As the message suggests, perhaps the points in your trail are missing some important information?

Trying reading “ Por que meu arquivo GPX não foi enviado corretamente?” in https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=en&tl=pt&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FGPX%23Why_didn.27t_my_GPX_file_upload_properly.3F .

Como a mensagem sugere, talvez os pontos em sua trilha estejam faltando alguma informação importante?

Tentando ler “Por que meu arquivo GPX não foi enviado corretamente?” em https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=en&tl=pt&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FGPX%23Why_didn.27t_my_GPX_file_upload_properly.3F.

Hi - it generally reads OK to me.

I’m not a fan of “foot=designated” just because you’ve got a legal right of access there; I’d tend to just use “yes” and leave “designated” for the original purpose of “somewhere that particular traffic is signed to use”. For example see osm.org/way/299375428 is foot=designated because foot traffic is signed between the footpath that joins the main road and the roundabout and then back along the other side of the dual carriageway, not across what presumable was/is a right of way across the dual carriageway. It’s not a big issue though - plenty of people use “foot=designated” on public footpaths in England and Wales and that usage dates from when it was a cludge to indicate “public footpath”, before “designation” was widely used.

With regard to BCNorwich’s point, I can think of a few examples of “Legal RoW but access discouraged”. One obvious one is traffic regulation orders. I tend to leave the designation and add “access=no” or similar for the duration.

The “discouraged” tag (see e.g. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Lef ) seems to be relatively rarely used in England and Wales - 66 foot=discouraged. “permitted” seems to be even less used. That’s been discussed on the tagging list in the past but I’m not sure there is a commonly accepted answer. I’ve done e.g. osm.org/way/142212112 previously.

Regards,

Andy

@jguthula - thanks for asking the question, it’s a very good one.

I suspect that the “correct” answer will vary hugely depending on where in the world a particular road or teack is. You asked in the German forum, and as noted above got a somewhat different answer to some of the replies here. That’s not a surprise - the German answers that suggest to (“rely on official roadside signage”) won’t tend to work in (for example) England and Wales where private roads and publically-accessible tracks may not have that signage. Other countries may need a different answer again - your example is in Canada; I’ve no idea what the best answer there would be.

In terms of England and Wales (which was where this question first popped up), many/most of these tracks will be access=private. Some may be designated rights of right (a “public footpath” implies “foot=yes” in addition to any other access rights that might be appropriate; a “byway open to all traffic” implies “foot=yes; horse=yes; bicycle=yes; motor_vehicle=yes” and there are other designations too). This isn’t OSM in England and Wales trying to make things more complicated than they need to be - it’s the local law; we don’t have anything like the Swedish “Allemansrätten” that presumes access is allowed with certain caveats. Scotland does (that’s why I said “England and Wales” rather than “The UK” earlier).

As other people have already said I don’t believe that you can infer motor_vehicle access tags based on a GPS trace only. All you know is that someone delivering a parcel was able to deliver it there. Given that (as noted above) that would be perfectly possible even if the access was “private”, adding any sort of access tag based on just a GPS trace in England and Wales is a non-starter. What you may be able to do is to decide (based on likely usage) whether it’s a “highway=service; service=driveway” or a “highway=track” (though that can be difficult) and what surface tag would be appropriate (“paved” should be doable from imagery; anything else less so). Other tags that are sometimes used with tracks are “tracktype” and “smoothness” - it would be difficult or impossible to do these accurately just from imagery.

However, as RobJN has already asked above, and as the posters in the German forum already mentioned - do you have the ability to collect any more on-the-ground information such as photography? A ground-level picture of a track or even a couple of questions on the “I’ve just delivered a parcel” job complete form would help hugely at classifying these roads and tracks better. There’s also the “ask a local OSM mapper” approach - there will be places where someone in OSM has mapped something as X and you don’t understand why - you can just ask them by commenting on the relevant changeset.

Best Regards,

Andy (answering in a personal capacity only)

Assuming I did want to join the Telegram group, how would I do that?

You can join the OSM Telegram group to stay up to date!

How do I do this (assuming I don’t have a phone number that I want to provide) and how does OSM’s Telegram group differ from the other entries at osm.wiki/Contact_channels ?

Thanks for this. It’s always good to have an alternative to doing things via a Linux GUI and “crouton” on a Chromebook. Chromebooks are surprisingly capable for the money, and if you don’t want to use the Google stuff, you don’t have to. You’ve also got the option of keeping all the data (or software) you care about on an external USB stick and just putting that in your pocket when you’re worried that the PC might get stolen.

Best Regards,

Andy

(one minor note - an extra space has crept into “/etc/apt/sourc es.list”).

Thanks - works great!

Hi Richard, Is it possible to add a selection of tags to a particular function key? For example, if I’m adding ditches and streams it’d be useful to have an easy way of adding the various combinations.

Re ‘“only to run Personal Applications” - Is JOSM a “Personal Application”?’ the answer is “yes”.

@Wulf4096 I’m not a lawyer, but I can think of very few people in the German forum that would not be covered by the personal use clause you cite. I don’t think we need to scare people into obtaining Oracle licences (and I also don’t think that the issues raised by don-vip are issues to stop most people using OpenJDK now, but that’s a different issue).

On the subject of “auto update” people don’t really need to wait for AdoptOpenJDK - on common Linuxes you’ve already got a native package manager, on MacOS you’ve got Homebrew (though I haven’t used MacOS for some time), and on Windows Chocolatey.

Best Regards,

Andy

Maybe once this SEO firm realizes that they are paying for something of no value, they’ll finally contact us for help or at least stop adding spam to OSM.

