Questionable edits around Alsószölnök

[Gergely Matefi]

Dear fellow Mappers,

JM82 provided a long answer to our critics in a changeset comment:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61775261

I suggest to follow the discussion in this forum due to the wider audience.
I encourage you to use English at this thread to allow JM82 to join to the
discussions.

Regards,
Gergely


Kedves szerkesztőtársak,

JM82 írt egy hosszú választ a korábbi kritikáinkra, javasolnám a vitát ezen
a fórumon folytatni. Lehetőleg angolul írjatok, hogy JM82 is
csatlakozhasson.

Üdv,
Gergely

I would now like to comment on the allegations made here regarding this
changeset as follows:
In the OSM-Inpector (
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=15.8752&lat=46.9491&zoom=12)
there are regular errors with multi-polygons in this region, which
unfortunately do not only affect this one CS, but the entire region around
Szentgotthard. MPs are not closed, are faulty and often incorrectly set.
At this point, I would like to make a reference to the German OSM Forum,
where (exactly two years ago) exactly this problem is being discussed on an
ongoing basis. It is particularly bad in this region of HUN, as here often
every single field, every meadow is created as MP, which is also not a
member of a real MP relation, but simply placed as MP alone. This is
according to the wiki of OSM, which also exists in English, not the
intention of MPs and they should not be used like that either. Why and why
does the HUN community shun here and describe it as a "Hungarian mapping
style". In addition, these MPs / landuse areas do not correspond to the
aerial photos that are available via OSM today, but more on that later. In
short, the timeliness is not given.
That's one reason why I've deleted some MPs and replaced them with simple,
usually much smaller, land areas.

It should also be noted that the OSM data in this region appears to come
from (semi-) automatic imports that were carried out many years ago. This
leads in this context also to the problem of MPs in general and their use.
Another reason, in some areas of the area, is that MPs are already so large
(in terms of both surface area and number of members) that editing has
become almost impossible for some editors. But that's exactly what OSM
lives by: the timeliness of the data and its change! Landscapes are
changing, even in West HUN, land uses are changing (fields are turning into
meadows and vice versa, towns are getting bigger, new buildings are being
added).
Smaller land areas are editable with all editors, changeable and so on.
Numerous MPs in this region are just that, because they have grown so big
that nobody can handle them.
The next reason for my changes was that the JOSM editor constantly points
to errors of MPs in this region as part of its review: non-closed MPs,
interchanged inner / outer relations. These are exactly the errors that
come along because of this excessive use of MPs, which - due to the local
landscape, should by no means be set in this way. For this reason, I have
also begun some time ago to bring the MPs in their extent as well as the
number of their members to a reasonably workable measure. Furthermore, I
have corrected many Landuse tags for the existing aerial images and
erwweitert.
Likewise, for the sake of completeness, I would like to point out that I am
not against MPs per se, but they try a) to avoid, b) use sparingly and c)
make changes if I am
Rather, OSM in this region was apparently imported semi-automatic years ago
and no one has taken this data, because these are not only often outdated
(testing via Bing, geoimage.at maxRes or other image service providers),
but also often inaccurately mapped. That's obvious

Another reason was the addition of landuse areas. As you can see clearly, I
have supplemented numerous landuse areas (mostly fields, but also meadows),
since the quality and the mapping style in this region is often
catastrophic: over a few square kilometers simply arable land is stretched
over it, with no aerial picture in it Are to be reconciled.

To the individual points further:
"Making huge changes with no comment is a terrible thing to start with, and
the fact that they are mostly simplifications".
OSM is a community, act like you are trying to be a member and not a
destructor of it. "
I have not made any major changes in this CS by far, as can easily be
understood. To change a MP or parts of it can hardly be called such.

Multipolygon-based landuse structure is adopted and preferred by the local
OSM community and many other mappers follow that mapping style like this is
a vandalism that does not make sense in the future. "
What is the meaning of mapping every single land area as an MP? The effort
only increases, there is no recognizable added benefit of this measure.
Only because I do not map land areas as MP - without worsening the
informative value of the data - is that in your opinion vandalism? A
strange, almost incomprehensible definition of vandalism.
Where did I make systematic changes here? I've added additional Landuse
tags and overhauled existing ones that did not fit together with the aerial
photo altogether or not at all. That is verifiable by means of appropriate
aerial photographs.
--------- következő rész ---------
Egy csatolt HTML állomány át lett konvertálva...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-hu/attachments/20180824/a2851969/attachment.htm>