[Talk-us-massachusetts] Hello

Thu Dec 17 16:36:39 UTC 2020

Hi Greg.

Thanks so much for all the detailed information.  I am at least passingly
familiar with many of the things you mentioned but it is helpful to get
your view on things.

Culturally, it's been a pretty steep learning curve for me and at times
feels rather intimidating.  I have this consistent fear of stepping on
toes.  I'd love to continue the dialog on all the points, but text email
will make that too tedious.  Some selected additional thoughts:

I was a user of OSM data for years before becoming a mapper with apps like
Gaia on my iPhone, etc.  After diving in, I do really get the whole "OSM is
a database, not just the (standard carto render) map" thing.  However, I'd
say the vast majority of casual users and new mappers do not appreciate
this distinction nor care.  I'm sure this has been talked about ad nauseum
before.  https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2018/02/16/osm-is-in-trouble/

It's very interesting to me to see how UK origins influenced syntax naming
choices and how subtle differences between British/American English results
in very different interpretations and ultimately mapping norms.  It's
further interesting to me that there are even mapping standards differences
between adjoining states in New England!  I appreciate each state has its
own local laws, but it seems like a worthwhile effort to at least build
consensus at the country level, rather than state.  I'd much rather have
broader tagging practice homogeneity with a tagging schema I don't
completely agree with than one I 100% like but only applies to my little
corner of the map.  As a new mapper, I feel tension using
landuse=conservation when the wiki says in red this is depreciated and JOSM
throws up a warning/error on upload.  I want to "fit in" with my local
friends, but I also want to build towards more broadly applied mapping
schemas.  What is one to do?  I thought that in-process US Public Lands
effort was trying to strike a good balance.  I don't like the numerical
code thing either.  But my understanding is the longer-term goal is to drop
most of them in lieu of more friendly actual word tagging keys.

For an algorithmically driven render, presumably "database consistency" =
"visual consistency".  My comment was made in that spirit.  My gateway into
OSM was being annoyed that what seems like very similar use-case parcels,
like Blue Hills and Middlesex Fells, looked very different on the standard
render.

I still struggle with what "should" get mapped in OSM.  The default seems
to be "more is better, add appropriate tagging, and let the renderer figure
it out".  I can apreciate that.  But I also feel it's a bit naive.  If it's
somewhat true that for a large portion of casual end-users "OSM = carto
render", and we are striving to create a useful tool for our fellow local
citizens, should not carto render influence things a bit?  For instance: MA
private conservation easements with NO public access.  It seems on a
MassGIS openspace import years ago many of these were en masse brought in.
Many 1 or 2 acre parcels in Lincoln/Weston/Concord/etc.  What is the
value?  I presume OSM is NOT trying to be a complete cadastral database.
Local town GIS or MassGIS is way better for that.  These tiny parcels IMHO
clutter the map and render very similar to how actual publicly accesible
land renders.  I've actually inadvertently "trespassed" a few times on
private land because I saw those green frames on my iPhone.  Yes, it's my
responsibility to make sure I'm observing no trespassing signs but the
"map" isn't helping because I need to drive down the metadata.  Another
example, similar to what you mentioned, is closed or private trails.  I've
seen a mapper in Lincoln keep placing additional "highway=path" ways on
private land with no additional tags.  I meticulously investigate town GIS
and see no trail easements.  I reach out to that mapper to inquire if they
attained permission, or know if "access=permissibale" but hear nothing
back.  Should those be left on there?  IMHO, that's tacitly "encouraging"
trespassing and a good way to get landowners actively opposed to OSM.

I actually have a friend or two who are local town conservation agents in
the western 'burbs.  With my new found mapping hobby, I've reached out to
them and they are interested in chatting.  I'll report back...

On landcover:  I care about it on parcels that I and the general public
have access to.  Elsewhere, where MOST of MA is natural=wood, what is the
value?  Looking at imagery is more helpful.  I had been doing
micro-landcover mapping on public parcels because I think it's
delivering value to average citizen end users.  I have next to zero
motivation to map landcover elsewhere.  This is in striking contrast to our
friends in RI.  Looking at OSM, RI looks like a green oasis.

Would love to continue the conversation.  I'd be up for chatting more
offline with a screen share.  Or even a geo meetup with more people.

Thanks,
Tom

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

>
> You didn't mention "engaging with the local Conservation Commission and
> land trust to get them to use OSM".   There are typically a number of
> issues with that including
>
>   a "we use ESRI" attitude
>
>   a desire to produce maps that show only official trails
>
>   a fear of crowdsourced data
>
>   unwillingness to attribute OSM
>
> There are a few towns that do seem to be using OSM, specifically Groton
> and Bolton.  I don't know of others.
>
> Stow, for example, publishes per-property trail maps in pdf, but doesn't
> make the underlying data available.  (I could make a public records
> request, but that doesn't get me a license to use it, and I can walk the
> trails myself, so I haven't.)  However, the Conservation Department
> knows me, and when they did close a trail (actually blocked it and
> signed it no entry, due to erosion cocerns) they asked me to adjust OSM.
> So there are certainly a lot of middle grounds.
>
> If you do want to approach  the town, I'm happy to chat  offline some
> time in more depth, and would advise you to figure out the social
> situation first and tread carefully.
>
>
> Another caution is that there are sometimes edits from trail user
> communities that may not reflect property rules.  I have edited OSM a
> bit in Stow to mark bicycle=no on trails where the landowner does not
> permit bicycle use, and access=no on private land that is posted and I
> know the landowner objects to trespassing.
>
> Greg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20201217/48820c51/attachment-0001.htm>