municipality [...]
According to Overpass Turbo [^1], there was only one single building [^2] in the database before the first illegal import [^3].
[^1]: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1sEY [^2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/132857054 [^3]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15633517
I suggest the following procedure:
1. I report the problematical edits to the DWG. 2. I import the ~3100 GWR addresses of Châtel-Saint-Denis (following the import guidelines). 3. We map the buildings using Swissimage.
Do you have any other suggestions?
Best regards
Raphael
On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 at 22:15, Marc M. marc_marc_irc@hotmail.com wrote:
Le 19.03.23 à 18:27, Raphael a écrit :
- Keep them and trying to repair things?
it is necessary (as there were already some buildings before these problematic imports)
If i understand you right, this would mean that some (or all) illegal elements would remain. I think this isn't an option.
no, I mean deleting all the import leads to losing the buildings that existed before these imports
I find it hard to believe that no one else has ever added a building in this municipality and these perfectly valid buildings have been touched or worse erased given the length of time there have been duplicates. We can ask for help from the DWG, it will be the same headache for them
idea : load the id of the buildings existing before the import with overpass and those of today and to make a difference to have those which existed before the import but which were erased _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Hello,
Le 22.03.23 à 21:35, Raphael a écrit :
Do you have any other suggestions?
in order to search for all the changesets concerned (the DWG revert tool is based on changesets), I made a first deletion https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134122561
Regards, Marc
Hi Marc!
Marc M. wrote:
in order to search for all the changesets concerned (the DWG revert tool is based on changesets), I made a first deletion https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134122561
Thank you!
In the hope of being able to help you with this, i am sending you a list of all the problematical changes made by users bulla, mousse and unare-314 in the attachment. I actually wanted to send this list to the DWG, but in that case, I don't have to do that any more, do I?
Best regards Raphael
On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 04:10, Marc M. marc_marc_irc@hotmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Le 22.03.23 à 21:35, Raphael a écrit :
Do you have any other suggestions?
in order to search for all the changesets concerned (the DWG revert tool is based on changesets), I made a first deletion https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134122561
Regards, Marc _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
I suggest the following procedure:
- I report the problematical edits to the DWG.
- I import the ~3100 GWR addresses of Châtel-Saint-Denis (following
the import guidelines). 3. We map the buildings using Swissimage.
Do you have any other suggestions?
I generally agree. But wouldn't it be simpler to swap steps 2 and 3, i.e. to first map the buildings and then import the addresses?
Lukas
-
Lukas Toggenburger -
Marc M. -
Raphael