[Tagging] V3 to V4 Mapillary image id migration

Wed Nov 3 13:01:41 UTC 2021

Hello Peter,

I am almost ashamed that you have to wade through my seemingly sparse description of why objects came to be in the Challenge and thus are questioning what you are overlooking, where in reality I was just shrugging to why MR wouldn't really do as I pleased.

So: 

Q1 - yes. If there's a way/node in the Challenge that has no mapillary=* tagging then it is most likely part of a relation where that's the case. When setting up the challenge, I was 99% sure I added the Relations as their own objects and put them into the GeoJSON that's the basis for the Challenge. It might very well be that MR just ignores relations (as it might not know how to display them properly) and add the objects that are part of it (as they are in the GeoJSON as well) or I was just too stupid to deliver the correct data.
Q2 a) If the mapillary-value in the relation is a working one that would seem to be in the correct location, answer the task with "Already Fixed" and supply a comment like "Part of a relation" or something, b) If they key is garbage and you cannot find another 22-char-key as I described before (and correct it that way) I'd go on to removing it alltogether. 

I hope this answers more questions than it raises! Have a great day

Kai

On Wed, 3 Nov 2021 12:33:07 +0000 (UTC) Peter Neale nealepb at yahoo.co.uk said

> Hi Kai and everyone, 
> 
> Well I have managed quite a number of tasks in this challenge, but I've come
> across quite a few that I don't understand. 
> 
> There are several roads (or traffic signs, or junctions) that are flagged by
> the MR challenge, but have no mapillary data.  There have been no recent
> edits, so it is not the case that erroneous data has been removed by someone
> else. 
> 
> Going to edit these objects, they are shown to be in no relations.  However,
> if I go to the bottom of the page (in iD editor) and click on "view on
> openstreetmap.org", it shows the item to be in one or more relations, such as
> " Relation 10140764 (as from)"  That relation then has an entry in
> "mapillary=*"; sometimes a valid v3 mapillary key and sometimes a name, or
> other erroneous data. 
> 
> Q1.  Is the presence of the mapillary key in the relation causing the road
> section to be flagged by the MR challenge? 
> Q2.  What should be done with it?  a. if it is a legitimate mapillary
> key...   b. if it is garbage / other data? 
> 
> Regards, 
> Peter 
> (aka PeterPan99) 
> 
> On Monday, 1 November 2021, 13:58:46 GMT, Peter Neale via Tagging  wrote: 
> 
> Thanks Kai, 
> 
> I had not realised that I could put the alphanumeric 22 char v3 key into the
> mapillary url and get redirected to the numeric 10 digit v4 key. 
> 
> Taking the whole url, found in the tagging, and putting into my browser just
> resulted in a fail. 
> 
> I'll give it a try later,  when I've finished my domestic chores. 
> 
> Regards  
> Peter 
> (aka PeterPan99) 
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
> 
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 13:42, osm at poppe.dev 
> wrote: 
> Hello Peter, 
> It's not a strange questions to ask, I might not have made that totally
> clear, so I'm using an example: 
> https://osm.org/way/863584696 has this tagging (for the relevant things you
> mentioned): 
> image   
> https://images.mapillary.com/sDvIogIJtrU1R-ehl2PfrA/thumb-2048.jpg 
> mapillary    https://photos.app.goo.gl/Ljbwf7vZYa8LZJaX8 
> description    https://photos.app.goo.gl/Ljbwf7vZYa8LZJaX8 
> So, the old 22-V3-ID (from image=*) is "sDvIogIJtrU1R-ehl2PfrA" which, when
> you open https://www.mapillary.com/app?pKey=sDvIogIJtrU1R-ehl2PfrA (I
> described that in point 1 in the task description, even though only
> mentioning numeric values there), this will redirect to
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1356231481407038. 
> So, the new tagging could be 
> image= https://photos.app.goo.gl/Ljbwf7vZYa8LZJaX8 
> mapillary=1356231481407038 
> description= 
> For additional confusion, the user put an Image from his own Google Photos
> collection into the data. I still have to discuss if this is even acceptable
> under OSM standards... 
> HTH! 
> Kai 
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 11:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Peter Neale nealepb at yahoo.co.uk , Tag
> discussion, strategy and related tools tagging at openstreetmap.org said 
> > Hi Kai, 
> > 
> > I am having a go at the MapRoulette challenge (and have managed to deal with 
> > a few cases already). 
> > 
> > However, I need to seek clarification (sorry if I am being a bit "hard of 
> > thinking", but I don't want to cause more problems than I cure) 
> > 
> > What should I do, if the Mapillary ID= field (or another field, such as 
> > "image=") contains a full URL, linking to the Mapillary image, and including 
> > a 22 character alphanumeric (v3) Key?   
> > 
> > Should I: 
> > 
> > a.  replace the URL with the 22 character v3 key and wait for your bot to 
> > find it and translate it to v4? 
> > b.  go somewhere (where?) and look up the corresponding v4 key, placing that
> > 
> > in the "Mapillary ID=* field"? 
> > c.  Do something else?    
> > 
> >   
> > Regards, 
> > Peter 
> > (aka PeterPan99) 
> > 
> > On Sunday, 31 October 2021, 13:43:54 GMT, Kai Michael Poppe  wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Hi Mateusz, 
> > 
> > Nope, those old values are gone. People have either deleted them or deleted 
> > their accounts all together with the option to remove their photos along with
> > 
> > it. They are gone and can not be recovered by Mapillary. 
> > 
> > The manual MapRoulette fix is hoping that another person has a photo of the 
> > same object. 
> > 
> > Kai 
> > 
> > 31.10.2021 14:30:49 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging : 
> > 
> > Oct 30, 2021, 15:51 by me-osm-tagging at keepawayfromfire.co.uk : 
> > 
> > On Sat, 2021-10-30 at 11:52 +0200, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote: 
> > 
> > 2 - There are ~2.6k "old" values in the key, that match the correct 
> > 
> > pattern but that have since been deleted from Mapillary. Please give me 
> > 
> > your opinion on how the automated edit shall handle them: a) remove 
> > 
> > completely and don't care anymore b) remove the key and put more info 
> > 
> > in the changeset comment c) leave the old key even though it has no use 
> > 
> > anymore d) move to old:mapillary=* (or something like that) 
> > 
> > Possibly an option E. That would be to do option C, and set up a 
> > 
> > MapRoulette for people to manually go through and clean up those 
> > 
> > objects. There may other images already in Mapillary that correspond to 
> > 
> > the object, remove the mapillary=* if there isn't, or remove the whole 
> > 
> > OSM object if it is no longer relevant. 
> > 
> > It only really works if there are people motivated to do the 
> > 
> > MapRoulette. I'll try to find some time to help out on the current one 
> > 
> > [1], but the one I describe as option E would be significantly bigger. 
> > 
> > I would try MapRouelette, just in case someone would be interested. 
> > 
> > After some time remove them, but with clear description in edit 
> > 
> > (and also in an approved bot edit). 
> > 
> > old:mapillary=* is definitely bad idea, what is the point of linking 
> > something 
> > 
> > that will never be available again? 
> > 
> > PS Just to check: is it maybe caused by extra space or some other whitespace 
> > 
> > or other easily fixable issue? 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > Tagging mailing list 
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > Tagging mailing list 
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Tagging mailing list 
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging