(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 [email protected]

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 - 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. 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. 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

Hello,

There are a couple of discussions on the tagging list that you might be interested in: this one and this one (and see the links from there to the wiki articles). Please do join in there to contribute to how OSM records all sorts of different borders.

Best Regards,

Andy

@Glassman Well I’m in the DWG - is my username random enough? :)

Seriously, just report spam when you see it and move on. We get lots of spam reports already, and yes, you can often figure out the likely culprits by the MO of the people adding them, including time zone. As TomH has said above, where we get a series of linked issues that need further investigation / action beyond “just revert it” we can and do pass details on to the admins.

@kocio Not sure if “you” here is PlaneMad or I, but in my case it’s not really suitable for an OSM Carto ticket since it’s just a way to render one set of OSM Carto borders over another set.

However there is discussion about how best to render disputed borders on the tagging list at the moment - see this list thread et al. Hopefully something will come out of that. Time permitting I’d also like to experiment myself with osmborder or a derivative, and to see what I can do to render “one sided borders” based on that (e.g. if country A’s claim isn’t aligned with country B’s claim and is “inside country B”, then the border should perhaps be one sided to show it “belongs” to country A). There’s lots of experimentation needed before actual code suggestions made though I suspect.

Thanks. The collisions at low zoom I suspect I won’t be able to do anything about. The one on the Dee doesn’t look too bad too my eyes (sorry if that’s heresy!). The one at Nick’i’the hill is a fair cop though - but I don’t think I’d want to supress the place name because of the boundary.

@imagico on the two-stage filtering process, I did that because I didn’t see a way to get osmium to filter tags from objects (which I was surprised about, TBH). The reason why boundary features with those tags are dropped is because I don’t want to have to remove non-boundary rendering from the “other” map style (I did actually try that approach first, but this one was more effective and ultimately easier).

Label collisions are of course a potential issue, but I’ve not actually found one yet!

It’s broken.

(as an example to find who created something like this) I searched taginfo for part of that string and then clicked through to an overpass turbo query on part of Somalia.

As an example, that found this way which was added in this changeset. If you comment there an email will go to the user, but as they haven’t been active in 11 months they may not see your message.

These roads were added 7 years ago, so I suspect that there isn’t a problem with deleting ones that don’t exist in any currently available imagery and don’t have GPS traces backing up their location.