Any layer can be added using a conventional way by copying a service URL from this page https://gis.apfo.usda.gov/arcgis/rest/services/NAIP , going to Imagery -> Preferences, hitting +WMS button, pasting an URL into #1, and following the instructions (you can even select a different image format there).

It is a kind of inconvenient that they have NAIP imagery published as separate services, not layers of a single service.

Вот только сегодня ссылался на содержимое FAQ.

OSM - добровольный проект, от участников требуется только соблюдение весьма общих требований. Дальше, каждый выбирает себе занятие по желанию и возможностям. Да, вероятно, навигация может быть самой распространенной задачей. Да, польза любых супер-специфических данных всегда под сомнением, потому что они фрагментарны (то есть их полнота на сколько-нибудь большой территории может стремиться к нулю). Но заставить человека не делать то, что ему нравится, а делать - то, что не очень - это затея довольно странная.

Ваши выводы касательно важности адресной информации, в общих чертах, верные. Но вот “рейтинг приоритетов” с ресторанами и ветклиниками - это уже частный опыт. У меня, например, животные были всю жизнь, но я никогда не искал произвольный зоомагазин по навигатору или карте. Произвольный ресторан - тоже.

@Warin61, that picture says “e.g. landuse=grass”, so it is completely correct since it is just an example.

@Sherita is a spammer, look at her profile.

Just a quick reminder. Usage of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=parking_space on the first illustration is incorrect. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=parking should be used instead.

Use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=parking_space to map a single parking space on a parking lot. Mapping parking spaces is an addition, not a replacement, to mapping a whole parking lot with amenity=parking.

@Marion Barry, it is absolutely clear from the diary entry that communications within HOT were a material for this study. Question is, what exactly this study claims.

Does it really make sense to allow completely untrained people to do so much before performing any validation? It seems like fixing so many mistakes will take way more time that it took to add that kind of data. Doesn’t look like an effective way of managing human resources and teaching people.

Fixing a lot of own mistakes you could have avoided if given a proper feedback earlier is super-frustrating.

@Tallguy, actually, it is not that surprising. It only shows that people, who received a negative feedback, are socially mature individuals interested in improving their work. Reasonable negative feedback is a perfectly normal part of the social interaction that serves to improvement by providing an information on what exactly should be improved.

But that brings up a question of motivation. OSM contributors have a very different motivation, from “making the best map of the world” to socializing while doing some mapping. Exact reaction on different kinds of feedback should be varying depending on that because feedback likely means different things to these people. For those who interested in socializing, feedback is important as an affirmation. Others, who want to learn how to make the best map, it’s a valuable information about things to improve.

And this raises the question: how exactly this analysis is titled? Because if it refers to HOT - it is perfectly okay since it is based on data collected from communications within HOT. But if it refers to the whole OSM, it could mean an unreasonable extrapolation and/or selection bias. At least because the motivation of HOT participants could be different and that difference has not been studied scientifically.

@d1g, I mean, nobody cares about that link you can’t stop posting. Exactly because you’ve done that so many times. That is simply annoying. This conversation has stopped more than a week ago. So, just stop.

That is definitely a great improvement. Here are some things I’d like to point on after receiving two kinds of notification letters today.

Currently, a notification letter starts from:

Username has commented on the OpenStreetMap diary entry with the subject “Subject”

or

Username has left a comment on one of your changesets created at 2017-02-06 16:51:18 UTC with comment ‘Comment’

which is okay, but to make it a bit more clear I’d add a “user” word in the beginning. So, anyone can see that it’s from another user, not from any kind of administration or something.

Another potential problem in this section is Subject/Comment text. Now, it has no link to an original diary entry or changeset, but I think it would be logical to have a link that leads there. At the same time, if original changeset comment contains a link, an email shows it as a link, not as a text. So, if an author of that changeset has placed a malicious link there, it will be copied to an email directly.

There is a significant difference between a changeset comment notification and a diary entry comment notification email. A changeset comment notification contains the text “More details about the changeset can be found at changeset link”, typed with a regular-size font within a white rectangle that indicated the main section, which is perfect. But a diary entry comment email has its links section (starting with “You can also read the comment at comment link …”) typed with a tiny font that makes it hard to read. It is even harder to notice because it is placed outside the white rectangle, just like “unsubscribe” and other technical links usually are. I think it is better to make these links in a diary entry comment email similar to one in a changeset comment email.

