Yes, if road has no name then adding name tag is wrong.

Though without details it is hard to say more - for example road may have no official name, and have locally used name.

Adding it as name tag is perfectly fine.

See description and noname tags.

Thanks for Vespucci! It is great for editing during survey, preferable to making many, many notes and later deciding to not spend my time on processing them :)

Just use the same way of detecting resolution as is used to display Mapbox logo and everything should work well (and if Mapbox logo is always displayed them OSM attribution also should be always displayed).

I am not sure how it changes anything. There is still enough space to display attribution.

osm.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847

Note also https://docs.mapbox.com/help/tutorials/first-steps-android-sdk/

First image presents map made from OSM data misrepresented as a Mapbox data. I request fixing this.

https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png

we are now recommending to expand attribution whereever possible. The full attribution line is “© Mapbox © OpenStreetMap”

Mapbox is still not properly attributing OpenStreetMap in its own examples.

For example

https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/mapbox/streets-v9.html?title=true&access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibWFwYm94IiwiYSI6ImNpejY4M29iazA2Z2gycXA4N2pmbDZmangifQ.-g_vE53SD2WrJ6tFX7QHmA#1.07/-1.4/4.7

at my Xiaomi Redmi 4 (5.0 inches, 68.9 cm2 screen with 1080 x 1920 pixels) there is more than enough space to display proper attribution but it is collapsed.

Is it a bug or a desirable decision? Note that on map there is a large Mapbox logo that is displayed.

I informed Mapbox via mapbox.com/contact/support/#attribution and received no useful reply. Contact dropped after on 24th January I asked

So in opinion of Mapbox “click to view” attribution hiding is enough to cover “reasonably calculated to make any Person (…)”?

Screenshot of how map appears for me is at https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/899988/51281667-67210a80-19e3-11e9-807a-480de4fa8eea.png

While collapsed attribution wrapped in an info - ⓘ - symbol, works well on small screens

It is barely acceptable on extremely small maps. Even on smartwatches it is possible to easily fit readable “© OSM”

Thanks for contributing your changes and helping everybody else! Especially as it required you to go through the entire setup process.

git is powerful and useful (especially in programming) but noone sane will call it friendly to beginners - it is mostly result that it was created to support work of experienced programmers in developing Linux, so focus was on “fast, powerful, flexible” rather than on “newbies will not run away”.

Hopefully https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-promotional-leaflets/pull/5 will be merged soon.

osm.org/user/sev_osm/diary/42854 link is not working

I created https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-promotional-leaflets/issues/4 to suggest improving documentation, make finding this easier for other people who will attempt to run reprint and and to notify author that the published materials are still useful.

“OSM wiki mentions that countries are defined as such according to UN decisions” - because this is the simplest way to stop micronation nonsense, without problematic side effects.

Is phabricator less programmer-centric? As far as I can say it is not less programmer centric and it is more complicated.

I think it would not solve the problem of “too software developer focused”.

It may solve “external login” and would solve two other mentioned issues but at cost of maintaining one more service and even more increased complexity of a platform.

“Internationally recognized =/= internationally recognized physical control. First is a common term from the legal documents concerning borders, it is explained in detail in Wikipedia and mentioned in the policy. Second is something Andy invented by knowingly misinterpreting the policy to prove his claim. There is no such concept.”

I still see no evidence for “Second is something Andy invented by knowingly misinterpreting the policy to prove his claim”

And such concept clearly exists, though there may be a better name for it to avoid confusion with legal recognition.

“he outright misinterprets the policy to support his claim” I see no evidence of that. Are you seriously claiming that Russia is not controlling Crimea (“meets realities on the ground, generally meaning physical control”)?

Have you reported them to DWG?

@Kilkenni “DWG violated their own policy” - [citation needed]

@”I don’t care any more what you can possibly say.” - While strategy “I will threaten everybody and in case that it failed to work I will continue with increased violence” unfortunately works so far for Russia, but I would not recommend it for you, especially in OSM.

“From now on, you are an accomplice.” - please immediately cease claiming that people are accomplices of aggressive, dangerous and degenerate regimes in cases where it is not true.

In case of Abkhazia there is also case of recent war (with Russia, again) and Russia ongoing attempt to encroach in the border zone.

But case of Transnistria is relatively simple.

@Stalfur Not in, for example, Poland.

So to be clear - the policy was rewritten as demanded by

people involved in corporate and humanitarian mapping

who

cried havoc on Twitter and the mailing lists

?

The first draft was a good start

Can anyone explain reason for changes since that first draft? Because I see no improvements anywhere, but maybe I missed something.

The “Informing the community” section, in particular, guarantees that local mappers won’t get steamrolled and strongly encourages a constructive collaboration.

I can announce plans on my private closed forum, treat lack of reaction as agreement. And if anyone complains I can find some emergency anyway.

And that would not violate anything in “Informing the community”.

If the activity is a response to an emergency and no advance discussion is possible, the community should be informed as soon as is practical.

This is utterly unacceptable and absurd. It is a perfect excuse for HOT and there is an already problem with low quality mapping and undiscussed imports in this area of an organized mapping.

Can someone give an example of any real problem that this would solve? Because for me it is massive “feel free to ignore all weak suggestions here”.

All related communications should use channels that are

Using “should” instead of clear “must” is unacceptable here.

the affected OSM communities should be informed

Again, weak “should” is absurd and will lead to weaseling.