Every time I see people like cray33 complain that women or a minority group is oppressing them, I remember this amazing song by Bo Burnham: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6gjqMrOy8

Selene and Christoph, thank you for your comments on diversity of the awards. I too feel the this is an issue. Maybe we could chat via irc/slack/skype/mumble/whatever and try to come up with some ideas on how we could improve the diversity?

cray33, apart from the insulting nature of your comment, you are somewhat right. You cannot change the nature. But you can read scientific articles that prove that there are no differences in cognitive and intellectual abilities for people of different genders. For example, this one: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women

Comments like this make me immediately go and save the webpage. Take it as a opinion table of a user, not as an official OSMF user ranking. To me, such personal touches are what makes a table useful.

RSergei, вы когда в последний раз читали тему про maps.me на форуме? Я там никого не блокировал уже очень давно. Только, как описывает топикстартер, выдал предупреждение за обсуждение модерации. В теме про maps.me. Офтопик и очевидное нарушение правил, нет?

Awesome work!

On the results of face to face meetings:

To me a F2F felt like the most productive meeting of all year. Basically we come up with new ideas and discuss them, and then from these we form a plan for an upcoming year. We don’t have any communication delays or distractions, as with email or IRC. We have plenty of paper and post-it notes to record our ideas, unlike Mumble. We are not confined to discussing past matters, like on regular Board meetings. F2F is where the strategic planning is done, usual meetings are for finalizing current matters.

You can discuss Maps.Me, if you refrain from personal insults to developers, just like with any other project. 15 pages of discussions in the relevant topic show that.

The restriction for discussing moderation is common to any well-moderated forum. Otherwise we’d have to block much more people than we do now.

Thanks for writing this! I agree, poster competitions are fun. And that was me who took this marvellous Pop Art poster home :)

AgusQui, I see the issue with Buenos Aires has been resolved, thank you for correcting the subway system there.

For futher errors and updates to numbers, there is a link to a spreadsheet at the bottom of the validation page. That table has reference numbers for every rapid transit system in the world. Please add a comment there, and I will update numbers promptly.

Awesome, thanks Wille!

Do tag changes affect any of validations? Like, adding many footways and parks may signal this is a Pokemon Go edit.

That is actually quite sensible, thanks SelfishSeahorse. Time to abandon that clusterwreck of public_transport=platform/stop_position and return to the roots.

No, I don’t propose to add stop_positions back. In my metro processing script, I calculate these by projecting platforms on lines, and anybody who needs these could do the same. I just propose to change the name from “platform” to something more universal. Otherwise people would complain that railway=tram_stop is not a platform and requires different treatment.

Are you making a schema for renderes, or for practical usage? You can render routes without highway/railway lines, by interpolating through stops (that’s what we do in maps.me), but you cannot get stops using just lines. Which means, you can both render and route when you have just stops, but you can at most look at the line, and not get anything useful from it (e.g. know if it stops near you), when you have just lines.

Hi Diego, thanks for improving the subway! The validator has been updated this morning, and it shows a few errors. Mostly they result from renaming railway=station to railway=stop. Metro stations are usually mapped with staiton or halt. For stop positions, you need to add public_transport=stop_position with subway=yes, and join the node with a station object using a stop_area relation. Please see this page for a complete schema. Disregard the “Rejected” plate, it does not make anything untrue.

Thanks for answering, Jo. I’ve looked through your proposal draft, and some things I do like very much. For example, getting rid of stop positions: that concept, to me, was redundant from the beginning, just an attempt to include railway=tram_stop. I’d suggest going a step further: renaming “platform” to “stop”, so there is no difference in mapping stop at a platform or in a road. This would remove issues with tram_stops not being platforms.

What I don’t like is that again roads/railways are mandatory, and stops are not. Which means, the proposal is again targeted at rendering and experienced mappers, instead of routing and literally everyone who can add objects into relations. When you have just stops, you can use a route relation for navigation, you can interpolate points into lines for displaying, and you know many properties of a route, including “from” and “to” stations. When you have just lines, all you can do with the route is render it. And few people will bother with splitting ways, tracing underground parts of routes and so on.

I propose to fix this mistake in the PTv2 proposal and make stops mandatory, and ways optional.

Why PTv3 and not an iterative improvement and explanation of PTv2?

Yuri, I made a plugin for JOSM, no_more_mapping, in late 2012. It disables OSM editing for you, so not mapping wouldn’t pose a challenge. Alas, it was quickly deleted by Frederik, because “Some might find it a humorous way of pointing the finger at our vulnerabilities but I don’t find it all that funny”. Too bad.

To be fair, building_tools plugin, which you reference, is still not in JOSM core. Users have to know about it and install it, otherwise they will create the same skewed buildings. The ticket to include it in the core is the most voted, with many links inside that support its inclusion. It is six years old.

The iD project is very well-maintaned and actively developed.

The option to draw a rectangular building is not discoverable in iD. You have to right-click and then somehow know that one of the similar-looking icons corrects the angles.

I’d prefer a prominent button that appears right after you choose a building type: “The buildings seems skewed. [Make angles right]”.