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.

Hello,

I sent you a message the you had to read before mapping again (to you previous account) because people had complained about some of you edits in Sweden.

Please take the time to read those messages and reply (by typing in the comment box on the relevant changeset and pressing “comment” ).

If you’d like more information please email OSM’s Data Working Group at data@osmfoundation.org

Best Regards, Andy Townshend, on behalf of OSM’s Data Working Group

Whilst I appreciate that this is frustrating, perhaps the unavailability of a service (free in both senses) should give cause to reflect and thank the people (almost entirely volunteers) providing OSM services in their own time and with their own money 364 days out of 365. Without that this complaint does look a little churlish (“I had a free cake yesterday and the day before, why can’t I have one today too?”).

So that’s 26 stores you need to resurvey then?

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GbM

They’re all in one country - shouldn’t take that long :)

It looks like “nominatim.openstreetmap.org” just uses a regular LetsEncrypt certificate that expires every 90 days. It expires on 7th March so may get renewed on 7th Feb.

Perhaps moving to a version of Java that supported LetsEncrypt directly rather than having to insert into cacerts ach time might be a better option? See https://letsencrypt.org/docs/certificate-compatibility/ .

Funnily enough, I was walking along one of this in England only a couple of days ago - osm.org/relation/1819610#map=11/53.8791/-1.0224 .

All the planets are to scale, but the two spacecraft are 1/3 scale (they’d be a bit small otherwise). Also the location of Voyager 1 on the route might have been accurate once, but the current location would need to be twice as far away again (somewhere near Doncaster - a bit far for a Christmas walk).

Hello,

Communication is still not occurring with your team. Regrettably we’ve had to block another user again today in order to try and engage with them - osm.org/user_blocks/2385 .

As the organiser of this work it is your responsibility to ensure that the team actually adding the data know what they are doing and add data that conforms to OSM norms, so that anyone who uses OSM data can make use of it.

Best Regards,

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

… and duff data is still being added. See e.g. osm.org/way/653752764 , added just now.

It would be far better if the people in charge of this data being added to OSM could educate the people adding it rather than a group such as the DWG trying to communicate with these mappers after the event.

Thanks for that. There’s still quite a lot to do - see e.g. osm.org/changeset/64962722 . It’s actually quite straightforward to keep track of “odd keys” added; just use taginfo and search for the misspelt keys that you are looking for. Best Regards, Andy

Please don’t take too much notice of “quantity” targets. Concentrate on “quality” instead :)

If you’re asking for a feature change in Facebook then I’m afraid that you’re going to have to ask Facebook for it.

Facebook uses (some) OpenStreetMap maps (in some places), it is otherwise unconnected with OpenStreetMap in any way.

Best Regards,

Andy