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?
A good example of such a regression from the ground truth can be observed there https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3242246
Le lun. 27 juin 2022 à 11:38, RB tanrub@gmail.com a écrit :
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?
First step (essentially always): comment on the changeset. Politely point out that you object and ask them to join the discussion here if there is no agreement.
As to the matter at hand a achavi link or similar so that we can actually judge the effrcts would be good.
Simon
On 27 June 2022 11:38:15 CEST, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
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?
Salü Zäme
Da geht es eventuell auch stark um die Begrifflichkeit des Waldes Ab wann Wald Wald ist, ist in OSM nicht ganz so präzise definiert
Da haben wir für die Schweiz das "Bundesgesetz über den Wald:" da steht: Art. 2. Absatz 3: .... Nicht als Wald gelten isolierte Baum- und Strauchgruppen, Hecken, Alleen, Gar- ten-, Grün- und Parkanlagen, Baumkulturen, die auf offenem Land zur kurzfristigen Nutzung angelegt worden sind, sowie Bäume und Sträucher auf Einrichtungen zur Stauhaltung und in deren unmittelbarem Vorgelände.....
Der Kanton Luzern präzisiert noch: ... was nicht 800m2 beinhaltet, das ist nicht Wald...
Weshalb könnte es Sinn machen, dass wir uns allfällig in OSM, zumindest in de Schweiz, ein wenig an diese Richtlinien halten? In der Schweiz sind Wälder und waldnahe Bereich (Waldabstand bis ca 20m) stark mit baulichen Beschränkungen belegt. In Hinblick auf eine "Nutzbarkeit" der Karte kann eine überschwängliches einsetzen des Begriffes "Wald" hinderlich sein.
Hier zum Quervergleich, was vor Gesetz in der betreffenden Gegend Wald ist https://map.vsgis.ch/orsieres/?lang=de&tree_groups=Diverses%2CAmtliche%2...
Hubert
Am 27.06.22 um 12:20 schrieb Simon Poole:
First step (essentially always): comment on the changeset. Politely point out that you object and ask them to join the discussion here if there is no agreement.
As to the matter at hand a achavi link or similar so that we can actually judge the effrcts would be good.
Simon
On 27 June 2022 11:38:15 CEST, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
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?-- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Einverstanden, Aber noch wichtiger in OSM ist der Prinzip von "ground truth https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth". OSM soll mehr die "Wahrheit" darstellen als die lokal Gesetzte.
Le lun. 27 juin 2022 à 13:33, Hubert Rüttimann hubert@hubertruettimann.ch a écrit :
Salü Zäme
Da geht es eventuell auch stark um die Begrifflichkeit des Waldes Ab wann Wald Wald ist, ist in OSM nicht ganz so präzise definiert
Da haben wir für die Schweiz das "Bundesgesetz über den Wald:" da steht: Art. 2. Absatz 3: .... Nicht als Wald gelten isolierte Baum- und Strauchgruppen, Hecken, Alleen, Gar- ten-, Grün- und Parkanlagen, Baumkulturen, die auf offenem Land zur kurzfristigen Nutzung angelegt worden sind, sowie Bäume und Sträucher auf Einrichtungen zur Stauhaltung und in deren unmittelbarem Vorgelände.....
Der Kanton Luzern präzisiert noch: ... was nicht 800m2 beinhaltet, das ist nicht Wald...
Weshalb könnte es Sinn machen, dass wir uns allfällig in OSM, zumindest in de Schweiz, ein wenig an diese Richtlinien halten? In der Schweiz sind Wälder und waldnahe Bereich (Waldabstand bis ca 20m) stark mit baulichen Beschränkungen belegt. In Hinblick auf eine "Nutzbarkeit" der Karte kann eine überschwängliches einsetzen des Begriffes "Wald" hinderlich sein.
Hier zum Quervergleich, was vor Gesetz in der betreffenden Gegend Wald ist
https://map.vsgis.ch/orsieres/?lang=de&tree_groups=Diverses%2CAmtliche%2...
Hubert
Am 27.06.22 um 12:20 schrieb Simon Poole:
First step (essentially always): comment on the changeset. Politely point out that you object and ask them to join the discussion here if there is no agreement.
As to the matter at hand a achavi link or similar so that we can actually judge the effrcts would be good.
Simon
On 27 June 2022 11:38:15 CEST, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
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 therehttps://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?-- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-- Hubert Rüttimann Robert-Durrer-Strasse 18 6370 Stans
Von meinem Liunx-Kubuntu-Compi gesendet
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Bergwald verändert sich sehr schnell. Wenn man diesem erwähnen Anspruch Folge leisten will, so braucht es sehr viele Mapper über die Zeit. Ich denke man sollte sich an die amtlichen Grenzen und Definitionen halten.
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 27.06.2022 um 13:55 schrieb RB tanrub@gmail.com:
Einverstanden, Aber noch wichtiger in OSM ist der Prinzip von "ground truth". OSM soll mehr die "Wahrheit" darstellen als die lokal Gesetzte.
Le lun. 27 juin 2022 à 13:33, Hubert Rüttimann hubert@hubertruettimann.ch a écrit : Salü Zäme
Da geht es eventuell auch stark um die Begrifflichkeit des Waldes Ab wann Wald Wald ist, ist in OSM nicht ganz so präzise definiert
Da haben wir für die Schweiz das "Bundesgesetz über den Wald:" da steht: Art. 2. Absatz 3: .... Nicht als Wald gelten isolierte Baum- und Strauchgruppen, Hecken, Alleen, Gar- ten-, Grün- und Parkanlagen, Baumkulturen, die auf offenem Land zur kurzfristigen Nutzung angelegt worden sind, sowie Bäume und Sträucher auf Einrichtungen zur Stauhaltung und in deren unmittelbarem Vorgelände.....
Der Kanton Luzern präzisiert noch: ... was nicht 800m2 beinhaltet, das ist nicht Wald...
Weshalb könnte es Sinn machen, dass wir uns allfällig in OSM, zumindest in de Schweiz, ein wenig an diese Richtlinien halten? In der Schweiz sind Wälder und waldnahe Bereich (Waldabstand bis ca 20m) stark mit baulichen Beschränkungen belegt. In Hinblick auf eine "Nutzbarkeit" der Karte kann eine überschwängliches einsetzen des Begriffes "Wald" hinderlich sein.
Hier zum Quervergleich, was vor Gesetz in der betreffenden Gegend Wald ist https://map.vsgis.ch/orsieres/?lang=de&tree_groups=Diverses%2CAmtliche%2...
Hubert
Am 27.06.22 um 12:20 schrieb Simon Poole:
First step (essentially always): comment on the changeset. Politely point out that you object and ask them to join the discussion here if there is no agreement.
As to the matter at hand a achavi link or similar so that we can actually judge the effrcts would be good.
Simon
On 27 June 2022 11:38:15 CEST, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
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?-- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-- Hubert Rüttimann Robert-Durrer-Strasse 18 6370 Stans
Von meinem Liunx-Kubuntu-Compi gesendet
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
Man dard einfach nicht diese importieren und es veeletzt den Prinzip von Ground Truth. Sorry für meinem schlechtem Deutsch.
Le lun. 27 juin 2022, 14:28, Peter Berger peter.berger@bluewin.ch a écrit :
Bergwald verändert sich sehr schnell. Wenn man diesem erwähnen Anspruch Folge leisten will, so braucht es sehr viele Mapper über die Zeit. Ich denke man sollte sich an die amtlichen Grenzen und Definitionen halten.
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 27.06.2022 um 13:55 schrieb RB tanrub@gmail.com:
Einverstanden, Aber noch wichtiger in OSM ist der Prinzip von "ground truth https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth". OSM soll mehr die "Wahrheit" darstellen als die lokal Gesetzte.
Le lun. 27 juin 2022 à 13:33, Hubert Rüttimann hubert@hubertruettimann.ch a écrit :
Salü Zäme
Da geht es eventuell auch stark um die Begrifflichkeit des Waldes Ab wann Wald Wald ist, ist in OSM nicht ganz so präzise definiert
Da haben wir für die Schweiz das "Bundesgesetz über den Wald:" da steht: Art. 2. Absatz 3: .... Nicht als Wald gelten isolierte Baum- und Strauchgruppen, Hecken, Alleen, Gar- ten-, Grün- und Parkanlagen, Baumkulturen, die auf offenem Land zur kurzfristigen Nutzung angelegt worden sind, sowie Bäume und Sträucher auf Einrichtungen zur Stauhaltung und in deren unmittelbarem Vorgelände.....
Der Kanton Luzern präzisiert noch: ... was nicht 800m2 beinhaltet, das ist nicht Wald...
Weshalb könnte es Sinn machen, dass wir uns allfällig in OSM, zumindest in de Schweiz, ein wenig an diese Richtlinien halten? In der Schweiz sind Wälder und waldnahe Bereich (Waldabstand bis ca 20m) stark mit baulichen Beschränkungen belegt. In Hinblick auf eine "Nutzbarkeit" der Karte kann eine überschwängliches einsetzen des Begriffes "Wald" hinderlich sein.
Hier zum Quervergleich, was vor Gesetz in der betreffenden Gegend Wald ist
https://map.vsgis.ch/orsieres/?lang=de&tree_groups=Diverses%2CAmtliche%2...
Hubert
Am 27.06.22 um 12:20 schrieb Simon Poole:
First step (essentially always): comment on the changeset. Politely point out that you object and ask them to join the discussion here if there is no agreement.
As to the matter at hand a achavi link or similar so that we can actually judge the effrcts would be good.
Simon
On 27 June 2022 11:38:15 CEST, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
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 therehttps://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?-- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
-- Hubert Rüttimann Robert-Durrer-Strasse 18 6370 Stans
Von meinem Liunx-Kubuntu-Compi gesendet
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
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
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 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 mailto:talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-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 Michael
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
This is true, but does that change for less exact (but still outlining) areas? I'd assume in almost every case you'd simply redraw that section of the area with appropriate tools, and won't move single nodes around. And then it doesn't matter how detailed an outline is.
I tend towards detailed mapping of forest outlines (although not as detailed as some other people are doing it). I don't see any harm.
Danilo
PS: I hope everyone mapping forests knows the "Improve Way Accuracy" tool of JOSM :)
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:36:23PM +0200, Michael Flamm wrote:
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 isn't really the important point here. The problem with the hyper-precise mapping is that it suggests a precision of data that simply isn't there. The nodes in the original landuse polygons are on average 1m apart. Even for a single tree I would argue that it is hard to define the area that it covers at that precision. The forest boundary is by its nature (no pun intended) an imprecise thing that changes all the time. Not to mention that it is not quite clear where a forest ends and a different landuse with a couple of free-standing trees on it begins. If you have a look at the Swisstopo image in the affected areas, you will see that the original mapper made rather arbitrary choices whether or not to include a tree in a 'forest area'.
If you are mapping a slightly fuzzy area, the precision of the mapping should reflect that. Anything else is just painting pretty pictures.
So in my opinion the simplififaction of those areas wasn't vandalism. On the contrary, I'd rather like to see them simplified quite a bit more. But that's just my 2c.
Sarah
I agree with Sarah. In my opinion the important point is whether it makes sense in reality to have such high accuracy. Probably more so for buildings and roads than for forests. But I don't want to judge that myself.
I see, that some other mappers are also pointing out this circumstances. For example: - https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=120691858 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119885336
I personally would therefore also welcome a lower accuracy. For the following reasons: - Accuracy in nature not given (already evident in recent satellite images and some arbitrary decisions, whether forest or not) - Maintainability - Resource saving
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Monday, June 27th, 2022 at 9:24 PM, Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:36:23PM +0200, Michael Flamm wrote:
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 isn't really the important point here. The problem with the hyper-precise mapping is that it suggests a precision of data that simply isn't there. The nodes in the original landuse polygons are on average 1m apart. Even for a single tree I would argue that it is hard to define the area that it covers at that precision. The forest boundary is by its nature (no pun intended) an imprecise thing that changes all the time. Not to mention that it is not quite clear where a forest ends and a different landuse with a couple of free-standing trees on it begins. If you have a look at the Swisstopo image in the affected areas, you will see that the original mapper made rather arbitrary choices whether or not to include a tree in a 'forest area'.
If you are mapping a slightly fuzzy area, the precision of the mapping should reflect that. Anything else is just painting pretty pictures.
So in my opinion the simplififaction of those areas wasn't vandalism. On the contrary, I'd rather like to see them simplified quite a bit more. But that's just my 2c.
Sarah _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
And to pointing out: yes I appreciate the great effort of RB, but Valais still has so much potential in other areas that (as already written by Michael) I would welcome to put the energy there first.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Monday, June 27th, 2022 at 9:51 PM, Kt47uo5uVzW kt47uo5uVzW@protonmail.com wrote:
I agree with Sarah. In my opinion the important point is whether it makes sense in reality to have such high accuracy. Probably more so for buildings and roads than for forests. But I don't want to judge that myself.
I see, that some other mappers are also pointing out this circumstances. For example:
- https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=120691858
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119885336
I personally would therefore also welcome a lower accuracy. For the following reasons:
- Accuracy in nature not given (already evident in recent satellite images and some arbitrary decisions, whether forest or not)
- Maintainability
- Resource saving
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Monday, June 27th, 2022 at 9:24 PM, Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:36:23PM +0200, Michael Flamm wrote:
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 isn't really the important point here. The problem with the hyper-precise mapping is that it suggests a precision of data that simply isn't there. The nodes in the original landuse polygons are on average 1m apart. Even for a single tree I would argue that it is hard to define the area that it covers at that precision. The forest boundary is by its nature (no pun intended) an imprecise thing that changes all the time. Not to mention that it is not quite clear where a forest ends and a different landuse with a couple of free-standing trees on it begins. If you have a look at the Swisstopo image in the affected areas, you will see that the original mapper made rather arbitrary choices whether or not to include a tree in a 'forest area'.
If you are mapping a slightly fuzzy area, the precision of the mapping should reflect that. Anything else is just painting pretty pictures.
So in my opinion the simplififaction of those areas wasn't vandalism. On the contrary, I'd rather like to see them simplified quite a bit more. But that's just my 2c.
