Obviously that should read “bus routes are quite a complex thing to map”. Long day.

Looks great. Welcome to the OpenStreetMap community. Bus routes are quick a complex thing to map in OpenStreetMap and trying to keep track of changes to the route is equally difficult. Perhaps that’s one way in which you could feed back into the data??

The other way is to provide some thoughts on how you think bus stops should be mapped. We currently have two alternate schemes. The first simply recommends mapping the bus stop beside the road, the other is a bit more complex as it recommends mapping the bus stop beside the road and as a point on the road where the bus actually stops (then joining the 2 into a relation/grouping). The idea behind this is essentially that public transport routing has a point to route to that is on a road (rather than just next to it). As a potential user of this data, which approach works best for you, or are they both just as good?

Openstreetmap decided to supply its maps in this way as they can be put on screen faster than calculating and drawing each screen individually.

That may change at some point in the future with the introduction of something called “Vector tiles” but acknowledging that would just over complicate your basic description without adding much to it.

Rob

@imagico: I wouldn’t say that it’s “clearly in violation”. It really comes down to how you interpret “reasonably calculated”. Alex has also set out in this post why they don’t link to the OSM copyright page (they need to show that the map is made up of several sources each with their own copyright).

I do tend to agree with you that https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/ could be improved to focus more on the copyright (and OSM’s story), rather than being overly flashy.

On the other hand the Improve the Map page is really good. It get straight to the point: >This map is powered by Mapbox and based on data from OpenStreetMap, a community driven dataset.

https://www.mapbox.com/map-feedback/#lxbarth.i48g0o0p/-53.635/-4.872/5

Perhaps Mapbox’s copyright/about page could be more similar to the Improve the Map page.

Do any of the editors warn you if you try to upload a change that includes a lot of deletions?

Also, we have experienced mappers coming to the local mailing list to ask for a revert. It’s actually very easy to do with JOSM’s revert plugin.

Good work. I’ve got so used to having aerial imagery available, but if that’s not well aligned then the OSM data may be entered with a misalignment.

Lots of places could do with more GPS traces (particularly on side streets). There’s not much you can do about that - perhaps we could look at using OpenData as a reliable source calculate the imagery offset?

Regards, Rob

p.s. I think the wiki page could do with being a lot shorter. I’ve found that short quick reference pages with the detail available on sub-pages is best. Let me know if you want me to have a go at doing this (on my User page until you’re happy with it).

Start by cleaning up the public transport pages (leaving highway=bus_stop).

The public transport page on the wiki is an overview of the tags, yes, buts its data overload. It’s trying to do all things for all users. In my opinion it would help if it was written as a quick reference guide:

• here’s how to map a bus stop (no more than 3 simple steps).
• and for those folk who are interested, here’s a link to the full public transport schema.

One for buses, one for trains, etc..

Write the doc for the people you are trying to target (the mappers).

Here in the West Midlands of UK, the highway=bus_stop is used in the same way by all mappers - the position of the bus shelter/pole.

I get the problem that the public transport schema is trying to solve, but if after 3 years the tag is not well adopted, then you have a problem. Personally I would start by making the wiki pages a lot easier to read (shorter, basic example, separate pages for buses, trams, etc).

I’ve often thought “wouldn’t it be great if we could standardise X”, but I’ve now come to realise a few things:

• OSM is a big community. Getting everyone to change is near impossible.
• Tagging schemas are only as good as the people who get involved in writing them.
• Not many people read the wiki, the tagging mailing list, etc.
• Change that is not well communicated risks damaging the community.

This isn’t to say don’t attempt it. I’m just saying, it needs to be with the community.

Again are bus stops really something where you need a lot of beginners to contribute?

Yes. And I find it a bit rude that you think otherwise. Not everywhere has the level of detail of Germany and in my opinion we need all the mappers we can get.

How is highway=bus_stop better?

It’s simpler. It’s gives people the information they want (i.e. where is the bus stop for this side of the road). You only have to add one thing. When do you get a bus stopping somewhere other than right next to where the passengers are waiting?!

If I have a bus stop at X in the road, and the opposite bus stop is 10-20m further along the road then should I be adding 2 public_transport=stop_position tags? And how do we know which one relates to which direction of travel? You need to create a relation and add the appropriate stop_position for the direction of travel, right? If yes, then why not just do the same with highway=bus_stop and assume the stopping place is on the road adjacent to the bus stop?

Why is the stopping point even relevant to OSM? Only the bus driver needs to know this, so why tag for a single end user? Also, the stopping point for us bus is often marked as a rectangle on the road, so why only map as a node?

How should public transport be converted into a simple interface for iD?

If you search for Bus it could show you Bus Stop and Bus Platform

Fine, that gives you the options in iD but you still have to find a way to ensure they get used properly. For a new user (or infrequent bus stop mapper) they won’t know that “platform” gets mapped to the side of the road, whist “stop” is as a node in the road. Add to this the language barrier that many of our mappers will experience then the chance of success will fall even lower. You’ll end up with bad data in the public_transport tag. Perhaps then someone will create a new tagging system!!

