I do not think that the damage to OSM’s reputation is that great. I have seen very few comments pointing to OSM as the cause of Plan’s crappynes. Most complains point directly to Apple instead of the data providers, or point to issues which are not data-related.

The OSM attribution is last in a long list which you have to actively look for. Most people do not know any of the data providers listed here (or even know what a “map data provider” might be). Anybody saying that the Plans debacle is rooted in its use of OSM probably had a grudge against OSM to begin with. In that context, I don’t think that the clearer attibution you suggest would make any difference.

As a mapper, I’d love to know precisely where my work is used. But I’m affraid that making that a requirement would be too burdensome for most users of data mashups. I’d say Apple (and others) would not have used OSM at all if that was the case. So the current attribution guidelines are a good compromise, I think.

Another possibility is to tag the building with “Palazzo Pamphilji”, and to add a node inside it for the embassy amenity.

Thanks for the work, I’ve been meaning to move beyond plain mapping for a while and this should be helpfull.

I’m wondering would you consider making your overlay a bit more visible/official by declaring it in the standard layman overlays and/or merging it with the http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/utils/gentoo/ overlay ? Unless your plan is to get everything merged in the portage tree ?

Cheers.

The border-to-center line makes no sense to map, since the “arm” is always moving.

I’d also rather tag the farmland or the field itself, rather than the irrigation mechanism… But it’s true there’s not a lot of detail to add beyond what Sundance pointed out.

Indispensable quand on veut obtenir une coordonée précise :) Ça prend plus de temps mais ça vaut le coup. On peut aussi revenir (au moins 2h) plus tard pour rajouter une mesure et améliorer encore la fiabilité.

C’est toujours moins précis dans les bois, mais avec du glonass :/

Ton post ne dis pas si tu as utilisé la fonctionalité “average waypoint” de l’etrex pour créer un waypoint plus précis ?

If there’s any developers to blame, it’s the gatekeeper ones, for the misleading “error” message and the frightfull workaround.

The bot did the job it had to do, correctly. The problem is that many people did not fully grasp how that worked, thought “I accepted the CT, so my edits are safe”, and didn’t lookup cleanmap or OSMI to check the facts.

Sadly, Andew is probably not the last person to get surprised at the result, even though there was a lot of communication and a lot of extra time before the redaction. Not sure we could have done much better, the returns had diminished to nothing much at redaction time.

For what it’s worth, most people have cut their losses by now, and resumed mapping as usual.

The main osm website does have such a highlighting feature (here’s an example link for Paris), it’s just not linked to the nominatim searches. Sorry for the annoying FOSS answer but… patches welcome.

By your description, this road is indeed a ford, if only for a few hours each day. Even fords on rivers depend on the amount of water currently present (some riverbeds go from completely dry to flood-like during the season or because of a dam). The timescale is different but it’s the same issue. What counts as “passable” also depends a lot on your vehicle.

All in all there’s no hard rule, but if you can cross it under some circumstances, I’d say it’s a ford.

Definitely ford=yes and tidal=yes. The former is usually shown on maps and probably avoided by most router configs.

I’m tempted by some access tag, but usual time-based ones won’t do. There’s one use of access:tide=yes in taginfo but it doesn’t make much sense to me. access:high_tide=no or access:tide= sound better. You could always add an access=limited or access=tidal; most routing engines will not know what to do with the value, and simply avoid the road.

As for your actual question of the highway= value, just tag as if it weren’t tidal (the other tags already defined that). From the look of it and the tagging guidelines for France, I’d go with tertiary.

Oh… and this is not a waterway (as currently tagged). Waterways are for boats and such.

osm.wiki/DE:OSM_Map_On_Garmin osm.wiki/DE:Garmin

Die English Versionen haben mehr info. War das so schwer zu finden ?

Assisted GPS (aGPS) only helps to get the initial GPS position (“gps fix”) faster. It doesn’t improve accuracy, and having more mobile cells in the area doesn’t improve thins (as long as you have data coverage, you can use aGPS). Mobile phones generally don’t have great GPS quality, and narrow streets with high buildings are a challenge for any GPS.

I recommend one of the Garmin trekking GPS. The newest eTrex even support Glonass (an additional set of available satellites, which improves fix time and “deep valey” accuracy). They’re not as cheap as single-purpose trackers like the one Robert suggests, but you can view your osm maps on it, and they’ll last you a decade as they’re very sturdy. Some models even have a camera, but the price becomes hard to justify.

Plenty of work ahead of ye, but at least it looks well prepared. Good luck :)

Good for you :) Mapping on a bike is probably the most pleasurable way to do so. It gives you an extra incentive to go out, and takes you places you’ve never been to.

An of course countryside mapping is as valuable as in the city. A holey map is a map that people won’t trust, and on the contrary if people see a well-mapped remote area, they’ll get a better opinion of OSM. We need more rural mappers, sadly technology-inclined people who are likely to map are also likely to live in cities.

Simply learn to use the cadastre, there’s a josm plugin that makes things reasonably easy.

If that still feels too complicated, go ahead and map the usual way. Cadastre-import is not a fully-automated thing. When somebody eventually use the cadastre to map an area, he needs to account for already-mapped elements anyway.

GPs mapping isn’t a bad thing, really. I’ve mapped a lot of neighbourhoods in my area; when satellite imagery became available 1-2 years later I had another look and tweaked my original work, but it didn’t make a big difference.

Besides:

• You need to go on-site anyway, to survey street names and all the many, many details that are not visible on imagery.
• Having a lot of traces available in a area is very important to make sure that the imagery is alingned correctly before tracing from it.
• Imagery quality varys greatly, and since your area wasn’t deemed worthy of detailed imagery yet, chances are it won’t get the best-of-breed imagery when it eventually gets something.

You don’t need fancy software to gather traces, they are all provide the same basic needed functionality. Add some device to take a photo/video/audio, and you’re all set.

Osmi has a redaction bot layer that helps with remapping. http://rebuild.poole.ch/ is also usefull.

There’ll never be an automatic “redaction undo” for users who finally accept : conflicts are likely, and it’d be a lot of coding work for a rare/low_impact event. If an undo is ever performed, it’ll probably be a manual, case-by-case affair.

(Entshuldingung fur das English, ich bin zu jetz müde fur Deutch)

The “Remapping” wiki page was fairly clear that any object created by a non-agreer needed to be recreated from scratch. OSMI would have shown you that the way was still unclean.

The bot is actually doing its best to keep as much information as possible, but in the case of version-1-unclean data, there isn’t much choice.

I can imagine how frustrating it is that your remaping work was thrown away, but there’s not much else the bot could do. Again, checking the available documentation and tools would have shown that the remapping you did wasn’t sufficient.

At least you’ve already done the surveying and thinking for those areas; readding them should be less work than earlyer ?

Wenn du sicher bist, dass diese Strassen ODBL-clean waren, solltest du sofort osm-dev (Irc oder Email) kontactieren, so dass sie die fehlern corrigieren können. Möglisherweise waren diese Strassen eigentlich nich ODBL-clean. Was sagte OSMI ?