Sarah _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Just to add something a little different in the discussion, here is an area where a mapper has mapped individual trees in a meadow area: https://www.opensnowmap.org/#map=15/6.443/46.806&b=snowmap&m=false&a...
While it is certainly micromapping, and prone to differ from reality over time, I sincerely think it perfectly describes the landscape in the Jura. Regards, Yves
Le 28 juin 2022 00:07:40 GMT+02:00, Kt47uo5uVzW kt47uo5uVzW@protonmail.com a écrit :
And to pointing out: yes I appreciate the great effort of RB, but Valais still has so much potential in other areas that (as already written by Michael) I would welcome to put the energy there first.
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Monday, June 27th, 2022 at 9:51 PM, Kt47uo5uVzW kt47uo5uVzW@protonmail.com wrote:
I agree with Sarah. In my opinion the important point is whether it makes sense in reality to have such high accuracy. Probably more so for buildings and roads than for forests. But I don't want to judge that myself.
I see, that some other mappers are also pointing out this circumstances. For example:
- https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=120691858
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119885336
I personally would therefore also welcome a lower accuracy. For the following reasons:
- Accuracy in nature not given (already evident in recent satellite images and some arbitrary decisions, whether forest or not)
- Maintainability
- Resource saving
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Monday, June 27th, 2022 at 9:24 PM, Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:36:23PM +0200, Michael Flamm wrote:
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 isn't really the important point here. The problem with the hyper-precise mapping is that it suggests a precision of data that simply isn't there. The nodes in the original landuse polygons are on average 1m apart. Even for a single tree I would argue that it is hard to define the area that it covers at that precision. The forest boundary is by its nature (no pun intended) an imprecise thing that changes all the time. Not to mention that it is not quite clear where a forest ends and a different landuse with a couple of free-standing trees on it begins. If you have a look at the Swisstopo image in the affected areas, you will see that the original mapper made rather arbitrary choices whether or not to include a tree in a 'forest area'.
If you are mapping a slightly fuzzy area, the precision of the mapping should reflect that. Anything else is just painting pretty pictures.
So in my opinion the simplififaction of those areas wasn't vandalism. On the contrary, I'd rather like to see them simplified quite a bit more. But that's just my 2c.
Sarah _______________________________________________ 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
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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Micromapping 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
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? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1073747263 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](https://proton.me/) 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](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Micromapping) 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
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science short story of Borges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science, 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? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1073747263 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 https://proton.me/ 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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Micromapping 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
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science short story of Borges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science, 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? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1073747263 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 https://proton.me/ 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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Micromapping 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
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: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/486080164#map=19/46.12555/7.04733 As can be seen in https://www.google.fr/maps/@46.1258023,7.0471608,3a,66.5y,229.3h,96.9t/data=... 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science short story of Borges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science, 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? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1073747263 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 https://proton.me/ 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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Micromapping 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
There are probably millions of "false" nodes of building and landuse digitized with older sources. Here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/290722343 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: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/486080164#map=19/46.12555/7.04733 As can be seen in https://www.google.fr/maps/@46.1258023,7.0471608,3a,66.5y,229.3h,96.9t/data=... 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science short story of Borges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science, 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? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1073747263 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 https://proton.me/ 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 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Micromapping 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
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 10:18:56PM +0200, RB wrote:
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.
Okay, so the user should not have used a global simplify but instead have talked to you about why they think the mapping needs simplification. Fair enough.
Now that we have cleared up this point, could we please talk about your mapping? Could you please outline your process how exactly you decide what counts as a landuse=forest and what doesn't? And how exactly do you determine the forest outline to a precision of 1m. Do you have other aerial imagery available that gives you better views of the forests than the Swisstopo Aerials? Because I have a hard time to match the outlines I see on those photos with the ones you map.
Sarah
Ciao a tutti
On 28 Jun 2022, at 22:19, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I really don’t know if the original issue is a regression or digression, but I would not imply vandalism and bad intention of the user that simplified your/the forest outlines.
As already said, it’s probably best to discuss this directly in the relevant changeset, too.
Have a great day, Habi
I agree with you, it is probably not intentional. However, I see it as a problem. I dit write to the user.
The way I see it is the following. Many Africans don't know how westerners like to eat their spaghettis. For most Westerners, rolling them around the fork is part of the fun, while most Africans overcook the pastas and cut them short. I was served a lot of spaghettis cut in small pieces by my host in Africa. It's not a big deal and always good intentioned but it would certainly start to be problematic if a person with the same good intentions would go to the supermarket and start breaking all the spaghettis "because they should be no more than 3cm long". I think that we are typically dealing with something of that nature. It might be well intentioned but it is an issue.
Le mer. 29 juin 2022 à 08:34, David Haberthür email@davidhaberthuer.ch a écrit :
Ciao a tutti
On 28 Jun 2022, at 22:19, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I really don’t know if the original issue is a regression or digression, but I would not imply vandalism and bad intention of the user that simplified your/the forest outlines.
As already said, it’s probably best to discuss this directly in the relevant changeset, too.
Have a great day, Habi _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
You pointed out this argument a few times now. We get it and agree that the communication of these mappers could have been better.
But I would also like to understand your mapping, because until now I (and felt the majority) are in favor of simplifying the forest areas for arguable reasons. That's why I would ask you to answer Sarah's questions so we can see your motivations and procedures as well.
It would also be fair if you would currently wait with further mapping until we have a somewhat clearer opinion about it here.
I hope we can find an objective solution about how detailed forest mapping makes sense. Thank you for your assistance.
Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, June 29th, 2022 at 6:49 AM, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with you, it is probably not intentional. However, I see it as a problem. I dit write to the user.
The way I see it is the following. Many Africans don't know how westerners like to eat their spaghettis. For most Westerners, rolling them around the fork is part of the fun, while most Africans overcook the pastas and cut them short. I was served a lot of spaghettis cut in small pieces by my host in Africa. It's not a big deal and always good intentioned but it would certainly start to be problematic if a person with the same good intentions would go to the supermarket and start breaking all the spaghettis "because they should be no more than 3cm long". I think that we are typically dealing with something of that nature. It might be well intentioned but it is an issue.
Le mer. 29 juin 2022 à 08:34, David Haberthür email@davidhaberthuer.ch a écrit :
Ciao a tutti
On 28 Jun 2022, at 22:19, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I really don’t know if the original issue is a regression or digression, but I would not imply vandalism and bad intention of the user that simplified your/the forest outlines.
As already said, it’s probably best to discuss this directly in the relevant changeset, too.
Have a great day, Habi _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
The arguments that we don't know the exact limit of things apply to most mapped entities. It is going to be an assessment anyway. Where people put the limit is eventually the consequence of a mix between the time invested, the source used as well as the inevitable subjective assessment of the individual mapper. The same applies to the exact angle of a castle roof https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=47.3246552&lon=1.0705762&zoom=20&camera.phi=170.226 .
Regarding the changing nature of the vegetation, it is a positive thing. It means that over time, people might be able to go back in time using OSM history to study the evolution of the land cover.
"It would also be fair if you would currently wait with further mapping until we have a somewhat clearer opinion about it here."
This is simply rude. People with a different view should map somewhere else instead of destroying existing data. The point I am making is that the user regressing the data should be stopped in some way. I don't know if all the "simplifying" edits of this user can be reverted or if the user has also contributed useful stuff in the same destructive edits.
Openstreetmap is about mapping the reality without stealing copyrighted source with the best some people map temporary camping places in the desert, other dog excrement https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=4661 baskets. All motivations are valid as long the data is documented with good accuracy and from legal sources. Do I really need to quote the wiki?
*OpenStreetMap is a free project done by volunteers. Anybody can enter anything they wish. That said, a map works best when participants agree on a code of conduct. These "Good Practices" are guidelines that will increase the quality and value of our map data without any additional effort. Nobody is forced to obey them. There might be cases where these guidelines don't apply, or even contradict each other.*
Asking someone who hasn't imported any illegal data and is mapping according to existing legal sources to "stop mapping" is ludicrous. Please clarify the "we" so that we can put names on the Swiss OSM police taking the project away from its good practices.
Le jeu. 30 juin 2022 à 15:51, Kt47uo5uVzW kt47uo5uVzW@protonmail.com a écrit :
You pointed out this argument a few times now. We get it and agree that the communication of these mappers could have been better.
But I would also like to understand your mapping, because until now I (and felt the majority) are in favor of simplifying the forest areas for arguable reasons. That's why I would ask you to answer Sarah's questions so we can see your motivations and procedures as well.
It would also be fair if you would currently wait with further mapping until we have a somewhat clearer opinion about it here.
I hope we can find an objective solution about how detailed forest mapping makes sense. Thank you for your assistance.
Sent with Proton Mail https://proton.me/ secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, June 29th, 2022 at 6:49 AM, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with you, it is probably not intentional. However, I see it as a problem. I dit write to the user.
The way I see it is the following. Many Africans don't know how westerners like to eat their spaghettis. For most Westerners, rolling them around the fork is part of the fun, while most Africans overcook the pastas and cut them short. I was served a lot of spaghettis cut in small pieces by my host in Africa. It's not a big deal and always good intentioned but it would certainly start to be problematic if a person with the same good intentions would go to the supermarket and start breaking all the spaghettis "because they should be no more than 3cm long". I think that we are typically dealing with something of that nature. It might be well intentioned but it is an issue.
Le mer. 29 juin 2022 à 08:34, David Haberthür email@davidhaberthuer.ch a écrit :
Ciao a tutti
On 28 Jun 2022, at 22:19, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I really don’t know if the original issue is a regression or digression, but I would not imply vandalism and bad intention of the user that simplified your/the forest outlines.
As already said, it’s probably best to discuss this directly in the relevant changeset, too.
Have a great day, Habi _______________________________________________ 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
Okay, I give up.
I wanted a constructive discussion about what makes sense in reality and what does not. Instead, only users are attacked.
Even after asking several times, I don't know more about how you map, how you make decisions about what is and isn't forest, etc.
I dedicate my time again to more expedient things.
------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, June 30th, 2022 at 3:18 PM, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
The arguments that we don't know the exact limit of things apply to most mapped entities. It is going to be an assessment anyway. Where people put the limit is eventually the consequence of a mix between the time invested, the source used as well as the inevitable subjective assessment of the individual mapper. The same applies to the exact angle of [a castle roof](https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=47.3246552&lon=1.0705762&zoom=20&cam...).
Regarding the changing nature of the vegetation, it is a positive thing. It means that over time, people might be able to go back in time using OSM history to study the evolution of the land cover.
"It would also be fair if you would currently wait with further mapping until we have a somewhat clearer opinion about it here."
This is simply rude. People with a different view should map somewhere else instead of destroying existing data. The point I am making is that the user regressing the data should be stopped in some way. I don't know if all the "simplifying" edits of this user can be reverted or if the user has also contributed useful stuff in the same destructive edits.
Openstreetmap is about mapping the reality without stealing copyrighted source with the best some people map temporary camping places in the desert, other [dog excrement](https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=4661) baskets. All motivations are valid as long the data is documented with good accuracy and from legal sources. Do I really need to quote the wiki?
OpenStreetMap is a free project done by volunteers. Anybody can enter anything they wish. That said, a map works best when participants agree on a code of conduct. These "Good Practices" are guidelines that will increase the quality and value of our map data without any additional effort. Nobody is forced to obey them. There might be cases where these guidelines don't apply, or even contradict each other.
Asking someone who hasn't imported any illegal data and is mapping according to existing legal sources to "stop mapping" is ludicrous. Please clarify the "we" so that we can put names on the Swiss OSM police taking the project away from its good practices.
Le jeu. 30 juin 2022 à 15:51, Kt47uo5uVzW kt47uo5uVzW@protonmail.com a écrit :
You pointed out this argument a few times now. We get it and agree that the communication of these mappers could have been better.
But I would also like to understand your mapping, because until now I (and felt the majority) are in favor of simplifying the forest areas for arguable reasons. That's why I would ask you to answer Sarah's questions so we can see your motivations and procedures as well.
It would also be fair if you would currently wait with further mapping until we have a somewhat clearer opinion about it here.
I hope we can find an objective solution about how detailed forest mapping makes sense. Thank you for your assistance.
Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, June 29th, 2022 at 6:49 AM, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with you, it is probably not intentional. However, I see it as a problem. I dit write to the user.
The way I see it is the following. Many Africans don't know how westerners like to eat their spaghettis. For most Westerners, rolling them around the fork is part of the fun, while most Africans overcook the pastas and cut them short. I was served a lot of spaghettis cut in small pieces by my host in Africa. It's not a big deal and always good intentioned but it would certainly start to be problematic if a person with the same good intentions would go to the supermarket and start breaking all the spaghettis "because they should be no more than 3cm long". I think that we are typically dealing with something of that nature. It might be well intentioned but it is an issue.
Le mer. 29 juin 2022 à 08:34, David Haberthür email@davidhaberthuer.ch a écrit :
Ciao a tutti
On 28 Jun 2022, at 22:19, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I really don’t know if the original issue is a regression or digression, but I would not imply vandalism and bad intention of the user that simplified your/the forest outlines.
As already said, it’s probably best to discuss this directly in the relevant changeset, too.
Have a great day, Habi _______________________________________________ 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
While the discussion does have added value, requesting a user to stop mapping upon personal ideas isn't what I understand by "constructive discussion".
I have replied quite extensively to your questions despite the fact that these questions are a digression from my own initial question (how to deal with a (probably good intioned) user regressing the data.
At no point do I intend to attack you but I do feel defensive when I read out of topic prescriptive statements. Had I been rude myself, I sincerely apologize as it wasn't intentional. I won't however accept orders to comply with personal preferences, especially when these preferences degrade the data. Again, the solution for users liking sharp and untrue land cover angles, is to map them where there would be a progress related to the existing data. Or to improve the data with a better source. Not to regress the data, change the location of the south east angle of a swamp, etc.
Le jeu. 30 juin 2022 à 17:53, Kt47uo5uVzW kt47uo5uVzW@protonmail.com a écrit :
Okay, I give up.
I wanted a constructive discussion about what makes sense in reality and what does not. Instead, only users are attacked.
