[Tagging] V3 to V4 Mapillary image id migration

Kai Michael Poppe - OSM osm at poppe.dev
Wed Nov 3 21:00:05 UTC 2021


*sigh*

If anyone wants to follow the changeset discussion, having myself insulted for a hobby that I have enjoyed at some point in time, feel free.

Kai

On 03.11.2021 19:57, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Well "the wiki is wrong" is quite a bold statement when every language page says exactly the same with the English version having done so for 6 years.
>
> Fortunately, I have a very extensive list of the current values (*g*) and can confirm: There are 202,203 "valid" old values in the database of which "only" 37,615 values use the http-notation (18,6%). I would dispute that that's the correct way to tag it.
>
> Also: The wiki specifically states "The reason for adding the key and not the full URI is that the URI might change (and already did in the past), but the key will stay the same. For the same reason the direct link to the image (e.g. /https://images.mapillary.com/.../thumb-2048.jpg/) should not be tagged." ... We're QUITE LITERALLY seeing that the v3 notation of the web-app was https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/... and the v4 notation is https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=...
>
> I'm not in favour of telling a contributor off that has 3k+ edits, but I really don't want to leave this uncommented.
>
> Kai
>
> On 03.11.2021 19:37, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote:
>> @Kai and everyone,
>>
>> I have hit a problem.  I have corrected a "mapillary=*" tag, where another user had put the whole mapillary URL into the key field.  I removed it and left only the v4 key (16 digit numeric key), with a comment that they were in error by putting the whole URL into the key field. This was the second instance of this with the same user.
>>
>> They have now responded to my comment, saying that "the wiki is wrong".
>>
>> Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113303225 and the changeset comments.
>>
>> Who is correct?  How do we resolve this difference of opinion?
>>
>>
>>
>> @Kai.  No problem; I have actually quite enjoyed doing it.  (Only 19 more to go....)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter
>> (aka PeterPan99)
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 3 November 2021, 18:20:36 GMT, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM <osm at poppe.dev> wrote:
>>
>>
>> @CJ,
>>
>> Thanks for clearing that up for me, I'll guess for the "cleanup" of the no-longer-existing-old-valid-values I'll have to put two Challenges, one with Nodes/Ways and one with any one member of a Relation and a different description - as MapRoulette only has GeoJSON or an overpass query which might not be useful in this case (have to check).
>>
>> @Peter,
>>
>> Thanks for clearing the whole Challenge!
>>
>> Kai
>>
>> On 03.11.2021 16:29, Cj Malone wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2021-11-03 at 14:01 +0100, osm at poppe.dev wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> > GeoJSON doesn't support relations. It's kinda a bad format for complex
>> > data structures, like anything that comes from OSM.
>> >
>> > Another one is, if a way has a node in it with a tag on it, it's
>> > actually stored as a point in the way, and separately a node on it's
>> > own (with the tags) then the program that reads the data has to
>> > correlate the points with nodes by finding anything that shares a
>> > location. This then means if you have 2 nodes with the same location
>> > they can erroneously get merged into one point with some software (like
>> > JOSM).
>> >
>> > I used to love geojson before running into weird issues like this. Now
>> > I try to keep things in .osm as much as possible.
>> >
>> > Cj
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20211103/7c82819e/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list