Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mateusz Konieczny-3
There are thousands of objects mistakenly imported to OSM from GNIS.
Objects proposed to be deleted were documented in GNIS database as not
existing at time of the import, but were imported anyway.

Edit would remove many nonexisting objects that are currently
misleading users of OSM data and confuse mappers. There are many
amenity=post_office, amenity=place_of_worship and other mapped in USA
that in reality are not existing. There are also thousands of object
retagged to hide them in standard rendering but this entries also
should be deleted as unwanted and usually incorrect (for example
abandoned:amenity=post_office). 

Some of them are present for a decade or more like for example
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/357118918/history

Examples of other objects that would be deleted:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/358721524#map=16/33.1701/-83.2385
[https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/359023261
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/359290731/#map=15/41.6947/-72.6189


I plan to run an automated edit that will revert part of the GNIS
import that added them and delete objects that never had any reason to
appear in the OSM database in any form, at least according to GNIS data.

Please comment no matter what you think about this idea! I will not
make the edit without a clear support so please comment if you think
that it is a good idea and if you think that it should not be done.

Plan is as follows:

I will take full responsibility for all edits and if anything goes
wrong I will fix it.

To avoid deleting objects that were not imported from GNIS following
filters will apply
* Only objects created in specific changesets that were importing GNIS
* Only objects with name tag that has "(historical)" part (this is how
GNIS indicates nonexisting objects, see documentation page for details)
* Only objects with gnis:feature_id and name tags that were not changed
from import to 2019-03-10
* Only objects that have gnis:feature_id and name tags, where name tag
has "(historical)" part at time of edit
* Nodes that are now parts of ways or relations will be skipped, ways
and relations (if any, it seems that only nodes were imported) that are
now parts of relations will be skipped

All must apply, otherwise item will not be deleted.

List of changesets that added objects that I want to delete (most of
objects added in GNIS import will not be deleted):

* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/747176 (includes notification
  of author of edits)
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/748530
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/749606
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/751242
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/755766
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/756644
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/758594
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/763672
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/764755
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/766700
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/767554
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/770127
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/774950
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/777367
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/780743
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/781903
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/783501
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/784670
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/786350
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/794649

Each changeset created by a bot will contain a single element or group
of close elements to avoid edits spanning across large areas (it is
impossible in cases where edited object itself spans very large area).

Documentation page with full info on OSM Wiki is at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/remove_objects_that_are_not_existing_according_to_source_of_import_that_added_them

This message will be crossposted to OSM USA slack channel

I have experience with automatic edits. This edit will be done
carefully to avoid damage to OSM data.


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Kevin Kenny-3
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:03 AM Mateusz Konieczny
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> There are thousands of objects mistakenly imported to OSM from GNIS.
> Objects proposed to be deleted were documented in GNIS database as not
> existing at time of the import, but were imported anyway.

I think it would be a good idea if we can recover from this botch. The
set of restrictions on what to remove will, I think, save all the work
I've done on these nodes. (Near me, there are a lot of '(historical)'
schools and churches where I've kept the nodes and tagged the current
use of the buildings, but your checks will avoid undoing that.)

I started typing a knee-jerk response that the GNIS nodes would be
useful, since a great many of the (historical) things represent
buildings that are still standing but have been repurposed. Then I had
a flash of sanity, and realized that the current use needs to be
field-verified anyway, and the historical use isn't really an OSM
function, so the "might be useful" is a chimera.

I know I've reused at least one (historical) place_of_worship, because
a community of a different faith rehabbed the building. But there
again, I could have mapped it just as easily without GNIS.

(I presume that it's right to keep GNIS tags when remapping?
https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=138:3:0::NO:3:P3_FID,P3_TITLE:2425965,First%20Baptist%20Church
for instance shows the defunct "First Baptist Church". The building is
now https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/491209761 "Guru Nanak Darbar
Sikh Temple", but it's the same building.)

So my summary is: "I myself wouldn't dare attempt a mechanical edit on
this scale, but if you think you can pull it off, and convince enough
people that nobody will revert, go for it!"

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Martijn van Exel-3
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3

On Mar 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

I plan to run an automated edit that will revert part of the GNIS
import that added them and delete objects that never had any reason to
appear in the OSM database in any form, at least according to GNIS data.

