[Osmf-talk] Alternative Strategic Plan

[Steve Coast]

I need to fix the formatting but I put the original up here:

User:Steve/AlternativeStrategicPlan - OpenStreetMap Wiki<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Steve/AlternativeStrategicPlan>

Best

Steve


On May 15, 2023, at 4:56 AM, Chris Andrew <cjhandrew at gmail.com> wrote:

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<mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>> wrote:



May 15, 2023, 06:58 by osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org<mailto: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<mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
_______________________________________________
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/20230515/32bc70a1/attachment.htm>