My first mapping region was on the opposite side of Heilbronn and your blog entry reminds me to check the old tracks I added 12 years ago.

Die explizite Erfassung von traffic_sign=* ist eine noch nicht allzu alte Methode. Es empfiehlt sich daher, auch auf die Access-Tags zurückzugreifen.

Denk bitte daran, dass Verkehrszeichen von manchen Mappern am Way, von anderen als Nodes des Ways erfasst werden. Letzteres ist zumindest bei uns in Karlsruhe üblich.

Nachtrag: Da steht nicht einmal eine Lizenzangabe direkt dran, dann ist das nicht einmal Open Data. Ändert an der Nutzungszulässigkeit aber nichts.

Die verlinkte Karte ist zwar unter der Datenlizenz Deutschland Namensnennung 2.0 lizenziert. Da uns die zuständige Behörde jedoch keine Befreiung von der Namensnennungspflicht erteilt, kann OpenStreetMap diese Quelle nicht legal nutzen. Die Nutzung durch OSM wäre ein Lizenzverstoß.

Diese Quelle darf daher für die Datenerfassung für OpenStreetMap nicht verwendet werden!

@domih https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:What3words beschreibt, warum What3words zu verteufeln ist.

Leider ist die Autobahn GmbH nicht (mehr) nach dem Informationsfreiheitsgesetz auskunftspflichtig, sonst könnte man mal nach vertraglichen Beziehungen fragen.

1. I oppose this proposal. Adding a new key to an ill-defined, little-used, tag does not make it any better.

Wenn ich das mit meinen bescheidenen Englischkenntnissen richtig verstehe: Ein POI, der wenig gemappt ist, weil es bisher kein Tagging dafür gibt, macht keinen Sinn zu mappen oO

Übersetzt: “Ich lehne den Vorschlag ab. Das Ergänzen des neuen Keys zu einem schlecht definierten, kaum genutzten Tag bringt keine Verbesserung.”

Aus einem abgelehntes Proposal folgt an sich erst einmal kein Nutzungsverbot für das Tag.

Nachtrag: Mit der Empfehlung ist dieser Beitrag auf der Mailingliste Talk-de gemeint.

highflyer74 schrieb:

Also ich habe mit Jitsi kein Problem auf Firefox. Die anfänglichen Probleme sind anscheinend gefixt, was aber offensichtlich einige Leute nicht mitbekommen. Was das mit OSM zu tun hat, erschliesst sich mir nicht.

Die Empfehlung Chromium oder Chrome zu nutzen, stammt von mir, weil die Jitsi-Version, mit der die Jitsi-Instanz der Geofabrik betrieben wurde, mit Firefox nicht gut harmonierte. Das war nicht als allgemeine Empfehlung gedacht. Ich nutze als Haupt-Browser Firefox – beruflich und privat. Zwar war das Beitreten und die Teilnahme mit Bild und Ton möglich, jedoch fror das Bild von Firefox-Nutzern bei Chrome-/Chromium-/Firefox-Nutzern nach einiger Zeit ein.

Ich habe heute Nachmittag die Jitisi-Version auf jitsi.geofabrik.de aktualisiert. Ob das jetzt mit Firefox besser funktioniert, weiß ich nicht. Mein Test-Gespräch war nicht lang genug.

• jicofo 1.0.508-1 → 1.0.644-1
• jitsi-meet 1.0.4101-1 → 2.0.5142-1
• jitsi-meet-prosody 1.0.3729-1 → 1.0.4466-1
• jitsi-meet-web 1.0.3729-1 → 1.0.4466-1
• jitsi-meet-web-config 1.0.3729-1 → 1.0.4466-1
• jitsi-videobridge 1126-1 → jitsi-videobridge2 2.1-376-g9f12bfe2-1

Hi,

sorry, I accidentially turned off rendering new tiles when I updated the map styles a few days ago. I turned on rendering tiles (and re-rendering tiles with changes) but it might take a few days for the server to get up to date.

Best regards

Michael (OpenRailwayMap maintainer)

If you use your Twitter account not as a board member, why do you mention it in your biography? Your biography currently says:

Hacker. Queer. OSMF Board. Expect: OpenStreetMap, FLOSS, IE/UK Pol, Some Queerness, Cynicism+Optimism ☄ /enby. they 🏳️‍🌈 🇮🇪 Ⓐ⚑ ✊ 🚲 Opinions my own.

Ben Abelshausen wrote:

Another suggestion we heard from OSM-BE members: can’t we become OSMF members automatically when becoming a member of the local chapter. OSM-BE will be working on getting that done somehow!

