It’s clear that there is some uncertainty around AS that harms its adoption. That should be fixed, but right now the debate has become so entrenched that any wiki edit feels like a political statement.

However, I am not turning it into a “collection of all objects with the same addr:street”. AS members by definition don’t have an addr:street tag.

Your rethorical question is also plain trollbait, as the pros and cons have been largely debated and each scheme has good arguments. AS handles some usecases that addr:street cannot; the workflow and newbie-friendlyness has been debated to no end with no clear winner (not because people aren’t convinced, but because they are convinced by opposed conclusions).

At this stage, please realize that neither AS nor addr:street is going to be deprecated or dissapear from the db. Keep calm and carry on mapping using your prefered scheme. Go improve the tools and the documentation.

@d1g I’d certainly defend keeping only one of relation:street and relation:associatedStreet, but the relation:street doesn’t have much of a technical advantage and is 10x less popular. So ‘street’ would be the one to go.

@d1g There’s no documentation of what tags to apply to the members because there’s nothin special abou them. IMHO the relation itself shouldn’t have any tag other than “type=associatedStreet”, and editors should be able to grab the name from the street member for display purposes.

@AndiG88 I really don’t understand your issue with the workflow. If you’re willing to search, you’ll find all objects (house, street, relation) in one go with both schemes, there’s no difference here (or if you want to nitpick, the addr:street schema makes searching more complicated because you need to search for either name=* or addr:street=*). And in many cases you don’t need to search : you just click on the street or house, then on the relation and voilà - all the info you need.

You don’t have to touch the relations at all to update the street name. Go ahead and remove the name tag from the relation if it bothers you, it’s only cosmetic, it’s used neither for routing nor for rendering. And hey, maybe the rename is only for one section of the road, with the original mapper having wrongly assumed that all the streets were named the same. Happened to me more than once.

Concerning “loose” addresses: mixing two tagging schemes on one street is going to be more work, so don’t do that. Consider the pros and cons of each scheme individually.

No matter how you put it, that “simple find” is always going to me more work than “two clicks” or “nothing” (depending on the modification you’re doing).

QA tools such as osmi handle missing/mismatched street addresses just as well for both schemes.

What’s wrong with that screenshot ? Multiple AS for the “same” street can be usefull, it’s up to the contributor to decide wether it is or not. The “easyer to change street names” quality still applies. With addr:street you’d get even more duplication, and finding all houses associated with a street require a search instead of 2 clicks.

De plus, Google et son streetview sont rarement suffisament à jour pour des POIs de centre-ville. Même s’il était légalement possible d’utiliser les données et/ou images de Google pour ajouter des boutiques dans OSM, ça ne serais probablement pas une bonne idée.

YMMV, I really don’t like forum interfaces. And yet-another place to find info I want ? Nah. I’m subscribed to tagging, but that doesn’t mean that I read all threads.

The forum vs mailinglist (vs $FOOMEDIUM) debate will never die out, because each has its own advantages. As Richard pointed out, you can use a forum-like interface for mailinglists. The reverse is not always the case for forums (I’ve never looked at the osm forum so I don’t know in that case).

Mapbox and Telenav are two companies (out of the top of my head, maybe osm.wiki/Companies lists others) that employ full-time mappers. You could try contacting them for a once-off single-area job.

Regarding the “maps for self-driving cars” idea, AFAIK those cars currently need very detailed maps. Armchair mapping certainly isn’t sufficient. OSM still has good but not stellar data for for the satnavs usecase (missing width, lanes, restrcitions), so I think than osm-based self-driving cars are a bit far off.

Contrary to imports, there’s no such thing as a tagging approval process. There are conventions to help reaching consensus, which is quite different. OSM has always been pretty much the “let’s allow things to happen, then fix them when they break” phylosophy.

The “descriptive vs normative” can be a bit hard to navigate, but really the wiki should do both, and it usually does. Many pages describe both “what’s in the db” and “what is the prefered method”.

The wiki certainly does need TLC. The “process” to tidy the wiki is to just do it. That doesn’t necessarily mean conclude the discussion, but the pros and cons of each view can be more clearly documented.