Please comment no matter what you think about this idea! I will not
make the edit without a clear support so please comment if you think
that it is a good idea and if you think that it should not be done. 

Thanks for bringing the idea up. It actually did come up fairly recently on Slack https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1550176430103000 

My view is that we would be missing an opportunity to have mappers review these locations and update the areas concerned. These nodes exist mostly in ‘undermapped' / remote areas that could use some human mapper attention. So I’d be in favor of trying to resolve this using some human driven cleanup first.

Martijn

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3



Mar 21, 2019, 4:46 AM by [hidden email]:

On Mar 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

I plan to run an automated edit that will revert part of the GNIS
import that added them and delete objects that never had any reason to
appear in the OSM database in any form, at least according to GNIS data.

Please comment no matter what you think about this idea! I will not
make the edit without a clear support so please comment if you think
that it is a good idea and if you think that it should not be done. 

Thanks for bringing the idea up. It actually did come up fairly recently on Slack https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1550176430103000 

My view is that we would be missing an opportunity to have mappers review these locations and update the areas concerned. These nodes exist mostly in ‘undermapped' / remote areas that could use some human mapper attention. So I’d be in favor of trying to resolve this using some human driven cleanup first.
What is the benefit, during survey, of mapped places that are not existing anymore?

I encounter many during surveys (usually result of data getting outdated) and for me it was
always time sink (as I needed to check is it actually gone) and never useful in any way.

Note that it is not obvious, especially for beginner or data users, that all of this places
are not existing anymore.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mike N.
On 3/21/2019 3:04 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

> What is the benefit, during survey, of mapped places that are not
> existing anymore?
>
> I encounter many during surveys (usually result of data getting
> outdated) and for me it was
> always time sink (as I needed to check is it actually gone) and never
> useful in any way.
>
> Note that it is not obvious, especially for beginner or data users, that
> all of this places
> are not existing anymore.

  This has been my experience as well when methodically reviewing
several hundred GNIS nodes around here.   Everyone is fond of pointing
out where GNIS is poorly located or out of date, but every GNIS object
identified as (historical) was 100% accurate.   Let's reserve mapper
labor and MapRoulette projects for those that benefit from human review.
  This project would qualify for automated intervention.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

EthnicFood IsGreat
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3

> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:04:13 +0100 (CET)
> From: Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Talk Us <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that
> are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them
>
>
>
> Mar 21, 2019, 4:46 AM by [hidden email]:
>
>>
>>> On Mar 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> I plan to run an automated edit that will revert part of the GNIS
>>> import that added them and delete objects that never had any reason to
>>> appear in the OSM database in any form, at least according to GNIS data.
>>>
>>> Please comment no matter what you think about this idea! I will not
>>> make the edit without a clear support so please comment if you think
>>> that it is a good idea and if you think that it should not be done.>>
>>>
>> Thanks for bringing the idea up. It actually did come up fairly recently on Slack > https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1550176430103000 <https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1550176430103000>>
>>
>> My view is that we would be missing an opportunity to have mappers review these locations and update the areas concerned. These nodes exist mostly in ‘undermapped' / remote areas that could use some human mapper attention. So I’d be in favor of trying to resolve this using some human driven cleanup first.
>>
> What is the benefit, during survey, of mapped places that are not existing anymore?
>
> I encounter many during surveys (usually result of data getting outdated) and for me it was
> always time sink (as I needed to check is it actually gone) and never useful in any way.
>
> Note that it is not obvious, especially for beginner or data users, that all of this places
> are not existing anymore.


Instead of deleting the features that don't exist anymore, couldn't they
be moved over to OHM?

Mark



_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mateusz Konieczny-3



Mar 21, 2019, 1:14 PM by [hidden email]:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:04:13 +0100 (CET)
From: Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>
Cc: Talk Us <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that
are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them



Mar 21, 2019, 4:46 AM by [hidden email]:
On Mar 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > wrote:

I plan to run an automated edit that will revert part of the GNIS
import that added them and delete objects that never had any reason to
appear in the OSM database in any form, at least according to GNIS data.

