[Osmf-talk] Alternative Strategic Plan

[Chris Andrew]

Hi, all.

So it's easier (not just for me), is it worth putting this proposal in a
table somewhere, so we can capture comments and refine the alternative
suggestion. Perhaps we could also have the original 'official' proposal
there, as I'm guessing we'll draw from both.

Using a table would avoid trying to keep up with responses to responses, in
the email conversation.

Many thanks,

Chris
chris_debian

On Mon, 15 May 2023, 11:14 Mateusz Konieczny via osmf-talk, <
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> May 15, 2023, 06:58 by osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org:
>
> *TL:DR: the first part is me explaining why I don't believe generic
> building=yes are useful the way newcomers are urged to add them. The
> comments focus only on "common good" PoIs (both because they are highly
> reusable, less likely to be worth competition, easier even for not
> OSM-survey focused apps and easier to find volunteers to moderate/accept
> them) in a way that maybe more than an anonymous user even from a
> completely different app could confirm seems a clear win-win. But if we're
> going to use OSM Notes, they could also be machine parseable from the
> start, and if data was added based on 1 or more Notes, then we help humans
> to keep some metadata of previous steps (like how many different people
> confirmed the type existed in the local area).*
>
> > Mateusz Konieczny said
> > mapping accurate building=yes is highly helpful (low quality armchair
> mapping has dubious or negative utility, but mapping building=yes is not
> indicator of this - rather inaccurate guessing of building=* value is a
> bigger problem)
>
> Let me give a real world example. Weeks ago on unofficial OpenStreetMap
> Telegram channel  (message https://t.me/OpenStreetMapOrg/101372 ) a
> mapper from Colombia complained that the buildings added in an area (near
> volcano Nevado del Ruiz) was visited by local civil defense. The
> building=yes (added by a human mapper, but geometry suggested
> Microsoft/buildingFootprints) actually was a... tree. Guayacanes and
> Yarumos to be more exact. He was pissed off on the chat, saying it already
> complained in the past.
>
> Well, mapping nonexisting buildings not helpful.
>
> The problem here is false data, not missing specific value of building=*
> tags
> (and people mapping trees as buildings should be asked to stop
> and get guidance and possibly also reverted.
>
> This does not change that mapping actual buildings as building=yes is
> useful
> first step (as long as building=yes geometries match actual buildings).
>
> But even if it wasn't by invalid meaning (e.g. not a tree), it is still
> highly problematic
>
> why? As long as building=yes geometries match actual buildings then it is
> useful
> first step (not claiming that it is the best possible first step or useful
> for everything,
> but I repeatedly use such data for my own orientation when travelling and
> planning
> travels).
>
> Accurate building=yes data is better than no data.
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20230515/e2af4218/attachment.htm>