Map is a visual way of expressing idea and transferring information. So there is no problem to stay moral and display occupied territories as such. The options are not only A or B. It is also possible to have data representing ALL opinions (as was before DWG decision), then it is possible to create numerous different maps and represent numerous different ideas - that is free expression.

The same is with “truth on the ground” rule. It can mean whatever you want. It could mean whose tanks are on the ground (de facto), it could also mean who legally owns it (de jure). Map can display both. It is your MORAL position.

If a terrorist kidnaps a child, would you then say “ok, truth on the ground - that child is terrorist’s, screw the parents”?

Calling government “terrorist” for threatening legal consequences for helping active aggressor (Ukrainians are still dying DAILY) is strange, because this way you’re calling “terrorist” states all EU countries, USA, Canada, Australia, Japan etc.

And if you go to Crimea without Ukrainian visa not via Ukraine controlled territory then you will not get EU visa and probably get some other legal penalties.

Sorry, but talking about “fighting to get it back” is a nonsense, or chauvinism, or both (or maybe even something worse). Would you tell your kid to go and throw a brick at that boy who took his toy by force?

Data can represent all attitudes without a problem. Then everybody creates a map as they wish.

It is not that simple. In case of Ukraine-Moscow war there is a very clear aggressor and victim. Position of OSMF shows its position is blind following of money without ANY moral rules. And it IS cooperation (probably unintentional) with Russia on Crimea’s occupation with all consequences, it does not matter how they call it. I hope DWG has consulted LWG, because otherwise it could be much more than huge reputation loss.

I doubt calling for additional wars is a sane “solution”.

I wonder how EU/US sanctions about those cooperating with Russia’s annexation of Crimea would work here…

At least some members of OSMF participated in discussion in talk, so they should have announced it there as well, especially after writing, that decision is pending. But probably old problem of communication channels. Well, whatever… New moral low for OSMF/DWG.

Chrm. Sorry, how does these several post threads stand for “request for comments which could influence the decision”? It’s obvious that Ukrainians would stand for their side, Russians - for their side (not surprisingly Russian side was not 100% in favour of this decision). No change in opinions. No surprise statements.

And most importantly: what does it solve and how does it reduce friction?

@imagico maybe I missed or misunderstood something on talk mailing list, but when discussion about Crimea started, Frederik wrote:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-October/081570.html

“the Crimea issue is currently being discussed in DWG.” “This policy is not likely to change any time soon.” And then wrote about tagging.

To me this does not sound like request for comments at all. Not even a possibility to have a say on the matter.

And then decision was made, NOT ANNOUNCED (I only found out about decision via Ukraine OSM twitter and later via this post) and that’s it.

This DWG decision makes a huge reputational damage to OpenStreetMap as a whole. Very sad.

The problem is that osmers got used to low quality imagery like the one from mikrosoft. Imagery should be fixed, not workarounds found. In some countries official precise imagery is available for vectorisation, so gps traces are only required for forest (invisible) routes, where gps would not get 30cm accuracy because of forest obstruction to gps signal. Also on the side of steep hills and mountains you would get consistant incorrect position of gps.

Thanks for sharing! Is there a difference in trained model prediction results from epochs 20-50? As train IoU look similar.

Thank you. ResNet decreases training time by 1/3!

Thank you for the answers. I ran through 8000 training and 1000 validation images (no augmentation) and IoU is still below 0.8. Of course images are quite different: buildings in forest, in rural areas, industrial buildings, urban buildings. And I haven’t done any hard-negative training. Training this without GPU takes almost a week :-) So yes, it would be useful to have access to trained models at least to compare the results, for others it could be much easier to take a model, run predictions and add missing data to OSM without the need to train and tune the model.

Thank you for sharing! How many training images do you think are necessary to have a decently trained model? Are there any plans to release some trained models (f.e. buildings, roads) to the public?

lonvia: brilliant! Putting way twice would also solve a problem of actual route length calculation.

So how do you expect non linear and non circular routes being mapped/sorted? Say the route of the shape Q - you start on the end of tail, get into a curcular part, then go back the tail route section to get back to start/end point? Or what has to be done with side trips? Because when its simple linear/circular, you can do as well as josm button “sort relation members” (except showing the start point).

Normalising with countries population would also be interesting thus giving proportion of mappers in the country.

Ok. So now it looks clear enough. People with little or no OSM experience make some fake* “analysis” just to give some “reference” pages just some days before the conference for garage hacker Zverik to say that “some people say craps.me is not SOO bad”. Good! Brilliant! Very “trump style”! :-D

From long term OSM mappers attitude: results are still the same. 50% of craps.me edits are revertable rubbish. And craps.me can be promoted to “the worst thing to happen to OSM ever”.

Bye

[*] edits from which region? what period? who analysed? what rules? :-D

Check the image in this blog post: https://blog.openmap.lt/2016/03/25/klaidos-baltijos-juros-regione/

You can clearly see the contours of Lithuania. That is because people in Lithuania take care and TAKE ACTION fixing errors instead of bragging or enjoying statistics of “increased contribution” which only increase the number of errors much more than increase the amount of useful data (like CRAPS.ME does).

That is there is already enough of QA done with results ignored. Fix that before doing other arbitrary “observations”.

And one more point. Subjective “checks” are pointless. Please add an objective and clear description (rules) what makes a change “bad”. HOW do you decide if a change is good or bad (and how do you decide it is “good”). Is it the error rule like one in keepright.at or osmose, is it a simple rule like “user=Komяpa” (actual rule which was used to find crap) or something else? Otherwise your findings are pointless.

Do not make simple problem larger. After ten years of practice:

• If the change brakes something seriously - you revert or fix it straight away and notify the user.
• If it is a small bug, you fix it and notify a user.
• If it is something with little impact - just notify a user (and take appropriate action after a day or so if the user does not react).

That is: QUALITY of the map is the priority and then you want a mapper to understand what he/she did wrong and why.

P.S. With one exception. If the change comes from CRAPS.ME user - revert the change and don’t even try contacting the user because its pointless. CRAPS.ME users do not realise they are changing OSM maps, they think they are changing “CRAPS.ME” “offline” maps, so they ignore messages from OSM as “irrelevant”.

Mapbox reacting to 78 changesets in 3 months!!!! only means they do not understand which changesets are good and which ones are damaging ones.