Even after asking several times, I don't know more about how you map, how you make decisions about what is and isn't forest, etc.
I dedicate my time again to more expedient things.
------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, June 30th, 2022 at 3:18 PM, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
The arguments that we don't know the exact limit of things apply to most mapped entities. It is going to be an assessment anyway. Where people put the limit is eventually the consequence of a mix between the time invested, the source used as well as the inevitable subjective assessment of the individual mapper. The same applies to the exact angle of a castle roof https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=47.3246552&lon=1.0705762&zoom=20&camera.phi=170.226 .
Regarding the changing nature of the vegetation, it is a positive thing. It means that over time, people might be able to go back in time using OSM history to study the evolution of the land cover.
"It would also be fair if you would currently wait with further mapping until we have a somewhat clearer opinion about it here."
This is simply rude. People with a different view should map somewhere else instead of destroying existing data. The point I am making is that the user regressing the data should be stopped in some way. I don't know if all the "simplifying" edits of this user can be reverted or if the user has also contributed useful stuff in the same destructive edits.
Openstreetmap is about mapping the reality without stealing copyrighted source with the best some people map temporary camping places in the desert, other dog excrement https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=4661 baskets. All motivations are valid as long the data is documented with good accuracy and from legal sources. Do I really need to quote the wiki?
*OpenStreetMap is a free project done by volunteers. Anybody can enter anything they wish. That said, a map works best when participants agree on a code of conduct. These "Good Practices" are guidelines that will increase the quality and value of our map data without any additional effort. Nobody is forced to obey them. There might be cases where these guidelines don't apply, or even contradict each other.*
Asking someone who hasn't imported any illegal data and is mapping according to existing legal sources to "stop mapping" is ludicrous. Please clarify the "we" so that we can put names on the Swiss OSM police taking the project away from its good practices.
Le jeu. 30 juin 2022 à 15:51, Kt47uo5uVzW kt47uo5uVzW@protonmail.com a écrit :
You pointed out this argument a few times now. We get it and agree that the communication of these mappers could have been better.
But I would also like to understand your mapping, because until now I (and felt the majority) are in favor of simplifying the forest areas for arguable reasons. That's why I would ask you to answer Sarah's questions so we can see your motivations and procedures as well.
It would also be fair if you would currently wait with further mapping until we have a somewhat clearer opinion about it here.
I hope we can find an objective solution about how detailed forest mapping makes sense. Thank you for your assistance.
Sent with Proton Mail https://proton.me/ secure email.
------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, June 29th, 2022 at 6:49 AM, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with you, it is probably not intentional. However, I see it as a problem. I dit write to the user.
The way I see it is the following. Many Africans don't know how westerners like to eat their spaghettis. For most Westerners, rolling them around the fork is part of the fun, while most Africans overcook the pastas and cut them short. I was served a lot of spaghettis cut in small pieces by my host in Africa. It's not a big deal and always good intentioned but it would certainly start to be problematic if a person with the same good intentions would go to the supermarket and start breaking all the spaghettis "because they should be no more than 3cm long". I think that we are typically dealing with something of that nature. It might be well intentioned but it is an issue.
Le mer. 29 juin 2022 à 08:34, David Haberthür email@davidhaberthuer.ch a écrit :
Ciao a tutti
On 28 Jun 2022, at 22:19, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I really don’t know if the original issue is a regression or digression, but I would not imply vandalism and bad intention of the user that simplified your/the forest outlines.
As already said, it’s probably best to discuss this directly in the relevant changeset, too.
Have a great day, Habi _______________________________________________ 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
Le 30 juin 2022 18:06:57 GMT+02:00, RB tanrub@gmail.com a écrit :
While the discussion does have added value, requesting a user to stop mapping upon personal ideas isn't what I understand by "constructive discussion".
I think there is a misunderstanding here. There is disagreement on how to map forests in this discussion. Refraining oneself to map forests while this topic is discussed is a good practice.
This is a simple way to show that we listen to everybody's arguments and that we are open to eventually, maybe, change our mind. I don't think the request were intended to be rude.
Regards, Yves
On 30 Jun 2022, at 17:19, RB tanrub@gmail.com wrote:
The arguments that we don't know the exact limit of things apply to most mapped entities
Very true, yes. The mailing lists – and I – also wanted to know how exactly you’re mapping the forest to this very detailed extent. Out of pure interest.
habi
Le lun. 27 juin 2022 à 11:38, RB tanrub@gmail.com a écrit :
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?
Hello,
I did some mapping in Wallis last week, and obviously noticed the landuse=forest mapping. I must first say that I am very impressed with the size of the area mapped with better than normal accuracy. But I have to put (very) cold water on this enthusiasm. The forest mapping in Wallis is not accurate; it is not micro-mapping; it is a fancy sine wave around the actual (usually straight) land use; over 95% of the nodes are based on shades, non-orthogonal projection of the canopy on the ground, or pure invention. They are not based on terrain, and removing most of them actually improves the accuracy of the map.
