@dalek2point3 undoubtably TIGER is a great resource, and more recent releases are clearly a lot better for a large parts of the USA (there are still numerous areas where it is rather bad to say the least). But, as you point out, it is clearly not TIGER projects fault that we imported the data at a such early date. Further I don’t think it is in any way fair to blame the importers, there seems to have been a community consensus that it was a good thing at the time.

What we shouldn’t do however, is let political correct positivism get in the way of learning the many lesson we should learn from the TIGER import. For example don’t hurry to import data when there is no immediate need, it is not going to go away and the next release will be better.

Well the expectation wasn’t really that it would be used as a short cut for people that are already mappers, but I agree we could simply display two buttons “Edit at current position” and “Create note at current position” and zap all the rest of the text for people that are logged in.

@imagico off topic, but as a pointer osm.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/21771 a fix the map page has been around for quite a while now.

Hallo Daniel

Normalerweise sind Änderungen praktisch sofort sichtbar, allerdings kanns Gründe geben wieso es mal Ausnahmsweise nicht klappt. Der beste Ort zum nachschauen an was es liegen kann ist help.openstreetmap.org . Ansonsten ist es sinnvoll imger entweder einen Link auf den relevanten Changeset oder das Gebiet das du bearbeit hast anzufügen, ansonsten können iwr auch nur raten um was es genau geht,.

Simon

IMHO: KISS, completion percentage and absolute numbers over time is enough.

As long as you are still on the same street ,adding house number in vespucci is no more work than selecting the building outline or adding a node (long press), adding the tags by using the “repeat last tags” function and adjusting the number (around 3-4 clicks total). Every new road requires a bit more effort for the first address, but given the street name auto completion this is minimal.

This is naturally more effort (both clickwise and time) than with say keypad mapper for the surveying part, but you are already finished when you areat home and the addresses are where you really wanted them to be.

Unluckily the version available on F-Droid is not coordinated with what we actually release.

They provided a build of 0.9.4 before we did (which surely caused/causes a lot of pain to its users because it was by far not release ready) , and the folloing builds tend to have been made at a random point in time, as a consequence I can’t really recommend F-Droid for now.

Not my decision, I’m not the projects maintainer and while some things are slightly painful with google code it is not at a level that it would warrant a fork.

What you saw is due to an edit happening to one of the ways you working on before you uploaded (the server then has a more recent version of the way and, naturally, does not know what to do when you try to upload an older modified version). Currently only P2 and JOSM handle conflicts directly (vespucci allows you to export your edits and work out in JOSM what to do).

See https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/31318/how-do-i-find-a-way-by-id-in-id-to-fix-version-mismatch-and-then-save-my-edit

Simon

@imagico the LWG is acutely aware that there are cases in which providing the derivative database in full is a burden and doesn’t actually make sense. It is likely that we will propose a guideline for discussion.

The comment at osm.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21221#comment25721 was from me (sorry wrong account).

First things first: the name suggestion functionality can be turned of in the “Advanced Preferences”,

The new functionality is -only- triggered by entering something for a name tag (with the exception of objects that are highways), the rest of the auto-completion behaviour is unchanged.

When it applys the tags it will always ask for confirmation if it actually replaces something already present. You can always reload the original tags in the tag editor with the undo functionality if somethig goes massively wron. At this point in time however there is no fine grained undo in the tag editor.

@imagico the ODBL enforeces its terms contractualy and not “just” with copyright, so while I would I agree with Sven in the specific case, fair use is unlikely to come in to play in this case.

That is the plan and that is one of the reaons I redid the imagery configuration (so that we have consistent imagery URLs available).

@imagico the basic issue is that their are far far too many “if”s in this whole matter. You can’t simply accuse an individual or company of violating its legal or contractual obligations publically regadless of how much you think you are right, you need to be fairly sure since you might end up on the wrong side of a court case.

@dieterdreist in general opinions offered by our legal counsel cannot be made public.

@bolomap the landing page is for third parties to link to, so it needs to give a short explanation what the project is about, how to help and for those that have a complaint that is not really map related pointers to the correct places to address.

Note quite sure why you would want to get to it from the OSM main page, the page is directed to people that have seen or believe to have seen a concrete issue and not to “normal” visitors.

@jaakoh I believe the “200’000” number stems both from the Pascal Neis 1st study (which is simply a coulple of years old) and from last-editors numbers which by the nature of the beast tend to be smaller (currently at ~280’000). On top of that we shouldn’t forget that we dropped contributions from roughly 15’000 contributors* during the licence change, most of them very very small, but which distorts the registered user vs last editor numbers even a bit more.

The historical run rate for actual contributors at least since 2007 (when the project started getting off the ground proper) has always been at roughly 30% of the registered accounts, the only period this was different seems to have been in 2012.

• some of these have since come back and have accepted the CTs

@Tordanik historically we have given a lot of leeway in what we consider appropriate attribution unluckily that leeway has been misused with an increasing intensity. Simply giving in to the misuse is not likely going to be an option with popular support and as I point out in the blog post, we are not asking more than what is the industry standard.

And using common sense is not prohibited, so providing better, more legible and visible placement is always ok.

@SunColbalt you are seriously misrepresenting the discussion in question, which didn’t even remotely concern attribution, the person in question was asking for us to vet his business model wrt the share-alike conditions in the ODbL.