Please comment no matter what you think about this idea! I will not
make the edit without a clear support so please comment if you think
that it is a good idea and if you think that it should not be done.>>
Thanks for bringing the idea up. It actually did come up fairly recently on Slack > https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1550176430103000 <https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1550176430103000>>

My view is that we would be missing an opportunity to have mappers review these locations and update the areas concerned. These nodes exist mostly in ‘undermapped' / remote areas that could use some human mapper attention. So I’d be in favor of trying to resolve this using some human driven cleanup first.
What is the benefit, during survey, of mapped places that are not existing anymore?

I encounter many during surveys (usually result of data getting outdated) and for me it was
always time sink (as I needed to check is it actually gone) and never useful in any way.

Note that it is not obvious, especially for beginner or data users, that all of this places
are not existing anymore.


Instead of deleting the features that don't exist anymore, couldn't they be moved over to OHM?
Moving data to OHM from OSM requires
(1) deleting data in OSM
(2) importing data to OHM

And importing GNIS to OHM would work better if it would be imported straight from GNIS rather
than from partial OSM data that was transformed GNIS data.

Also, I would be surprised if OHM still has no GNIS data.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Martijn van Exel-3
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
The benefit is that it gives mappers a reason to examine places - not just the disappeared feature itself but also the area around it - that would otherwise go unexamined. Since we have so much unexamined space in the U.S., any opportunity to spark mappers’ curiosity about some of that space, is a welcome trigger. 

It may feel like a time sink for some, but my hope is that others will feel it’s an interesting exercise to improve the map. 

Stepping back a bit, the urge to fix previous automated edits with new automated fixes is understandable, but it may lead to a more casual approach to imports and automated edits, because we basically say with each fix that ill-informed automated map edits can always be fixed with more automated edits later. We’ve already gone down that path in the U.S. quite far, so we should proceed with extra care - unless we as a community decide that that is the nature of OSM in this country. It isn’t to me.

Martijn

On Mar 21, 2019, at 1:04 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:




Mar 21, 2019, 4:46 AM by [hidden email]:

On Mar 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

I plan to run an automated edit that will revert part of the GNIS
import that added them and delete objects that never had any reason to
appear in the OSM database in any form, at least according to GNIS data.

Please comment no matter what you think about this idea! I will not
make the edit without a clear support so please comment if you think
that it is a good idea and if you think that it should not be done. 

Thanks for bringing the idea up. It actually did come up fairly recently on Slack https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1550176430103000 

My view is that we would be missing an opportunity to have mappers review these locations and update the areas concerned. These nodes exist mostly in ‘undermapped' / remote areas that could use some human mapper attention. So I’d be in favor of trying to resolve this using some human driven cleanup first.
What is the benefit, during survey, of mapped places that are not existing anymore?

I encounter many during surveys (usually result of data getting outdated) and for me it was
always time sink (as I needed to check is it actually gone) and never useful in any way.

Note that it is not obvious, especially for beginner or data users, that all of this places
are not existing anymore.
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Harald Kliems


On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:31 AM Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]> wrote:
The benefit is that it gives mappers a reason to examine places - not just the disappeared feature itself but also the area around it - that would otherwise go unexamined. Since we have so much unexamined space in the U.S., any opportunity to spark mappers’ curiosity about some of that space, is a welcome trigger. 

I have certainly have had that experience when participating in various MapRoulette challenges: You come for the non-existent landing strip; you stay for half an hour to clean up the messy TIGER roads. However, given that there are so many other MapRoulette tasks that will lead you to remote areas and _can't_ be automated, I'm fully in support of Mateusz's automatic edit.

 Harald (hobbesvsboyle)

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Martijn van Exel-3
In reply to this post by Martijn van Exel-3
Re-reading this I phrased this with more hyperbole than I intended, sorry.

I do think we should learn from past mistakes and approach any automated edit, be it an import or a (subsequent) fix, with the proper diligence. Which is what we’re doing here, and I commend you for taking an open-minded approach in your initial email.

Martijn

On Mar 21, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]> wrote:

Stepping back a bit, the urge to fix previous automated edits with new automated fixes is understandable, but it may lead to a more casual approach to imports and automated edits, because we basically say with each fix that ill-informed automated map edits can always be fixed with more automated edits later. We’ve already gone down that path in the U.S. quite far, so we should proceed with extra care - unless we as a community decide that that is the nature of OSM in this country. It isn’t to me.



_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3



Mar 21, 2019, 3:29 PM by [hidden email]:
The benefit is that it gives mappers a reason to examine places - not just the disappeared feature itself but also the area around it - that would otherwise go unexamined. Since we have so much unexamined space in the U.S., any opportunity to spark mappers’ curiosity about some of that space, is a welcome trigger. 

It may feel like a time sink for some, but my hope is that others will feel it’s an interesting exercise to improve the map. 
I think that existing issues detected by say Osmose are more than enough to encourage fixing stuff.

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ has massive amount of things to fix, even in well
mapped areas.

Willing mappers are bottleneck, so whenever rare of bot-fixable
problems happens I think that it is a good idea to use it and spend human mapping time
on something more useful.

And if there is any danger of any area in USA running out of Maproulette or Osmose tasks -
let me know and I will create something.

Especially Wikipedia-related one, as side effect of my project of finding tourism attractions
based on OSM data I created validator detecting various issues with wikipedia and wikidata tasks,
if anyone is interested I may run it for some part of USA.
Stepping back a bit, the urge to fix previous automated edits with new automated fixes is understandable, but it may lead to a more casual approach to imports and automated edits, because we basically say with each fix that ill-informed automated map edits can always be fixed with more automated edits later. We’ve already gone down that path in the U.S. quite far, so we should proceed with extra care - unless we as a community decide that that is the nature of OSM in this country. It isn’t to me.
I fully support proper discussion before doing automatic changes, especially on larger scale and
ones that will delete items making them harder to reverse.

And I would be really irritated if someone would use this automatic edit proposal to
support "my edit requires no discussion, after all sooner or later someone will fix my mess".


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Martijn van Exel-3
Mar 21, 2019, 3:56 PM by [hidden email]:
Re-reading this I phrased this with more hyperbole than I intended, sorry.
I see no problem here, after all lack of control over automated edit is how we ended
in this situation.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Clifford Snow
I'm in favor of the bot but I'd like to review a sample of the data being removed in my area. The purpose is to test the assumption that the data is of no use.

Best,
Clifford

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:32 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mar 21, 2019, 3:56 PM by [hidden email]:
Re-reading this I phrased this with more hyperbole than I intended, sorry.
I see no problem here, after all lack of control over automated edit is how we ended
in this situation.
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


--
@osm_seattle
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mateusz Konieczny-3
Good idea, independent check would be welcomed!

Something from Seattle region would be OK, right?

If my googling went right the you are probably interested
in data around
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Glassman/history#map=8/47.780/-122.388

Mar 21, 2019, 5:43 PM by [hidden email]:
I'm in favor of the bot but I'd like to review a sample of the data being removed in my area. The purpose is to test the assumption that the data is of no use.

Best,
Clifford


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Martijn van Exel-3
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:31 AM Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The benefit is that it gives mappers a reason to examine places - not just the disappeared feature itself but also the area around it - that would otherwise go unexamined. Since we have so much unexamined space in the U.S., any opportunity to spark mappers’ curiosity about some of that space, is a welcome trigger.

I need no incentive like that, and no mapper that I've corresponded
with does.  I'm still in the middle of an area where TIGER mapping is
absolutely atrocious, and I've cleaned only small corners. I've found
that it's the best use of my very limited time to confine my edits to
places that I've visited or intend to visit, which is why you'll see
most of my mapping taking place in my own neighbourhood, in the
vicinity of hiking trails, on the roads that I've travelled to get to
the trails, and the imports that I curate with respect to the
boundaries of public lands.

I've edited and conflated a bunch of GNIS points. I have yet to see
one marked as (historic) that was of the least bit of use. For the
best of them, they designate a building that is still standing but has
been repurposed. If I'm mapping buildings, I'll get around to that one
in any case. If I'm not micromapping to the level of individual
buildings, the information that "the private house here used to be a
two-room schoolhouse," is simply a distraction. Even if I am mapping
buildings, often the remodelling is so extensive that I can't spot any
indicia that it was once a schoolhouse, and can't even state with
confidence that the building wasn't demolished with a new building
constructed on the site. For the limited sample of (historic) GNIS
points that I've encountered, there is simply zero value to OSM
(beyond possibly the spot elevation, which is also often of
questionable quality.)

I can't speak to OHM. I've never contributed to that project. I
propose to let those who do contribute to it manage their own data
imports, and judge the value of (historic) GNIS data only with respect
to OSM, the project at hand.

> It may feel like a time sink for some, but my hope is that others will feel it’s an interesting exercise to improve the map.

I understand in principle - but I don't see bad GNIS data as being any
greater incentive than bad TIGER data - and the anti-import crowd hold
the failure of the bad TIGER data to recruit mappers to fix it as a
model for why imports in general have a negative impact on the
community. Moreover, I've tried MapRoulette a few times, and every
time, come away with a mix of, "I don't have enough local knowledge to
do a good job here," and "I can make better progress cleaning other
things up closer to home." Most of the things it gives me, I wind up
clicking "too hard," while possibly tidying something else.

> Stepping back a bit, the urge to fix previous automated edits with new automated fixes is understandable, but it may lead to a more casual approach to imports and automated edits, because we basically say with each fix that ill-informed automated map edits can always be fixed with more automated edits later. We’ve already gone down that path in the U.S. quite far, so we should proceed with extra care - unless we as a community decide that that is the nature of OSM in this country. It isn’t to me.

Merciful heavens, no! Still, the fact remains that we have a bunch of
botched imports from the early days of mapping in the US. No,
'botched' is too strong a term. They were done well according to the
practice of the time. They significantly advanced the usefulness of
the map when they happened. Still, in light of what we've learned
since that time, they fall catastophically short of the data quality
that we now expect of an import. Few, if any, of us argue in favour of
importing at even close to that level of carelessness. Are you really
arguing that making it as laborious as possible to repair _known_ bad
data in these early imports is desirable, in order to discourage
future reckless imports?  That doesn't strike me as the way to make
forward progress.

For what it's worth I speak as someone who's, on a much smaller scale,
taken on the repair of an early import that was of unacceptably loiw
quality by today's standards. Check out
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ke9tv-nysdec-lands/history for how
much work *that* was. Without developing significant automation (a
script that worked off PostGIS queries and connected to the JOSM API
to set everything up for manual conflation), I'd not have been able to
complete the task. I won't say that the results are perfect - nothing
ever is - but it's a whale of a lot better than what was there before,
and I use the result with confidence for guidance in the field. (And
yes, the project was discussed on talk-us and imports, and wikified at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NYS_DEC_Lands - so I offer at
least the semblance of due diligence.).

So - don't tolerate ill-considered imports, but don't punish those who
are trying to clean up old messes 'pour encourager les autres'! The
discussion here is of the right level of diligence. A blanket 'no' is
simply demanding to prolong the pain.

I, too, would appreciate seeing some sample data, let's say, some
reasonable radius around 42.8257, -73.8790.  That's more to make sure
that the technology is working right and not wetting on stuff that's
already fixed, but of course, I'd check to verify my tentative
conclusion that (historic) doesn't tag anything useful.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Clifford Snow
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3


On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
Good idea, independent check would be welcomed!

Something from Seattle region would be OK, right?

If my googling went right the you are probably interested
in data around


Seattle area is fine or Skagit County to the north. Seattle would give me more nodes to review which is good.

Clifford 
--
@osm_seattle
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3



Mar 21, 2019, 6:23 PM by [hidden email]:


On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 9:52 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
Good idea, independent check would be welcomed!

Something from Seattle region would be OK, right?

If my googling went right the you are probably interested
in data around


Seattle area is fine or Skagit County to the north. Seattle would give me more nodes to review which is good.
I uploaded files and linked in

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/remove_objects_that_are_not_existing_according_to_source_of_import_that_added_them#List_of_candidates

For now just file with all nodes in .osm file (can be opened with JOSM). As it is limited to nodes
it works fairly well and ca be browsed without performance issues.

I uploaded also file with objects very far away from Seattle deleted but it turned out to produce larger file,
probably JOSM recorded deletions.