Here is an example. If we look at this (non-free) data: https://www.google.fr/maps/@46.0985256,7.0849358,3a,75y,103.54h,95.62t/data=... a straight line of trees and a straight fence marking the boundary between the forest and road land use are shown. The most accurate mapping would have been to use the fence as the boundary of the landuse=forest, but instead there is a sinusoidal curve that even has a few nodes on the motorway asphalt. It is very noticeable with the swisstopo SWISSIMAGE now that most of the trees have been cut down.
Marc
Again, in the case of a better source, of course it should be corrected as said earlier ("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"). I don't think anyone challenges that. It would indeed improve the map and even possibly help document the change of the vegetation over time.
Correcting is an improvement and is a totally different thing when compared to the deliberate data destruction by means of "simplifying" algorithms under subjective preferences of what OSM data should or shouldn't be by self appointed OSM police. I do personally regularly erase and redraw buildings and landuse when beter sources are available. That unfortunately is not what we are dealing with with the above mentioned data sabotage.
Le mar. 28 juin 2022 à 21:38, Marc Mongenet marc.mongenet@gmail.com a écrit :
Le lun. 27 juin 2022 à 11:38, RB tanrub@gmail.com a écrit :
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?
Hello,
I did some mapping in Wallis last week, and obviously noticed the landuse=forest mapping. I must first say that I am very impressed with the size of the area mapped with better than normal accuracy. But I have to put (very) cold water on this enthusiasm. The forest mapping in Wallis is not accurate; it is not micro-mapping; it is a fancy sine wave around the actual (usually straight) land use; over 95% of the nodes are based on shades, non-orthogonal projection of the canopy on the ground, or pure invention. They are not based on terrain, and removing most of them actually improves the accuracy of the map.
Here is an example. If we look at this (non-free) data:
https://www.google.fr/maps/@46.0985256,7.0849358,3a,75y,103.54h,95.62t/data=... a straight line of trees and a straight fence marking the boundary between the forest and road land use are shown. The most accurate mapping would have been to use the fence as the boundary of the landuse=forest, but instead there is a sinusoidal curve that even has a few nodes on the motorway asphalt. It is very noticeable with the swisstopo SWISSIMAGE now that most of the trees have been cut down.
Marc
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Well, when I look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/965324922/history#map=19/46.03001/7.11161, 83 nodes for this landuse=forest is already too much with the quality of swisstopo SWISSIMAGE. Many nodes cannot be sourced by this orthophoto, and therefore should not be present in OSM. But I don't see how they can be removed by a "simplifying algorithm" and I certainly would not encourage such edits.
Marc
Le mar. 28 juin 2022 à 21:49, RB tanrub@gmail.com a écrit :
Again, in the case of a better source, of course it should be corrected as said earlier ("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"). I don't think anyone challenges that. It would indeed improve the map and even possibly help document the change of the vegetation over time.
Correcting is an improvement and is a totally different thing when compared to the deliberate data destruction by means of "simplifying" algorithms under subjective preferences of what OSM data should or shouldn't be by self appointed OSM police. I do personally regularly erase and redraw buildings and landuse when beter sources are available. That unfortunately is not what we are dealing with with the above mentioned data sabotage.
Le mar. 28 juin 2022 à 21:38, Marc Mongenet marc.mongenet@gmail.com a écrit :
Le lun. 27 juin 2022 à 11:38, RB tanrub@gmail.com a écrit :
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?
Hello,
I did some mapping in Wallis last week, and obviously noticed the landuse=forest mapping. I must first say that I am very impressed with the size of the area mapped with better than normal accuracy. But I have to put (very) cold water on this enthusiasm. The forest mapping in Wallis is not accurate; it is not micro-mapping; it is a fancy sine wave around the actual (usually straight) land use; over 95% of the nodes are based on shades, non-orthogonal projection of the canopy on the ground, or pure invention. They are not based on terrain, and removing most of them actually improves the accuracy of the map.
Here is an example. If we look at this (non-free) data:
https://www.google.fr/maps/@46.0985256,7.0849358,3a,75y,103.54h,95.62t/data=... a straight line of trees and a straight fence marking the boundary between the forest and road land use are shown. The most accurate mapping would have been to use the fence as the boundary of the landuse=forest, but instead there is a sinusoidal curve that even has a few nodes on the motorway asphalt. It is very noticeable with the swisstopo SWISSIMAGE now that most of the trees have been cut down.
Marc
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
-
Danilo -
David Haberthür -
Hubert Rüttimann -
Kt47uo5uVzW -
Marc Mongenet -
Michael Flamm -
Peter Berger -
RB -
Sarah Hoffmann -
Sentalize -
Simon Poole -
Yves