I’m guessing that the customers are actually paying for a package that includes Google search results position, placement on Google maps etc. and in many cases won’t actually know what OSM even is. I also suspect that the perpetrators here don’t care that their data additions are getting removed from OSM, since by that time they’ve already been paid.

It’s a bit like if a strange cat keeps making a mess in your garden - you can try and talk to the owner, but it’s a waste fo time trying to discuss it with the cat. You also still have to clean up the mess.

the others are simply expected to spend a couple of $1000 per year equivalent amount of time to accommodate whatever google has decided to break this time around,

A cynic might argue that Google are merely playing catch-up with Apple here :)

More seriously anything that makes development harder disproportionally affects smaller and genuine for-free developers. That I’m sure is the reason why “small proof of concept apps that do something interesting with OSM data” are far more common on Android rather than iOS currently.

I am not aware of any mapper-to-mapper interaction with any of the accounts being discussed here.

The only reply from an affected account that I can see is at osm.org/changeset/68807119 which is the false positive mentioned above, and I don’t think we can fault @PeanutButterRemedy’s interaction there. I’d agree with woodpeck that “they must be treated as one entity, not as hundreds of innocent newbie mappers”. In each case the accounts are asked “If this is not the case, please comment and we can help restore your addition”, and none have.

There are lots of business owners who add their businesses to OSM, and lots of larger chains who take care to ensure that their addresses and other details are updated. None of the removals that I can see here seem to fall into that category.

How to deal with low-quality additions is really a question for the local community (in this case across the US). If anyone locally wants to verify the visibility of these businesses on the street they’re entirely free to do so - and I’m sure that they can do lots of other mapping while they’re there!

Best Regards, Andy (like woodpeck, also from the DWG)

Hello suleyman bayram,

This document explains how names are used within OpenStreetMap. Among other things it says:

The OpenStreetMap community operates under the “on the ground” 
principle, recording what is actually currently used in a particular 
area, giving pre­eminence to data collected in-situ. 
This is generally what is used on our main example map at
http://www.openstreetmap.org.

If you believe that anywhere in OSM is not reflecting the main on-the-ground used name, please contact OSM’s Data Working Group via email at data@osmfoundation.org with details of the problem.

It also says:

You are free to make maps from our data leaving out or putting in what 
you need for harmony with your general usage, culture and legal system.  
We encourage you to do this directly or to support one of our many 
worldwide local OpenStreetMap communities that share your issue.

If you would like help creating a map of Azerbaijan (or anywhere, actually) please ask over at https://help.openstreetmap.org . Additionally, Azerbaijan is actually used as the example over at the switch2osm site.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM’s Data Working Group.

I’d imagine that trying to import this into OSM will be very challenging, because as you say, there’s a lot of new data and also because of the old somewhat questionable imports in Japan (as you also say “forest data from KS2 old import is also still messy”).

To reduce problems I’d suggest following the rules to the letter, but initially only processing a very small area. That way you can get all necessary permissions and also judge how much work is required for each area to do a good job of merging the data with what’s in OSM already. That way the risk to OSM data in Japan as a whole is less because you’re only going to affect a very small area.

As part of the import discussion you’ll need to say how you’ll handle data that’s already there, and that includes data from the original imports, data modified by locals on the ground and data modified remotely because the original imports were a bit iffy.

Once that’s done successfully, go the import process again for a larger area - this will be quicker as you’ve already got permissions to use data etc., and the community will be able to judge better whether it’s a good idea or not based on who the initial small import went.

Things to avoid are “thinking you’ve got community buy-in when you’ve only been talking to a small subset of people”, “getting approval for a small area and the running the import in other areas” and “deleting what’s already there without looking at it because the new data is assumed to be better”. With a DWG hat on I’ve seen all of these problems happen and it’s a shame, because it creates bad feeling between OSM mappers who are essentially “on the same side” - trying to create the best map.

Finally, best of luck!

• Andy

@andershl It’s normal practice where there are major problems with an undiscussed import (as here) to completely revert it and allow the discussion to take place first as should have happened in the first place.

As an analogy, imagine if two people were working collaboratively on a painting - it would be extremely demoralising for someone to throw some pots of paint at the canvas and say “you’re welcome to incorporate that too!”.

– Andy (a member of OSM’s Data Working Group)

(and on the original question)

Just to echo the points above, thanks for undertaking this work. There will be complications around verifiability - for example, I can’t think of a way of representing China’s maritime claims “as a whole” since there isn’t a defined border as such. However, I’m sure that a large number of these claims can be sourced to materials that are licence-compatible with OSM, and provided they are added in such as way that doesn’t break OSM’s current admin structure I don’t see a problem with doing that.

In the cases where there isn’t OSM-compatible data for such a boundary then (to echo Frederik above) then some other database would be more appropriate. As I understand it, that’s the approach taken by openstreetmap.in in order to deal with their local legal requirements.

• Andy (speaking personally)

BTW, is there finally update from OSMF why they decided override data working group decision?

The DWG hasn’t heard anything directly. There was a post to the osmf-talk list at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2019-February/005972.html (but nothing to either the DWG directly or to the wider OSM community e.g. via talk@). It wouldn’t be fair for me to try and explain Heather’s statement there since I don’t really understand all of what she’s trying to say.

• Andy (from the DWG)

@traveleditor - it was set as a message that you had to read before continuing. You’ve now done that, so you’ll be able to edit again.

You’ve also replied to the comments at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=8726248 - thanks for that. Please do be careful editing places where you aren’t local though - don’t just guess at things like road types.