[Talk-us] SPAM-LOW: Re: mapRe: (Second attempt) Potential data source: Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetlands
Brian May
bmay at mapwise.com
Tue Mar 15 16:00:44 UTC 2016
I agree with the pro-import comments and say go for it. After re-reading
your original post, I feel you are very well suited to the task and are
obviously very contentious about the process. Don't let one strong
negative comment get you down. OSM needs people like you to help make
the map better and lay the groundwork for others to build on. And I am
strongly for importing high quality data sets that have potentially
thousands of man hours invested in them.
A relatively small number of people contribute a lot to OSM and a lot of
people contribute a little, which adds up to a lot. As the map gets
better over time, it sparks people to contribute small but important
contributions to OSM. You will also no doubt spark interest from more
active contributors who will notice that there's major quality
improvements in your area and pitch in to help - potentially a lot. For
example, in sections of Florida where I map, I've seen people come out
of nowhere and start contributing tens or hundreds of changesets to an
area they know well once the map is looking fairly decent and they feel
its something worth contributing to, instead of a blank slate. Mappers
may live in the area of they may be visitors to the area. Either way,
once the map starts gaining more usefulness in your area, it will
attract people with local knowledge who want to contribute.
Brian
On 3/14/2016 11:57 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Ditto to Mike’s comments.
>
> I’ve been dealing with the clean up of bad imports, usually TIGER but
> others too, where ever I map so I think I understand where people like
> Frederick are coming from.
>
> But I also see the reality in the U.S. of huge geographical areas with
> very few OSM mappers. An all volunteer map will always be years behind
> other offerings here unless we allow and even encourage carefully
> importing high quality data.
>
> The U.S. might be unique in that there are vast quantities of
> excellent geographical data that are public domain. Unfortunately
> there is also a vast quantity of public domain map data of, shall we
> say, lesser quality. Had the original U.S. highway import data come
> from the USGS rather than the census bureau, people probably would
> have a very different opinion about imports.
>
> At least the experience with bad imports has shown there can be
> issues. And there is now a lot better understanding of how the data
> and import procedures need to be vetted. So we are in a better place
> to do imports and we should not shy away from importing high quality
> data when the stars line up (good data, appropriate copyright,
> competent OSM mappers available, documented and tested work flows, etc.).
>
> Tod
>
>> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:miketho16 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I support the careful import of high quality data whose license is
>> compatible with OSM. Those appears to be one of those cases. I
>> believe the existence of high quality data will aid in the
>> recruitment of new mappers and will encourage high quality
>> contributions from those mappers. It is much easier, and less
>> daunting, to add additional detail from an on-the-ground survey to
>> some high quality data than it is to start from scratch. People also
>> like to be associated with successful projects, and the more high
>> quality data we have the more successful we will be in the eyes of
>> potential new mappers.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Kevin Kenny <kkenny2 at nycap.rr.com
>> <mailto:kkenny2 at nycap.rr.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Since I received only a total of three comments about this idea,
>> one strongly negative (from Frederik Ramm) and two only lukewarm
>> in support, I'm forced to conclude that this proposal has no
>> chance of gaining a broad community support. Consider it withdrawn.
>>
>> I find myself somewhat frustrated about the question of how to
>> recruit mappers when it appears that the map has such a paucity
>> of data that it will never become useful solely through the
>> effort of volunteer mappers. I can demonstrate the map at
>> http://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test3.html, and state that OSM
>> is one of many data sources that go into it, but when people go
>> to openstreetmap.org <http://openstreetmap.org/> and look at it,
>> my experience is that they lose the connection entirely between
>> the data that OSM has and the map that OSM enables. The huge
>> blank area is too intimidating for my friends, it appears!
>>
>> The fact that we apparently cannot use data that are not our own
>> in presenting our public face, together with the fact that we do
>> not wish to import data for which OSM will not become the
>> authoritative source, leaves us with an impoverished public
>> appearance outside the cities where streets are sparse. Perhaps
>> this is outside OSM's ambit. It is, after all, Open STREET Map.
>> It seems to leave, however, very limited pathways for citizen
>> mappers to build on what the government has done. Few mappers can
>> manage to produce such a map under their own steam, and I
>> certainly don't have the bandwidth - either personal or network -
>> to support that map as a public resource out of a solo project.
>>
>> I'm really at a loss where to go from here.
>>
>> Kevin Kenny
>>
>> On 02/28/2016 11:42 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>>
>> Oops: Just realized I originally sent this reply privately:
>> meant to send to the list.
>>
>> On 02/27/2016 05:18 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>
>> An import is great if it enables a community to go
>> further, or forms the
>> basis of solid work in the future. An import is great if
>> it is one
>> ingredient that makes OSM the best map of the region. But
>> it sounds to
>> me as if your proposed import is hardly more than a small
>> time saver for
>> people who want to make maps of the Adirondack - they
>> *could* go to the
>> original source at any time, and the likelihood of OSM
>> hydrography being
>> *better* than the official data is very low.
>>
>> In my view, a good import is a catalyst for future OSM
>> data improvement.
>> But you seem to say quite clearly that such is unlikely
>> to happen with
>> the data you are planning to import. Your main point is
>> that it'll look
>> better on the map, which for me isn't good enough.
>>
>> Can you point to areas where your import would encourage
>> mappers,
>> including yourself, to add more knowledge and surveyed
>> data to OSM?
>>
>> My personal interest is mostly from the standpoint of
>> improving OSM as a resource for hikers - and recruiting
>> citizen mappers to the task. Available databases of hiking
>> trail alignments are pretty poor. The USGS maps, once
>> stellar, have not been updated since the first Bush
>> administration, and keeping them up to date is no longer in
>> the USGS's charter. They have neither the mission nor the
>> funding to map hiking trails, shelters, campsites, privies,
>> viewpoints, and similar amenities. Mapping them falls on the
>> shoulders of private companies such as National Geographic,
>> and they are happy to sell us maps - even ones in electronic
>> format if we are extremely fortunate - of obsolete data of
>> the most popular areas. The less popular areas are entirely
>> neglected. If trail data are to be collected, it will have to
>> be citizen mappers that do it, and OSM is an obvious
>> repository for it. And none of that data is what I propose to
>> import.
>>
>> Why, then, should I import what I don't plan to improve
>> substantially? When I've tried to recruit my contacts in the
>> hiking community to mapping for OSM, when they see the state
>> of the tiles at openstreetmap.org
>> <http://openstreetmap.org/>, they are put off immediately.
>> "Why should I bother?" they say, "there's nothing there!"
>> Particularly before the import of lakes and ponds was done -
>> an import to which your argument equally applies - this
>> entire area simply appeared entirely featureless, with no
>> hope of using OSM to produce a map that could be helpful for
>> anyone.
>>
>> When, on the other hand, I show them
>> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test3.html?la=44.1232&lo=-73.9804&z=15
>> , they see a map that's already useful for navigating the
>> region, although deeply flawed in many ways. I can point out
>> that trails shown in magenta with their names in UPPER CASE
>> are from a State data set that is digitized at an
>> inappropriately large scale (and for that reason alone, even
>> before license concerns, I wouldn't propose importing it). I
>> can point out that a good many of the trail shelters,
>> privies, parking areas, register kiosks, viewpoints and
>> similar amenities are missing. I can tell hikers that they
>> can improve OSM by capturing that information. I can point
>> out that if enough of us do it as a community, we'll have
>> up-to-date maps that we can maintain as a community.
>>
>> The approach has worked for me. For instance, I was able to
>> persuade a contact who was hiking the route shown with the
>> overlay in
>> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test3.html?la=44.1232&lo=-73.9804&z=15
>> to capture GPS data and contribute it. (The uploads show my
>> ID because I handled conflating it, simplifying the tracks,
>> vetting alignment against orthophotos, and similar
>> administrative tasks.)
>>
>> OSM is really the only place where the data about trails and
>> associated amenities can be assembled properly, as far as I
>> can tell. The government agencies in the US have not had the
>> funding or authority to collate those data in over twenty
>> years. Web sites like alltrails.com <http://alltrails.com/>
>> are great for sharing your experience with a single route,
>> but don't really make any effort at all to assemble a map.
>> And the companies like National Geographic and DeLorme are
>> more than happy to sell our own data back to us at a premium
>> price, burden it with usage restrictions, and make it
>> available in formats that we cannot annotate and improve.
>>
>> I don't have a good way to address your argument that data
>> whose authoritiative source is not OSM should not be imported
>> into OSM - and frankly, I mostly agree with it. I tend to
>> believe that the underlying problem is not what we choose to
>> import or not to import, but what we show to newcomers. I
>> believe that the maps we present to the public would be
>> improved if they included (at least optionally) layers
>> derived from government data sources that we taxpayers have
>> the right to use. You can see in the maps that I've presented
>> that I'm also using (and do NOT propose to import) National
>> Land Cover Database, National Elevation Dataset, USFWS
>> National Wetlands Inventory, and layers from the GIS
>> departments of several states. I'm also using National
>> Hydrographic Dataset - which has been imported with some
>> degree of success in regions other than mine. All of these
>> data sources fall in your hated category of "stuff that OSM
>> mappers can't readily maintain, for which some other source
>> will likely be more authoritiative."
>>
>> Without these external layers, what we present in the tiles
>> is so sparse in some areas that I, at least, find it nearly
>> impossible to explain the value of OSM.
>>
>> I chose the idea of pursuing an import because I haven't very
>> much hope of convincing anyone that our public face might
>> include non-OSM data sources. At least there is precedent for
>> importing government data into OSM; there is none for
>> non-OSM-derived layers on our tiles.
>>
>> About the best argument that I can make about the specific
>> data is that the import should be "mostly harmless", because
>> physiography in a wilderness area is so slow to change. With
>> the exception that settlements, roads, railroads, farms and
>> mines have been reclaimed by nature, bridges have fallen, and
>> trails have been built and abandoned, a topographic map of
>> the region from 1916 would be nearly as useful as one from
>> 2016. This is an area where "Man is a visitor who does not
>> remain."
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160315/0773f982/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Talk-us
mailing list