And the last thing is about the main text. Currently, an italic font is used for that. Usually, an italic formatting is less readable than a regular one, while italic serves as an emphasis. So, my suggestion would be to remove italic formatting from the main text to make it easier to read.

@d1g, is this a thousandth time when you share this link? How about to stop doing that everywhere? Nobody really cares.

@uswatunkh21, thank you. If you have Windows on your computer, you could use free IrfanView software for better fine-tuned image compression.

All that is just great, however, it is better to abstain from embedding photos as large as 6 Megabytes - some people reading OSM diaries could still have mobile internet access paid per download size. So, that’s a matter of respect.

@Alan Trick,

Since we don’t have any objective criteria to measure, how harmful is any particular piece of obviously wrong data, I don’t see any sense in “measuring” an amount of harm. That tag, obviously, should not be in OSM database. So, it has to be removed. The only question is who is responsible for that. This problem was identified a month ago. A promise to fix that was made two weeks ago. Since then, Zverik has found some time to argue about that on the Russian OSM forum and even to ban one person who unreasonably accused Mail.ru/Maps.me in doing that intentionally.

Indeed, that’s not the only issue and it’s not the worse one. However, there are cases, where it is impossible to implement any universal fix or solution, as well as cases, where an issue is caused by multiple parties (many different mappers). While here, the issue is absolutely clear, the responsible party is well-known, the solution is simple. If that would be an import, according to OSM import guidelines, author of that import is completely responsible for any required cleanup. But somehow, not in this case, while it is not different from imports.

But people have been adding nonsense data to OSM since the dawn of time (2004). This fact can not serve as an argument for being more tolerant to any other kinds of fake data.

And yes, Pokemon-related features are imaginary, even being imagined in a certain relation to a real-world location. So, it shouldn’t me kept in the OSM as well as, for example, real locations of fictional events of some book or movie.

Рецепт комментария от d1g:

• Игнорировать все обстоятельства ситуации, обратить внимание только на одну какую-то её часть.
• Написать, что надо делать всё наоборот.
• Упомянуть, что нужно помогать новичкам.
• Опционально - упомянуть Wikidata
• Использовать обрывочные или несогласованные предложения.

I hope you understand, that the major concern here is not about the “swarm of newcomers”, but about the fake data added by some of them because of what they think could benefit them in the game. It is important not to exaggerate this because otherwise, it turns into a straw man argument. Exaggerating a level of a negative reception makes it easier to condemn it.

@forever2darkness,

I’m guessing, @Glassman could provide you a better help on this topic, but what I could suggest doing, is to carefully study how things are mapped in some European town, say, in the UK, Netherlands or Germany. That will definitely give you an example of how everything should look. No rough contours, no false features and so on.

And thank you for showing up here for a dialog - too often, people prefer to avoid it.

@Alberto J (Deathan),

Good to hear that you have a plan to add the real parks, but do you know that Google Maps must not be used to improve the OSM? And you just said that you’ve added parks labeled on Google Maps. Unfortunately, you can’t do that.

As you probably noticed, I didn’t say that all Pokemon Go players are adding fake data, so, no worries - it’s not about any kind of discrimination.

And thanks for your will to keep OSM clean.

@Warin61, I appreciate your experience, but I think I’ve already addressed the same point you’ve made and I also have to remind that a single random case can not serve as an argument that disproves a tendency or a broad statement. In this case, the statement is: “There are Pokemon Go players adding fake objects, and there will be more”. So, the fact that somewhere Pokemon Go players have added something real, doesn’t contradict this statement at all.

There will be more, at least because more people will become aware of that rumor (even if it’s not true) and eventually, more people will start playing. I’m guessing here, but I think if it is actually about parks, some places could have way less real ones than other ones have, and these places are at higher risk of fake edits because people who live there want to have their creatures anyway.

What I am not saying is that we should somehow eradicate every mapper and every edit linked to Pokemon Go. Immediate removal applies, if it is possible, to fake objects only, as a measure to keep the database free of rubbish. Sometimes it could be impossible to do manually in a limited time, because, say, there are 100 changesets with 300 fake objects and 10 real ones. If someone would volunteer to do that manually and quickly instead of mass-reverting that, that person is welcome.