I can produce later something more user friendly if that would be useful and .osm files are too complicated
- let me know if that would be useful!

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Martijn van Exel-3



Mar 21, 2019, 6:18 PM by [hidden email]:
I, too, would appreciate seeing some sample data, let's say, some
reasonable radius around 42.8257, -73.8790. That's more to make sure
that the technology is working right and not wetting on stuff that's
already fixed, but of course, I'd check to verify my tentative
conclusion that (historic) doesn't tag anything useful.

I uploaded files to https://github.com/matkoniecz/objects_for_deletion and linked in

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/remove_objects_that_are_not_existing_according_to_source_of_import_that_added_them#List_of_candidates

For now just file with all nodes in .osm file (can be opened with JOSM - File | Open menu).
As it is limited to nodes it works fairly well and can be browsed without performance issues.

I uploaded also file with objects very far away from 42, -73 deleted but it turned out to produce
larger file, probably JOSM recorded deletions.

I can produce later something more user friendly if that would be useful and .osm files are too complicated
- let me know if that would be useful!


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Mark Wagner
In reply to this post by Martijn van Exel-3
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:46:59 -0600
Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > On Mar 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Mateusz Konieczny
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I plan to run an automated edit that will revert part of the GNIS
> > import that added them and delete objects that never had any reason
> > to appear in the OSM database in any form, at least according to
> > GNIS data.
> >
> > Please comment no matter what you think about this idea! I will not
> > make the edit without a clear support so please comment if you think
> > that it is a good idea and if you think that it should not be
> > done.  
>
>
> Thanks for bringing the idea up. It actually did come up fairly
> recently on Slack
> https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1550176430103000 
>
> My view is that we would be missing an opportunity to have mappers
> review these locations and update the areas concerned. These nodes
> exist mostly in ‘undermapped' / remote areas that could use some
> human mapper attention. So I’d be in favor of trying to resolve this
> using some human driven cleanup first.

My experience is that this will mostly just make things worse.

There was a MapRoulette task a while back for cleaning up
unmodified GNIS-imported schools.  There were only a few of them left
around me, but the most common result was that an armchair mapper would
drag the node to a nearby non-house-looking building, trace the
building, and merge it with the imported node.  Not one of these was
actually a school.

--
Mark

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them

Clifford Snow
After looking at a few of the GNIS nodes I'm all in favor of removing them. One example showed how having a GNIS node can influence mappers. There is a node for North City Elementary School in Shoreline, WA. The school has been closed for sometime, yet the old school building is named North City Elementary..." 

Since someone must have cleaned up Washington State already, only 50 nodes remain - I'm not sure we are a good test for the rest of the country.

Clifford

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:41 AM Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:
Looking at your data for Western Washington shows that either mappers have been removing them or someone in the government decided that we weren't important enough to bother mapping GNIS sites. There is only 40 in all of Washington.

I'll start looking at some of those.

Clifford

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:36 AM Mark Wagner <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 21:46:59 -0600
Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > On Mar 20, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Mateusz Konieczny
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I plan to run an automated edit that will revert part of the GNIS
> > import that added them and delete objects that never had any reason
> > to appear in the OSM database in any form, at least according to
> > GNIS data.
> >
> > Please comment no matter what you think about this idea! I will not
> > make the edit without a clear support so please comment if you think
> > that it is a good idea and if you think that it should not be
> > done.   
>
>
> Thanks for bringing the idea up. It actually did come up fairly
> recently on Slack
> https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1550176430103000
>
> My view is that we would be missing an opportunity to have mappers
> review these locations and update the areas concerned. These nodes
> exist mostly in ‘undermapped' / remote areas that could use some
> human mapper attention. So I’d be in favor of trying to resolve this
> using some human driven cleanup first.

My experience is that this will mostly just make things worse.

There was a MapRoulette task a while back for cleaning up
unmodified GNIS-imported schools.  There were only a few of them left
around me, but the most common result was that an armchair mapper would
drag the node to a nearby non-house-looking building, trace the
building, and merge it with the imported node.  Not one of these was
actually a school.

--
Mark

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


--
@osm_seattle
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch


--
@osm_seattle
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
12