Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

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

Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

Rob Nickerson
Hi all,

Before I start this message, I would like to say that I am looking for solutions and not wishing to open the flood gates on abuse of the iD editors. On the whole they do a great job and even when we disagree it should be with respect. Right now on to the message itself:

It seems like the iD editor's "upgrade this" feature is replacing crossing=zebra with crossing=marked but NOT adding crossing_ref=zebra to the node. If lots of users make use of this "feature" in the UK then we stand to lose some valuable data. Taginfo UK says there are 4,710 crossing=zebra features in the UK.

I have added a comment on to the GitHub issue but no reply yet.

An alternate option is that we attempt to strike first - before the iD editors amend the data. There seems to be two options here: an automated edit adding the crossing_ref=zebra tag to all crossing=zebra features in the UK, or we make use of the new MapRoulette "Quick Fixes" feature to visually inspect each. See:

What do you think?

P.S. This also applies to the UK's other crossing types. The MapRoulette option wouldn't be an option for all of these.

Thank you,
Rob

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

Re: Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

Mateusz Konieczny-3



24 Oct 2019, 22:48 by [hidden email]:
Hi all,

Before I start this message, I would like to say that I am looking for solutions and not wishing to open the flood gates on abuse of the iD editors. On the whole they do a great job and even when we disagree it should be with respect. Right now on to the message itself:


It seems like the iD editor's "upgrade this" feature is replacing crossing=zebra with crossing=marked but NOT adding crossing_ref=zebra to the node. If lots of users make use of this "feature" in the UK then we stand to lose some valuable data. Taginfo UK says there are 4,710 crossing=zebra features in the UK.

I have added a comment on to the GitHub issue but no reply yet.
I would suggest opening a new issue request GB specific - maybe with something like
"I checked sample of 100 crossing tagged this way, error rate is low".

Comments in a closed issue are likely to be lost/unnoticed.

Though with just 5k crossing it seems that bot edit would be preferable if
- error rate is considered low
- crossing_ref tagging is acceptable
- there is no realistic plan to fight with iD over deprecating crossing=zebra
- bot edits are considered as acceptable

Why bot edit is preferable?
- cooperation with iD developers is not necessary
- more people can do it (I may do it in case of a clear support)
- adding complex region-based handling for 5k objects is making maintenance of editor
complex, it is likely to not be done by iD developers

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

Re: Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

Jez Nicholson
+1 for a bot edit

are you suggesting to just add crossing_ref=zebra, or to convert crossing=zebra into highway=crossing + crossing=uncontrolled too?

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 8:23 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:



24 Oct 2019, 22:48 by [hidden email]:
Hi all,

Before I start this message, I would like to say that I am looking for solutions and not wishing to open the flood gates on abuse of the iD editors. On the whole they do a great job and even when we disagree it should be with respect. Right now on to the message itself:


It seems like the iD editor's "upgrade this" feature is replacing crossing=zebra with crossing=marked but NOT adding crossing_ref=zebra to the node. If lots of users make use of this "feature" in the UK then we stand to lose some valuable data. Taginfo UK says there are 4,710 crossing=zebra features in the UK.

I have added a comment on to the GitHub issue but no reply yet.
I would suggest opening a new issue request GB specific - maybe with something like
"I checked sample of 100 crossing tagged this way, error rate is low".

Comments in a closed issue are likely to be lost/unnoticed.

Though with just 5k crossing it seems that bot edit would be preferable if
- error rate is considered low
- crossing_ref tagging is acceptable
- there is no realistic plan to fight with iD over deprecating crossing=zebra
- bot edits are considered as acceptable

Why bot edit is preferable?
- cooperation with iD developers is not necessary
- more people can do it (I may do it in case of a clear support)
- adding complex region-based handling for 5k objects is making maintenance of editor
complex, it is likely to not be done by iD developers
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

Andy Townsend
On 25/10/2019 11:43, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> +1 for a bot edit

Perhaps Maproulette would be a better option?  Zebra markings would
often be visible on aerial imagery, and a comparison of newer vs older
imagery might allow people to identify recent changes*.

Best Regards,

Andy

* Somewhat offtopic, with almost all of the wood/forest edits I've been
doing recently I've used surveys to confirm which imagery is latest (and
around https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/54.2593/-1.2397 it's Maxar
Premium), but using Bing for extra clarity and better alignment, and
also using OS OpenData waterway and road centreline data for alignment.


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

Re: Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

Brian Prangle-2
In reply to this post by Jez Nicholson
I think all 3 tags should be the  standard.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:45, Jez Nicholson <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1 for a bot edit

are you suggesting to just add crossing_ref=zebra, or to convert crossing=zebra into highway=crossing + crossing=uncontrolled too?

