[Osmf-talk] Alternative Strategic Plan

[Chris Andrew]

Do we have a cut-off date? I guess if it's for the coming year, it needs to
be fairly soonish.

On Mon, 15 May 2023, 14:55 Steve Coast, <steve at stevecoast.com> wrote:

> 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> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20230515/434c5a03/attachment.htm>