Chaos Computer Club e.V., a German non-profit hacker organisation, had a membership scheme where one could automatically join the national association when he/she joined their local club (also an e.V.). I don’t know the details why the stopped it but it was summarised as it did not work because there were always a few local organisations which did not regularly report their membership data to the superior association. Given that most local chapters are – like the Foundation – run by volunteers, it is very likely that the Foundation will struggle with getting up-to-date memberships lists. Having them is crucial for a legally correct AGM – even more important than getting the membership fees paid to the local association. Therefore, I strongly recommend against a shared membership programme. (FOSSGIS e.V. does not plan any)

Mikel Maron wrote:

The most immediate action I want us to take is splitting the Advisory Board into a group of Local Chapters, and a group for corporates. The Advisory Board as-is has failed – the Board asks for nothing from it, and the Advisory Board offers up very little. I don’t think Local Chapters and companies have the same concerns, or have a lot to say to each other in front of the Board. So let’s split and see if it becomes more interesting. As usual, discussions from the Advisory Board would be reported out publicly.

There were no topics really important to businesses on the boards agenda this year except minor topics such as indirect sponsoring of local SotMs. The Organised Editing Guideline was done last year. Therefore, it is no surprise that it is quite quiet.

I have somehow mixed feelings about this. Even if the board reports to the public about the topics discussed there, I feel way more comfortable with having someone from my local chapter present there and watching it as well (checking yourself is better than trust). If we (FOSSGIS e.V.) want something from the OSMF Board, we approach the board directly. If it is something which requires discussion, we would propose it in the public (a mailing list, the German forum, whatever place fits best). I am currently unable to imagine any case when something could be discussed at the Advisory Board being – no matter whether it is split or not – which would not fit onto a public communication channel. Discussing it at the Advisory Board is not public as in law but still quite open.

Mikel and all the others reading this, the Advisory Board was created because members on the OSMF-Talk list showed their disagreement with a yearly phone call with a board member when the board presented the corporate membership programme in its current form. I understand why a private conversation guaranteed by a membership does not face applause in an open community. If the Advisory Board is “useless” (as in not being used), why don’t we just drop it? It was invented to have some kind of benefit for the upper levels of corporate membership. Why don’t we invent an incentive to replace it? If companies have issues, they will email/call a board member or the board as a whole. If they want to get in touch with other companies, they will likely have someone there whom they know by person.

I am a member of the board of FOSSGIS e.V. but I did not discuss this posting with my fellow board members.

I forgot to wrote that I intentionally used “maintainers” not “developers” because there are more people than the maintainers contributing to the source code. However, none of the current non-maintainers committing to the source have be involved in the disputes. My criticism does not refer to them.

I agree with Frederik. The way how the maintainers deal with people disagreeing with them cannot be accepted as it is.

Maintainers of a project of that importance – especially if they are paid – should be able to get along with people not liking their decisions. If they face constant disagreement, they should ask themselves who’s really wrong. Is it the community not understanding their great vision? Or do they not realise being on a motorway but driving into the wrong direction?

Simply locking these tickets as being “too heated” (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions links to almost all of them) is not a solution of the dispute. Regarding attempts of mediation with dislike isn’t either. Excluding a large number of people from being community members and enclosing yourself in a more or less gated community does – together with the reactions above – lead myself to the impression that they have a serious problem with dealing criticism.

All this was topped by an action I hope to be regretted retroactively. On Friday, comments and creation of new issues was disabled for everyone except collaborators. (It was re-enabled a few hours later) This cannot be a solution! If one try to lock out criticism, your following an unsuccessful pattern (look at a couple of countries being the media these days).

There are a couple of options to get out of this stuck situation: * Frederik suggests a solutions which is common with Linux distributions patching upstream code. This has the great benefit for upstream maintainers that people disagreeing with them can still convince the distributor to apply a patch to make them happy. On the other hand it is a huge sign of distrust, basically like voting a prime minister out of office ahead of time. * Another solution would be the maintainers to realise the stuck situation themselves and pausing their engagement with iD development until the end of the year except important bugs. An provisional maintainer should watch bug reports and report real, severe bugs to the maintainers but holding them away from everything else.. It would grant them a cool-down period to relax, something at least one of the maintainers seems to seek for a couple of month (it was repeated on Slack these days with a different wording).

I hope that the maintainers realise that we are running more and more into a dead-end road with an undesirable end.

maxwerickson wrote:

I also think you could have been much more careful in characterizing the situation. iD accepts lots of tagging related pull requests, it isn’t closed off or the work of a few people. And then the situation with third party content is going to be resolved by notifying users and asking for consent. The horror.