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 8:23 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:



24 Oct 2019, 22:48 by [hidden email]:
Hi all,

Before I start this message, I would like to say that I am looking for solutions and not wishing to open the flood gates on abuse of the iD editors. On the whole they do a great job and even when we disagree it should be with respect. Right now on to the message itself:


It seems like the iD editor's "upgrade this" feature is replacing crossing=zebra with crossing=marked but NOT adding crossing_ref=zebra to the node. If lots of users make use of this "feature" in the UK then we stand to lose some valuable data. Taginfo UK says there are 4,710 crossing=zebra features in the UK.

I have added a comment on to the GitHub issue but no reply yet.
I would suggest opening a new issue request GB specific - maybe with something like
"I checked sample of 100 crossing tagged this way, error rate is low".

Comments in a closed issue are likely to be lost/unnoticed.

Though with just 5k crossing it seems that bot edit would be preferable if
- error rate is considered low
- crossing_ref tagging is acceptable
- there is no realistic plan to fight with iD over deprecating crossing=zebra
- bot edits are considered as acceptable

Why bot edit is preferable?
- cooperation with iD developers is not necessary
- more people can do it (I may do it in case of a clear support)
- adding complex region-based handling for 5k objects is making maintenance of editor
complex, it is likely to not be done by iD developers
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
In reply to this post by Jez Nicholson
On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:45, Jez Nicholson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> +1 for a bot edit

My initial instinct was to say this too. But if most of these
crossing=zebra tags were added by iD users who selected "Marked
Crossing" and never saw the zebra tag, then how sure are we that
almost all Marked Crossings in the UK will be zebras?

Perhaps a Maproulett challenge would be a better way, if aerial
imagery is usually good enough to identify zebra crossings.

> are you suggesting to just add crossing_ref=zebra, or to convert crossing=zebra into highway=crossing + crossing=uncontrolled too?

If edits are made, we should convert the crossing=* tag too. But we
should probably decide what value that should take. iD seems to be
suggesting crossing=marked rather than crossing=uncontrolled. However,
the former is not documented in the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing .

It would also be really good if we could get the standard UK crossing
types (zebra, pelican, toucan, pegasus) added to the iD presets to
help UK editors add that information. Currently typing those names in
iD doesn't give anything helpful (apart from zebra that returns
"Marked Crossing") and there are only the marked and unmarked crossing
options if you type "crossing" in.

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

Silent Spike
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:57 PM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <[hidden email]> wrote:

It would also be really good if we could get the standard UK crossing
types (zebra, pelican, toucan, pegasus) added to the iD presets to
help UK editors add that information. Currently typing those names in
iD doesn't give anything helpful (apart from zebra that returns
"Marked Crossing") and there are only the marked and unmarked crossing
options if you type "crossing" in.

 
I have floated this idea out before (https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CBK3JLUJU/p1561914872093800) as it is now possible to create region specific iD presets. However, the whole crossing tagging scheme is a mess currently and iD would like to wait until proposals are completed to clean it up before messing with crossing presets.

The crossing=marked/unmarked tagging is inspired from a proposal I believe, because there is ambiguity to the controlled/uncontrolled tagging whereas there's an explicit obvious answer as to whether a crossing has markings or not.

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

Re: Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

Silent Spike
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 1:26 PM Silent Spike <[hidden email]> wrote:
The crossing=marked/unmarked tagging is inspired from a proposal I believe, because there is ambiguity to the controlled/uncontrolled tagging whereas there's an explicit obvious answer as to whether a crossing has markings or not.

For those who can't see the slack archive (don't have an account) in my last post, the discussion points to these proposals:

 

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

Re: Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

Great Britain mailing list
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend
On 25/10/2019 12:04, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 25/10/2019 11:43, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>> +1 for a bot edit
>
> Perhaps Maproulette would be a better option?  Zebra markings would
> often be visible on aerial imagery, and a comparison of newer vs older
> imagery might allow people to identify recent changes*.

crossing=marked as a solo sub-tag should also be verified

> * Somewhat offtopic, with almost all of the wood/forest edits I've
> been doing recently I've used surveys to confirm which imagery is
> latest (and around
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/54.2593/-1.2397 it's Maxar
> Premium), but using Bing for extra clarity and better alignment, and
> also using OS OpenData waterway and road centreline data for alignment.

I've found that not only location, but editor can affect the quality of
aerial imagery. I find it frustrating Bing is displayed at the same high
zoom levels as others in Potlatch.

General:
I've updated crossing=zebra to crossing=uncontrolled where
crossing_ref=zebra exists (OP+JOSM, 220 objects). I used uncontrolled as
it's much more popular than 'marked'

DaveF



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