Rant over!

Oh and one of the things that has always concerned me about the tagging system is that the people proposing new tags (and this includes me) might not be experts and often we assume the changes we make are for the better. But has anyone ever bothered to stop and ask our current and future end data users?? Telenav? Bus companies?

There is a balance you have to strike when trying to develop a tagging schema.

If you make it so simple that it’s obvious without having to look in the wiki then it many more people will help contribute data (and the map editors will be more likely to adopt it). Make it difficult, and you will reduce the number of people who are able to add the feature to the map. Worst still you end up splintering the way we map something.

Remember in iD tags are hidden. You mention the Opening Hours tag which is complex, but it could easily be added to iD (and other editors) via a really simple user interface. With such an interface, mappers will not need to know about the opening_hours tag. How should public transport be converted into a simple interface for iD? Stops as nodes on the way, platforms next to the way makes this task more challenging.

Rob

In my above comment, the line “If however this combination constitutes a Collective Databae then point applies” should read:

“If however this combination constitutes a Collective Databae then point 3 applies.” (note the missing “3”)

@cquest: On the subject of geocoding, perhaps Simon’s last example will help. When you read the following quote, replace “surface data” with “geocoded lat/lon data”.

And what about the other way around? Assume you notice that OSM has some surface data that is better than that in your proprietary database and you replace the original information with that? Then the resulting dataset is subject to share alike and you need to make it available on ODbL terms.

So we have the following cases (in all I assume “Public Use”):

1. You use OSM to geocode some data (e.g. convert an address into Lat/Lon) and then add this data into your own proprietary database. The resulting dataset a “derivative database” = Share Alike
2. You use OSM to geocode some data and you keep this independent of your proprietary database. The data extracted from OSM (list of geocoded addresses) is a “derivative database” (= Share Alike), but your proprietary database is untainted (=no need to apply share alike to your proprietary database).
3. You use OSM to geocode some data and you keep this independent of your proprietary database. You then assemble the two independent parts into a collective whole - for example (like the waste bin example) replacing addresses in a non-OSM database with the geocoded results. Now the resulting OSM data is clearly a Derivative Database and is subject to the share alike terms in the ODbL (as it was in point 2), but it does not change the status of the collective whole which can still have different licences for its individual parts and the whole.

The case I’m not so sure on is the one where you use OSM to geocode some data and then display markers on top of map tiles generated from a proprietary database. In my opinion the map tiles are not a database and as such this situation would fall under point 2 above. If however this combination constitutes a Collective Databae then point applies. In any case points 2 and 3 essentially mean the same thing (i.e. the list of geocoded addresses extracted from OSM is a “derivative database” = Share Alike). You then assemble the two independent parts into a collective whole - for example. showing the markers on a non-OSM map, or (like the waste bin example) replacing addresses in a non-OSM database with the geocoded results.

Obviously attribution still applies in all cases. So if you are using geocoding to display markers on your slippy map (map tiles) then you need a statement saying that the geocoded data (map markers) is from OSM.

@TomH: In the previous article you questioned how more moderators may help. My understanding was that identifying foreign language spam was a problem. A full reporting system would help, but in the mean time maybe just a simple page would do. I see now there is the spam page on the wiki - is that not good enough? Maybe a list that only approved moderators can edit, and a script you could run that pulls back this list and deletes spam?

It would be nice to see the user diaries and community blogs get used a bit more. I think user “mcld” is working on updates to the blogs.openstreetmap.org page at the moment. I’m hoping that will integrate it back into the new osm.org design.

But… we could do with a few more active programmers. Fancy having a go yourself? :-)

@TomH: Do we need to look for some new moderators (particularly non-English language)?

Looks good, will test it when I’m next out mapping.

My big request would be to use Vespucci to help conflation of external data. So for example, load open data from a government into a holding database, and be able to intergrate this into OSM using Vespucci whilst out on the ground.

You can tag a pavement on a highway by adding sidewalk=both/left/right/none (as appropriate).

osm.wiki/Sidewalk osm.wiki/Forward_%26backward,_left%26_right

As for landuse, I prefer to map up to the edge of the road but not join it to the road. In UK rural areas, I will mark farmland up to the hedge (the small grassed areas between hedge and tarmac are almost always maintained as part of the highway).

Rob

That looks great. Would really make things a lot easier here on OSM.

I should point out that these are SOTM US videos. The OpenStreetMap Foundation’s annual global conference “SOTM 2013” has not yet happened! It’s 6th-8th September 2013 in Birmingham, United Kingdom. stateofthemap.org

Oh and there will be videos available from SOTM 2013 during and after the conference.

Thanks, Rob

There is also Milliams postcode tool. One part of it attempts to match the Land Registry open data to objects in OSM. For example see CV3 5 below (it’s a little slow and I recommend not searching for anything below CV3+, where “+” is needed for the space character):

http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/landregistry/search/?postcode=cv3+5

If you look now you will see some in the “Wrong Postcode” section. These are those addresses tagged only as CV3. Every few months I look on this tool and add the full postcodes to OSM (Land Registry data is updated once a month).