The level of bureaucraty is subjective. You’re turning people away for reasons I wouldn’t have batted an eylid about.

OSM has loads of communication channels. Many people actually prefer mailing lists, but there’s IRC, a forum, blogs, social media, private messages and changeset comments… You name it. Besisdes, you want to fix wiki-related problems by adding another wiki ??

That’s very close to what the french community did with their BANO dataset : essentially a big CSV of addresses with many sources, tools to compare back and forth between BANO and osm, and the ultimate long-term goal of getting most of it merged into osm.

Just do your surveying in two steps : the first in summer while carrying a flame-thrower, the second a few days later while carrying your GPS. Problem solved :p

I’ve usually mapped those as orchards. They’re a bit too low for palm trees. My guess is pineapple, but don’t quote me on that.

As for there being no paths to reach the area, remember that main access is by foot and is often not visible from imagery.

Those notes seem to be of little value indeed. You should try asking on the mailing list, to identify the guilty program and fix the root cause.

Welcome :)

It can be disheartening to redo a lot of work that you already did for Google, but on the other hand, your edits are much more likely to eventually reach stanavs (even if that likelyhood is still small) and varied usecases.

The inside-out vs outside-in question is a classic one with not definite answer, but since you already have GIS experience and are interested in the whole county, I suggest starting with the big picture before moving to smaller roads.

So where is the “checked” information stored, if not in the object’s tags ? A third-party db ? If so, why do you need OAuth ?

Other than that: nice tool, thanks :)

Ireland is fairly well-mapped, with what I guess is a comparatively high number of veteran mappers per km2. Yet I’m often (depending on my mood) spending most of my osm time coaching new users. Just one anecdote in the “this problem is not specific to Brazil” camp.

It’s tedious work, and I can see how disheartening it can be if you’re the only one doing this in your area, but it’s more useful than just fixing mistakes. It’s also for advocacy and for recruiting. Some of those map-breakers will eventually become fully competent and share your load; coaching them increases the likelyhood of that.

Validation is hard. JOSM has the best in-editor validator, but it is far from being flawless. Tools like osmose have very good algorythms too, but they are after the fact and not worldwide.

It’d be great to have something like a changeset review board that newbies (or anybody having doubts) could upload to instead of uploading to the APIs directly. That board would run a standard set of checks, allow other people to look, have some shortcuts to IRC, and have a “send to DB” button. A man can dream, can’t he ?

You’d think that they would have spoted the hole during QA and kept the old imagery for it :/

They probably still have the old imagery somewhere, it’s worth a try alerting them about the regression (sorry, no idea who to contact for this).

Les GPS ont du mal dans les zones encaissées (vallées, hauts bâtiments…) ansi qu’en forêt ou par très mauvais temps. C’est normal qu’un tracé dans les Gorges du Tarn soit de mauvaise qualité.

Les combinés GPS+Glonass ainsi que les appareils spécifiques randonée font parfois mieux. Pense à attendre le “fix” GPS en terrain dégagé avant de t’engager en terrain difficile. Utilise plusieur appareils en même temps et fait plusieur passages à au moins 1h d’intervale, pour faire une moyenne entre tous les tracés.

Sometimes, after much arguing, the AE term ends up as the consensus winner. See the shop=fishmonger -> shop=fish -> shop=seafood debate.

@AndiG88

I’m not sure I follow the point in your 1st paragraph. My point is that when you want to route to a particular housenumber, the routing algorythm will find the closest matching way and direct you there. Most of the time, doing that matching using just the street name, even if there are multiple corresponding ways, is correct. But sometime (typically in housing estates) the name-matched osm way that is closest to the house is the wrong one. If matching using a relation instead, there’s only one osm way to choose from and no mistake made.

Regarding the ease of contribution (for newbies and veterans), there is no obvious winner. Creating the relation is harder for newbies, same amount of work for veterans. Maintaining it is easyer for both.

It’s also worth it to add a house to the associatedstreet relation even before you know its housenumber. Firstly because it makes surveying housenumbers easyer, secondly because it is usefull information even in the absence of housenumbers.