Hi Wille, I think you misunderstood the idea of a mup builder a bit. I wasn’t writing about a uMap-like functionality to put custom data on top of the map. Neither I was advocating towards a Mapbox Studio-like full-fledged map editor. It was more about a simple sandbox-like experimental, not too complex map style editor, like the one we had with Cloudmade, but even more geared towards showcasing OSM features. It would require a lot of work on the design, but if done right, it will change the outlook of OSM for the best.

Using the website to showcase common features, like geocoding and routing, has helped in the past. Now a lot of people know you can do that with our map. But also in that we are far behind commercial alternatives, with MapCat being one of the best. So by now we have a very bad user-facing site, and instead of going our own way and making the best mapper-facing website, we struggle with making it slightly less bad for general users.

I think some people would object to placing “railway=halt” / “railway=station” not on tracks.

Why disregard relations? Is “public_transport:version=1” basically a flag that means “this object has no meaning, please ignore but not delete it”? OSM is no place for such objects, imo. Or is it a note like “fixme=*”? In that case, a simple fixme would do, without any special tags.

Jo, why do you insist on using “public_transport:version” tag? It’s not like there is software that requires the first one, or that there are two schemas in operation simultaneously. A route is either correct or not. To me (and my validators), a version tag with value of 1 is always an error, one of many, that needs to be fixed. Not a reason to ingore a route.

I think the decision to introduce the version tag was wrong, and I hope it will go away the same as stop positions and public_transport=platform. It does not add any information to a route, but provokes data consumers to make ill-adviced decisions, like ignoring routes or treating them differently — like the proposal for v2 wasn’t approved.

You might be glad to know I’ve finished my proposal for PTv3 which addresses most of your concerns. Thanks for discussing it while in draft stage.

I am very happy that we as a community have something to offer to such dedicated mappers as you :) Good luck with the awards!

You lost everybody here on “sexism against men”.

Спасибо, что используете наши карты, Husim! Постараемся!

Yes, splitting mappers by continent could provide some more insight: for example, in Africa and Asia there is a lot to be mapped, while in Europe modifying existing objects is often required.

Your work is awesome. We frequently talk about numbers, but as far as I remember, nobody before tried to measure what people of different genders map. Thanks for sharing!

You might have already seen it, but here are two map collections:

• http://leaflet-extras.github.io/leaflet-providers/preview/
• http://edward17.github.io/LayersCollection/

Previous comments: osm.org/user/address%20history%20org/diary/44206#comments

Deleting the old post with all the comments and recreating it with the same text certainly does not add you virtual community points.

OSM is a collaborative effort for mapping by entusiasts, not an organized venture to map as much as possible for the sake of numeric reports. Which means, if you don’t live in that area and cannot contribute anything without imagery, try another area, where you can. If you do, stop marvelling at proprietary imagery, go out, collect GPS traces and POIs, and map it.

For a base road network, you could politely ask Christoph (imagico) to georeference the fresh low-detail imagery, so you could trace roads from it.

I’ve read an article in Quillette recently on the topic. It cites a review of the first paper above by OIga Khazan, which ends with:

It could just be that, feeling financially secure and on equal footing with men, some women will always choose to follow their passions, rather than whatever labor economists recommend. And those passions don’t always lie within science.

And the key point in that article is,

Our community must face the difficult truth that we aren’t likely to make further progress in attracting women to computer science. Women can code, but often they don’t want to. We will never reach gender parity. You can shame and fire all of the Damores you find, but that won’t change the underlying reality.

It’s time for everyone to be honest, and my honest view is that having 20 percent women in tech is probably the best we are likely to achieve. Accepting that idea doesn’t mean that women should feel unwelcome. Recognizing that women will be in the minority makes me even more appreciative of the women who choose to join us.

But that estimate is for countries with excellent gender equality. Which are very few. We can do better.

It is normal for a decentralized community like ours. Besides a multitude of mailing lists, we have the forum with many regional subforums, the wiki with discussions happening on distinct pages, several IRC and Telegram groups, and Slack channels which US mappers use. I doubt we can force everyone to a single communications platform, let alone room. And if we could, nobody would be able to follow any discussions.

Or you can find “name” in mss styles and replace these with COALESCE(tags->’name:ta’, name). Although it might be a difficult process.

Thanks for the responses, I’ll try to keep doing this :)

I’d like to know what caused some of the things on the list, if anybody knows. For my part, I can explain new addesses in Moscow: we’ve got ahold of open data with these, and have imported around ¹⁄₃ of the set. There are ~4000 buildings with new address tags besides these address points. Each new address has to be verified manually, so the progress is very slow.

Hey, technically OSM is okay. We’ve got great skilled admins, we’ve got a data model to last, and a vast ecosystem of open code, from Leaflet to PostGIS and Nominatim, to support any kind of usage. It’s just we don’t progress in any way. The general community seems to be turning inward, dismissing any external developments with “OSM is open and eternal, they will be dead in 50 years anyway”.

Mikel,

That’s not what I’m expressing at all.

Really?

Get over it and help create the environment there you would like to see. Do the hard work of working through feedback. TomH does hard work reviewing all code. Help there too.

Do some work or put up money.

Create tools that help us manage the process of designing and integrating tags better.

There’s a ton to do here. Andy’s work is a great start.

Putting that aside, critique is what keeps communities / companies / governments going. That’s why we got media. As I said, I’ve been doing this since 2011. I see a list of problems and I know there is a lot to do in OpenStreetMap, that everyone can contribute to solving. It’s just the problems have grown from “we’ve got empty places on the map” to “we’ve got structural issues” in the recent years. Nevertheless, having something to look forward to is what keeps me going. But…

I’ll admit, I’m having a difficult time showing you respect right now, after you let your frustration with OSM get the best of you.

THIS is what makes people leave OpenStreetMap in frustration. No matter how much you’ve mapped, how much tools you’ve developed, how many people have you gathered at mapping parties and conferences, the moment you express anything but positivity and loyalty, you stop being respected. Even by members of The Board. You did well, but words are what matters: you said the wrong words, we don’t respect you any more, please leave.

It’s like in Russia since 1917 till now (sorry for the metaphor): experience does not matter, loyalty does. That’s why we in Russia has got strong aversion to any forced positivity masking issues, to shutting up the media and asking “Why couldn’t you express instead positivity and thanks?” That’s why this article was received well in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, and met with perplexed irritation by US and Western Europe people.