@PlaneMad offering the option -after- submitting a report is naturallly not really a solution, offering it as an option at least somewhere during the process would be.

@mikelmaron in case you hadn’t noticed, there has been a “Report a problem” page on openstreetmap.org for quite a while that anybody can link to from their map/website see osm.org/fixthemap It might profit from a more structured way of submitting notes, but that is a more general issue with the notes facility as it currently stands.

BTW there are good business reasons for MB to direct map feedback through their support group (lead generation, early detection of customer issues and so on) that does not mean it is necessarily a good thing for the project as a whole.

The problem with the whole concept is that it doesn’t provide for the conversion of a map user with an issue to a map contributor who can fix an issue themselves.

Or put differently it removes one of the important incoming routes for recruiting new mappers.

As is, the whole process is very much at odds with the basic concept of OSM.

Das Abkürzen über off-on-ramps ist ein bekanntes Problem, iMHO müsste das Abbiegen selber höher bestraft werden, dann sollte das Problem eigentlich verschwinden.

Just two comments:

• given the lesson that should have been learned from the original TIGER import, just because a dataset looks reasonably in one place, doesn’t mean it isn’t aboslute rubbish in a different corner, it is unlikely that you will find a consensus for a wholesale import
• there is nothing stopping anybody from using brain + TIGER address ranges as a reference to add house numbers, perhaps OSM-US coule provide the data in a digestable form (aka overlay or similar)

I’m not quite sure why it would be an “uphill” battle given that it tends to become easier with more data.

True it is a lot of work, but as Germany shows (roughly 1/4 the population and 1/5 or so of the addresses) it can be done in a reasonable time frame even when the majority of addresses are not imported. Given the wealth of PD data in the states, it should be a no-brainer (the data can be used as reference even if it is not imported directly).

Willkommen bei OSM, das ganze sieht eigentlich recht gut aus. Trotzdem ein paar kleine Nörgeleien:

• Gebäude die rechtwinklig sind sollte man mit der Taste “Q” oder der entsprechenden Funktion aus der Toolbox tatsächlich rechtwinklig machen (da sind ein paar bei denen du das noch machen solltest).

• Quelle, resp “source” fehlt im Changeset, dass ist nicht unwichtig, zum Beipiel ist es für andere hilfreich zu wissen, dass du die bing Luftbilder verwendet hast.

Viel Spass beim Mappen.

Simon

Yes it is not quite clear what caused the big increase in 2012 followed by an essentially flat 2013. While it is possible to generate such stats per region (and I have played with doing so), it is not really so well defined how to actually determine where a mapper actually belongs to.

Pascal Neis provides daily regional stats here http://osmstats.neis-one.org/?item=countries that work quite well.

vespucci has had 100& complete pt translation for a while https://www.transifex.com/projects/p/vespucci/ if there are signidifcant differences a pt-BR version would be no problem.

Serge note there has been/is nothing stopping the board from following your suggested model in the past, now or in the future. I would however be very sceptical of the board in general (not the newly elected members naturally) of getting to the point were they would let go far enough that such a model would actually work.

BTW see osm.wiki/IndoorOSM_2.0 for mapping POIs indoors ….

Just a note on the side: vespucci can be used fully offline (it can save and load JOSM compatible .xml files on the mobile device, and tiles can easily be preloaded) and 10 POIs per minute might be stretching it, depending on the level of detail one wants to add, but is in principle possible.

@mikelmaron the UN place id stuff. Note I consider it fairly harmless, but the list could just as well be kept seperate from OSM proper. Not sure what Andrew decided on in the end.

@Glassman you would have to ask the board that met in Seattle for an answer to your fitst question. As to the 2nd part I actually oitn that out too.

@species There is no automated system, as there is no API to the mail system, which is missing for a number of good reasons, among others to avoid real mass mail (and associated making OSM even more attractive for spammers). The other thing is that it forces small units of reachout, aka to your immediate area, which as you say work well.

Note that the IndoorOSM tagging proposal should clearly no longer be used (it uses an untenable scheme for connectign floors and has various issues with tag naming), I would suggest reading up on the current proposals.

@Johan I suspect that Flo was not referring to this years import. Wrt Geofabrik it is a privately held company under the control of its owners, I don’t see how a 3rd party could speak for them.

My point was slightly different in any case in that I was referring to non-curated datasets that we wouldn’t want to “force” somebody to use and should always be an add on. So if you wanted a geofabrik extract plus extra addrsses you would download the extract and merge a seperate address datafile for the same area before further processing. I suspect this is possible with tools that already exist.

Rob,

as I said, SOTM has largely been treated as a black box, I wasn’t saying that that was good thing, just a statement of fact. And while you might think that everything was perfectly transparent, from the other side I can tell you SOTM has been perfectly opaque. 2013 was an exception in that we, well at least I, was able to access WG minutes after the upset, but all that you suggest the board could have done, assumes a level of information and awareness the board has never had.

Yes I had a long talk with Brian with the view to trying to fix the issue, which as I pointed out did actually happen.

@brianboru I think you are just underlining my points, it was not that the local organizers and the “SOTM WG” for Birmingham were not dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s and doing a responsible and good job, but that the board as a whole was flying blind (I’m referring mainly to financials here), just as it is this year.

You are assuming a flow of information from the SOTM-WG directly or indirectly to the board that in my experience does not exist and likely has never existed. Just as the other way around, I don’t believe the board ever formulated any (public) expectations exactly what SOTM local organizers should or should not do, SOTM, as said many times, largely being treated as a black box.

That it would be the boards responsibility to provide at least minimal financial planning, including some sane way of integrating SOTM, is the whole point.

A final note: the question of the historic pressure on the events to deliver a large portion of the net income of the foundation was discussed both in the board and publicly https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2013-August/002193.html and IMHO the outcome was that we would try to avoid relying on SOTM (one of the reasons to introduce coorporate membership), with the expectation that the events would remain in the black.

@jremillard none of the other candidates claim to be the solution for everything and none of the other candidates are themselves (at least co-)responsible for creating the problems.

I’ve said it multiple times, but again, lots of things are now far better than under Steves regime, there are some which are not, but all are rooted in the first five years. It is not that two years ago the board suddenly decided to not create a budget, it simply never had one,.