Marked a point in the middle of the road. Probably an issue while placing the point due to gps variations.

I expect the main reason is that on some devices (including my android moto g) the cross-hairs don’t show so you have to guess at where the centre of the screen is when adding new features.

Would have to adapt the Terracer plugin to make it quicker (to remove need to remove building tag and add amenity tag). Good animation as always :-)

@SimonPoole: Becoming a OSMer! Surely that was obvious. It’s a shame that you don’t value what you call “hit and run” contributors. Here in the UK we talk about having a mapper in every town and village. In some cases this will mean that the mapper will be relatively inactive, but if they keep their village up to date they are very welcome in the UK community.

Looks good. Is getting close to something that I can recommend to non-OSMers now :-)

escada: Yes there can be a few vocal people in the British community however we have no formal group so it’s not clear what this means - he who shouts loudest…?

Personally I take a pragmatic view on each. In this case there are 5 ‘incorrectly’ tagged picnic sites in the UK spanning many years (5 years old, 3 years old, 3 years old, 4 months, 3 months). Trying to claim that these are anything more than a mistake would be difficult. As such I would be happy with the edit.

@robert: Yes, but you can’t stop people mapping them. Good to see mapbox improving the situation and tagging 30,000 ways :-) The online map is good too - I may try to fix a few near me over the holiday period.

Sounds interesting but to a non developer most of what I read is pure gobbledygook. Which is a shame because I think there is something genuinely useful behind all the speak.

Can you try and explain what you are trying to achieve in simpler language please?

Some sort of portable hardware (a phone??) that has offline version of field papers for note taking??

I get results when I search for a place name plus OpenStreetMap on Google. It didn’t always get the right result but it did return something.

Amazing work :-) Great to see the improvements to the website and unifying the JOSM plugins is a great step (was starting to get confusing).

Making MapRoulette into a field tool that can be used on mobile devices is high on my wish list. I would be very excited to get some help in that area :)

Happy to help with user testing and any mock up drawings you need but I’m afraid I can’t help with the coding. Can share this on twitter to see if it leads to support from elsewhere.

I won’t pretend that I understood you (I’m not a developer) but it sounds like you are getting on well. There is one question that does puzzle me though. As far as I am aware MapRoulette gives you random problems that could be no where near where you live. That is it encourages remote mapping. This works well in some instances but not others. The example you give of missing road names would usually require an on the ground survey.

Is (or could) map roulette be forked to create an “on the ground” assistant tool? For example we load in a series of challenges such as the missing road names one. I then load up my local area before going out surveying (or better still I view it on a smartphone whilst out surveying) and it shows me all challenges with issues within so many meters.

Now that would be amazing and I would definitely use it and learn how to create challenges - especially if you make it super easy :-)

Would HOT be interested in creating their own fork of JOSM? Would allow for plug-ins along the lines of the telenav ImproveOSM plugins.

Just to be clear they are not all current board members of HOT? That would be “odd”.

What lessons can you share for promoting growth (what’s worked for you)? And, what ideas do you have but so far have not tested/implemented?

How frequently do you update the heat map on the website? I’ll recheck my area when it’s next updated.

Cool idea. Perhaps we should have a map render of the month (like we have a featured image of the week on the wiki).

Good way to testing the quality of the townland mapping? Well done for finishing it all though :-)

One option is to leave it where it is now but have the editor suggest you change it if you edit that object (for example it could suggest you change “Name” to “name” if the latter does not already exist).

Rob

It’s an interesting plug-in. The bit I struggle with (other than the two competing tagging schemes which is never good for a mapper) is how did you know to that the lane split at “141 meters before the junction”? It seems difficult to get the split in the right place.

If this plug-in/proposal didn’t have this “length” element then it wouldn’t conflict so badly with the turn key. As it stands now the 2 tagging schemes conflict on the “lanes” key. This is the worst possible situation - all new proposals should ideally not break any existing scheme. Although it this case it looks like both were in development at about the same time.

This is a good case where the likes of Mapbox, Telenav, OSMAnd etc can help us. As data users they can spell out what they want/why existing schemes aren’t working from a data use point of view. We can do the same from a data production point of view and in the end we come to a better final implementation. Discussions need to be open and ideally avoid the “another ‘standard’” problem.

Rob

You can’t make any assumptions about footway and path, so a render based on surface and access tags may be worth exploring.

I would also like to see a difference in rendering between high usage paths/footways and low usage paths/footways. We have all the classifications for roads (motorway, trunk, …) but none for paths/footways but as I walk in rural areas some paths/footways are more important than others. Lesser used ones may be hard to follow as “desire lines” (e.g. trampled grass) may not be so visible.

I have been using footway for the high usage ones, path for the low usage ones (as good a reason as any for the difference between these tags).

Rob