[OHM] tagging for historic race tracks / NEH

Mon Dec 29 07:47:04 UTC 2014

My problem with a lot of this material is it's very theoretical basis in
standards world. I'm seeing a lot of keywords for pure-standards
initiatives without implementations and know that they never took off
during the last decade. Who's using GML outside of the mapping agencies,
as a thin transport layer? Has XMLSchema ever been of any direct help to
you? Has Time OWL got any use outside of academic prototypes for more
grant funding to work on Time OWL applications?

I look at SK53's prototypes for historical routing based on OSM data and
I'm pleasantly amazed. What will the side-effects be of historical
routing? And the adhoc, rapid-iteration approach of OSM allows you to
work that out. So I don't really understand why you would be wanting to
replay this decade of failpath standards development in order to model
hypercorrect data that you'll almost never going to find.

Historical name search looks like an easy place to start for OSM. Think
about a temporal aspect to Nominatim? Look around at some of the work
that Herbert van de Sompel did with Memento and temporal WMS, and
whether that worked out for them or not. Dig into the serious archival
problems, how to keep the data consistently readable for the next 100
years. This sort of thing?

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014, at 03:27 AM, Rob H Warren wrote:
> Jeff,
> 
> We've previously talked about 'locking' some key/value pairs in certain
> applications for specific purposes, such as historic:era=RomanRepublic
> for tools that focus exclusively on that period. I don't think that this
> is particularly controversial since it allows different audiences to work
> with the same backend without too much hand-holding on the details.
> 
> CRM-CIDOC is sometimes suggested as a meta-data standard for historical
> geodata, but it needs some maturing before it becomes operationally
> useful. The Open Geospatial Consortium has a number of different specs
> that are of interest, including GML. A redux of some of those ideas exist
> in GeoSparql at OpenGIS.net, with the most important being the separation
> between the feature and the geometry. OSM does not currently
> differentiate between the two and this is a problem for us since we can't
> differentiate between a conflict over a feature (which Cartage?) and its
> location (Where was Cartage?).
> 
> Something that GML has made an attempt at recording and that remains
> poorly used in OSM is precision and/or accuracy. There is a difference
> between a county border as traced from a 1900 digitized 1:80,000 map and
> a ww1 era fortification whose location is fixed using a GPS.
> 
> We've similarly discussed temporal issues on the list before; I would
> push for a two level solution that mixes both era's and XMLSchema-style
> dates. This allows for the use of well-known era tags 'ww1' while
> anchoring them in specific datetimes. Time OWL already supports this and
> the Open Geospatial Consortium is also heading in this direction with
> their own upcoming recommendations.
> 
> One thing we need to communicate well in the proposal: this isn't about
> rendering a nice map with a time slider but about managing the data
> underneath that drives the visualization. Not all reviewers will
> immediately understand the difference and we have to highlight it.
> 
> Quick question: does anyone see a massive need to support something else
> that WGS84 in the immediate future?
> 
> best,
> rhw
> 
> On Dec 28, 2014, at 3:17 PM, Jeff Meyer <jeff at gwhat.org> wrote:
> 
> > Rob & the list -
> > 
> > Is there a metadata standard for historical geodata we should be encouraging / eventually enforcing for contributions?
> > 
> > Even if there's not a perfect fit, it would be interesting to see the differences between that effort & what the OHM/OSM key:value structures can support easily. 
> > 
> > Enforcing start_date at the API level might be a start in this area?
> > 
> > - Jeff
> > 
> > On Saturday, December 27, 2014, Rob H Warren <warren at muninn-project.org> wrote:
> > 
> > We have been trying to fit substantially more information into the OSM tagging schema than it was originally meant to support. Workarounds are available for simple things with start_date and end_date, but we can only go so far with things like 'DisusedRailroad'.
> > 
> >> From other work, the recording of historical GIS data requires:
> > 
> > a) Labelling by language, datetime and by source. The 'source' is necessary to keep sanity when dealing with multiple nomenclatures used by different people.
> > b) The associated feature by datetime.
> > c) The different geometries associated to the features by datetime.
> > d) The different states (active, disused, abandoned, damaged) by datetime.
> > 
> > The above is the only way to capture all of the use cases you mention. Given the amount of work that an NEH submission is going to be, perhaps we should look at a redesign of what is under the hood. OSM is already using two different databases for editing and rendering!
> > 
> > best,
> > rhw
> > 
> > 
> > On Dec 19, 2014, at 8:00 AM, historic-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> > 
> >> Message: 2
> >> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:20:07 -0800
> >> From: Jeff Meyer <jeff at gwhat.org>
> >> To: Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net>
> >> Cc: "historic at openstreetmap.org" <historic at openstreetmap.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [OHM] tagging for historic race tracks
> >> Message-ID:
> >>      <CAA1fFexccePOAQ=dHzrMg-b-u2HeWQf4qq46vfWGB38Ripz9zw at mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >> 
> >> These are great questions to consider - I've asked the same thing about how
> >> to represent historical Tour de France routes on a year by year basis.
> >> 
> >> I'll defer to others on this list on how to handle, but I did think there
> >> was something similar to bus routes that might be reappropriated for this
> >> type of application (e.g. a use-based set of tags, rather than
> >> feature-based).
> >> 
> >> Do you want to take stab at figuring out a starting point for tagging
> >> conventions for this stuff & posting it on the wiki? He who writes first
> >> writes best?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> more fun tagging issues to consider:
> >>> 
> >>> 1) the original watkins glen course (1948 through
> >>> the early 50s) ran on public roads that still exist.
> >>> so it could be tagged in OSM. but maybe it should
> >>> be in OHM instead? what do we do? it will never
> >>> be raced on again.
> >>> 
> >>> 2) there are traces of old ovals in the form of
> >>> city streets, one which is complete in San
> >>> Francisco, and one which is only in part in
> >>> Rhode Island. so these could be partially or
> >>> completely tagged in OSM. again, what
> >>> should best practice be? once more, these
> >>> will never be race tracks again.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> richard
> >>> 
> >>> --
> >>> rwelty at averillpark.net
> >>> Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
> >>> OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
> >>> Java - Web Applications - Search
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Historic mailing list
> >>> Historic at openstreetmap.org
> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jeff Meyer
> > Global World History Atlas
> > www.gwhat.org
> > jeff at gwhat.org
> > 206-676-2347
> > 
> > OpenStreetMap: Mapping with a Human Touch
> > osm: Open Historical Map (OHM) / my OSM user page
> > t: @GWHAThistory / @OpenHistMap 
> > f: GWHAThistory
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Historic mailing list
> Historic at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic