[OSM-talk] Burning Man (was: revert changesets??)

[Aun Johnsen]

From: Aun Johnsen <lists at gimnechiske.org>
Date: Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Burning Man (was: revert changesets??)
To: Mikel Maron <mikel_maron at yahoo.com>


Just a suggestion that I think will satisfy both camps:
When the burning man us remapped (i.e. moved), add the prefix burning_man:
to all tags, that will retain them in the database, erase them from maps,
but still allow for special interest maps to render them.
This can also work for Glastonbury, Roskilde, and many other yearly events
that impacts the area where they occure.

  On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Mikel Maron <mikel_maron at yahoo.com>wrote:

>   Hi
>
> As the mapper for Burning Man, let me explain a little bit about the
> festival, and how I've attempted to represent it in OSM.
>
> But first...
>
> Apollinaris Schoell <aschoell at gmail.com>
>
> > should be deleted then. Burning man follows a no trace policy. as
> alternative it must be at least tagged different to disappear from maps.
>
> Hilarious! :)
>
> He's talking about the "Leave No Trace" ethic that guides our effort to
> leave a minimal impact on the Black Rock desert environment. For a temporary
> city of 50,000, the cleanliness of the event is extraordinary. [
> http://www.burningman.com/environment/]
>
> As for digital traces, Burning Man very much encourages it. That's the
> guiding principle for the Burning Man Earth project, we collectively collect
> hundreds of gigabytes of data at the event. [http://earth.burningman.com/
> http://www.slideshare.net/mikel_maron/burning-man-earth-at-web-20-expo-presentation].
> As for the EFF criticism, I suggest reading Burning Man's response on the
> complexity of the issue [http://blog.burningman.com/?p=4599]
>
> OK!
>
> So the Burning Man event itself is open to the public for one week. There's
> approximately 1 month set up prior, and 1 month tear down. The rest of the
> year, nothing much happens in that geographic location at all.
>
> Each year, the event moves slightly to a different position, to minimize
> the impact on the desert. That's why you see two similar looking city
> layouts, slightly offset.
>
> Despite being physically gone, the importance of the city remains all year
> long, pretty much up until the time the city starts reconstruction in July.
> And even beyond that, the layout retains importance as geographic context to
> photos, videos, memories. If you look at the flickr map, the background map
> depends on whether the photo was taken in 2008 or 2009. [
> http://www.aaronland.info/weblog/2009/09/18/fivethings/#burningman]
>
> THENWHAT?
>
> So that's the situation. I decided to represent the temporality by adding
> "start_date" and "end_date" tags to the 2008 data, one of the suggestions of
> historic mapper Frankie Roberto
> [http://www.slideshare.net/frankieroberto/mapp-history-on-open-street-map].
> The start_date was the start_date of the event in 2008, and the end_date was
> the day before the opening of the 2009 event. I haven't yet added start_date
> and end_date tags to 2009 data.
>
> For example .. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/290073903
>
> I realize it's not perfect, but I think trying to represent both the
> physical presence, and temporal relevance of this data, in a combination of
> more than two tags, would have just been overly complex. Open to suggestions
> though.
>
> Of course, we now have a map with data shown past the end_date for the 2008
> event. The most obvious option is tuning the renderers to data past it's end
> date. There's downsides to that .. larger planet size, increased complexity
> in osm2pgsql/mapnik style rules. Another option is a seperate project more
> tuned to historic data, though that certainly has it's drawbacks.
>
> In the mean time, Burning Man is such an isolated place and event, I think
> it's a good place to continue to experiement with these problems. So if it's
> all to same to you .. don't delete the Man! As Aaron said in his post,
> there's another year before we need to figure out what to do!
>
> Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com>
> > As I was considering doing a similar thing for Glastonbury, I was
> > wondering what the consensus on mapping temporary (but regular)
> structures?
>
> I guess Glastonbury has a very similar circumstance to Burning Man. I don't
> think there's consensus, but happy to keep discussing the possibilities.
>
> Mikel
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091218/7e5f7255/attachment.html>