Most of these requests are valid. I review issues myself and comment those which are questionable or worse (but I don’t comment all the others in order to keep down the noise level). The complaints about the iD developers treatment of change request refers to those they decline.

phideaux wrote:

I don’t have any stake in the matter, except as a user of the tools, but I do want to speak in defense of the iD team. I observe their day-to-day interactions on the OSM-US Slack, and it has been my impression that they are extremely responsive to bug fixes, clearly doing a lot of work on personal time, and helpful to users who have questions or concerns about presets, documentation, and other aspects of the project. As an outside user, it strikes me as a very well run OS project.

I agree that they fix bugs very quickly. Their presence on the OSM-US Slack is not a surprise (as mine on #osm-de). People often have a preference for domestic communication channels. However, someone acting on a world-wide level should respect international channels, especially if the channel is dedicated to a topic one has a large influence of or works a lot with in an influential way. This is the Tagging mailing list. People on that mailing list are very dedicated to tag design and tag usage. It is the accepted communication channel for Tagging. If the majority of people disagrees with ones decisions, they aren’t abusive or unwelcoming. They are just telling you that they don’t agree with you. One should keep in mind that member of the OSM community come from very different cultures and that applies to their way calling things good or bad.

maxerickson wrote:

The worst thing about all this crap is that it is just reaction to change. It’s good for OSM to consolidate tags that mean the same thing, even if in the past it was better for OSM to do something else. We should move on from poorly thought out tag schemes. We should pick winners when multiple tags mean the same thing.

I might agree with that partially but it should not happen in an unilateral way. It is not the task of the iD maintainers to deprecate tagging. Instead, they should try to implement community consensus as best as they can.

Most disputes with iD are related to tagging. If the maintainers handed over these issues to a committee, they would get rid of most decisions and people would point their fingers less often onto them.

maxerickson wrote:

And then the situation with third party content is going to be resolved by notifying users and asking for consent. The horror.

It is not user friendly but European law requires us to do so. Most user consent is already implemented in iD, it’s called “change background imagery”.

The posting by jguthula was crossposted on the German OSM forum where people have different opinions (published in English) than those voiced here. https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66880

Could you please provide the IDs of the changesets you are complaining about? Did you comment these changesets publicly so that other contributors can read the dispute? If you want help, you should tell people how to help. ;-)

Please mind that user diaries are not the optimal forum for your type of complaint. The OSM forum, Talk mailing list or a national mailing list might be more appropriate because it is read by far more mappers.

@b-jazz I recommend you to discuss this edit on a public mailing list with a proper archive (Talk-us in your case). Otherwise people not participating in proprietary communication channels can complain that the edit was not discussed, i.e. violating the Automated Edits Code of Conduct.

@mmd I am happy to share the PostgreSQL dump and the scripts with you if you have scraped the forum, Reddit (does it have an API?), Facebook or whatever and want to do a combined analysis.

imagico wrote: > What i would really like to see (and i hope maybe Pascal will be able to provide a better look at this at some point) is how the same analysis would look like not for OSMF members per mapper but OSMF members per hobby mapper. As Simon for example pointed out a much larger portion of mapping activities in the US seem of commercial nature compared to most of Europe so the US overweight would probably be even more extreme if you take into account that SEO spammers are not really the kind of mapper you want represented in the OSMF.

I would not draw that hard line between us (hobby mappers) and them (paid mappers). There is not the stereotypical paid mapper who believes in satellite imagery only and whose quality is poor. There are paid/commercial mappers who work in a specific region only and have similar local knowledge to an average hobby mapper in that area as well. [1]

If you have a look at the list of new contributors in the U.S. on a normal workday, you will see dozens and dozens of accounts who add a single business – often without a meaningful tag like shop=*, amenity=* or office=* (often wrong keys like keywords or Phone as well). The list of new contributors in Germany contains business edits as well but much more “normal mappers”. While the business accounts don’t upload more than one or two changesets, normal mappers are more likely to upload more changesets or contribute later (not very likely but more than 0%).

It would be interesting to use the list of average active contributors per day who have edited on at least two days (or five days) to remove one-time accounts from the list.

[1] The observation refers to German speaking countries.

Thank you, Stereo, for publishing the questions. I would like to see these questions be part of the official minutes of the board meeting. That’s the location where I would look up them in future.

Just a comment by the developer of the OSMI Public Transport (me):

The green colour is no guarantee that the route relation is 100% valid. OSMI does not check everything. For example, OSMI does not check if all stop positions are member of the roads/tracks used by the route and it does not check the order of stop positions and platforms.