Osmose drives me mad

General talk Tagging general discussion
12

Can one of the above commenting gentiles provide me a OSM wiki link, preferably the one in Oxford English, with this ‘don’t you dare’ prescriptive text?

TYSM

As for the warnings. Perusing the Italian landscape there’s tens of thousand if not hundreds of thousands of these issues yellow pinned. Maybe it’s just once per street like there’s only 1 warning for multiple buildings on agricultural land plot.

So far,
a) only tertiary roads and up get fingerpointed with the issue, residential not, unclassified anything below that not (yet).
b) landcover over tunnels (cant see why, there must be some peculiarity)
c) landcover below bridges (cant see why, there must be some peculiarity)
d) river’s, and maybe streams, but the 2 years or so I’ve been splitting landcover left/right bank to allow later inserting of the riverbed cover, shingles zones, wetland, flood zones etc.

Many mappers through yesterday continue to map LU and using roads to trace the outlines.
Found massive farmland acreages through which connecting/through roads pass that are flagged.

NOT seen multipolygons that go across, but maybe have not looked close enough. It’s similar to buildings on simple polygons agri lands being flagged but not when the agri land is an MP (could have been fixed but not seen any warning pins appear for that in my zone.)

Disturbing is I’m living in a hill/mountain area where few roads are straight. My favourite cycle way, a tertiary/secondary is 12km up, constantly twisting and turning through forest (though to me it’s wood). A mapping nightmare to split them tracing along the road edges, and not for the renderer, creating ugly whitespace on the maps.

For power line there’s the cutline feature which nicely maps a grassy beam where the powerlines/pipelines/fire breaks etc go without having to resort to area splitting.

Anyway, I’ve inserted a matchstick to hold the ignore button down for this one. I’ll consider applying the method on present and future map additions.

13

Do people separate every residential road from the landuse residential?

I’m doing it, and there are many others as well

Don’t think so - it would be a mess of the highest order.

why would it? Not at all, it results in very clean mapping, precise as it conveys the borders between private property and public streets, easy to refine and not requiring relations if some land inside the block is used for a different purpose and has to be left out.

I can see that it is more onerous, and that in some context the mappers deem it not worth the effort, but ultimately we are moving there and it is beneficial (more information, easier to overlook and modify, less error prone, locally verifiable and not requiring knowledge of a huge area but just the individual spot)

4 Likes
14

There can’t be. OSM Wiki is not prescriptive, it just tells the user what the standard mapping method are, but they can be changed (but they must be discussed). As you can see the landuse=residential wiki page says that «It is acceptable to map landuse to stop at the boundary of roads». This because a road is not a residential landuse, but it’s just a road.

I think this is not the right behaviour for a collaborative project.

15

As @SimonPoole says this actually defeats the purpose of much landuse mapping.

What you appear to be mapping is private residential property. It would be as convenient, and more useful, to map the dedicated public highway areas. I know people like how it looks, but it is extremely difficult to edit such data (as I have found over the weekend). Landuse in OSM is used for a whole range of purposes both inside and outside the project. This kind of detailed splitting of landuse often negates the value of such polygons.

Historically almost all landuse maps have used a minimum feature size, usually of a few hectares (25 has for Corine). They do so for several reasons, but mainly because most use cases are not based on micromapping details, and such detail would complicate computational models already of a high degree of complexity.

The EEA’s Urban Atlas which used a smaller feature size is the only one I can think of which had did split highway areas from residential areas, and a major use case was modelling surface run-off (for obvious reasons as the road surface is sealed). Long ago I showed that using simple rules of thumb about highway width this data could be reproduced from OSM with a high degree of correspondence.

The big issue is micromapping residential landuse makes it much harder to re-create larger landuse polygons, whereas the more detailed landuse can be created from larger polygons with some simple transformations.

2 Likes
16

Because at least landuse=residential and the similar other values (industrial, retail etc) were intended to add generalized large areas used for residential (industrial, retail, …) purposes including all expected objects. Using it in a mico-mapping fashion (instead of using other area objects for that) essential removes all meaning from it, and begs the question why are you using it at all if you don’t want to use it for its intended purpose.

7 Likes
17

Some of the points debated in this thread have been listed as “open questions” on the wiki for many years. The issue of connecting landuse areas to roadways is very polarizing, especially because it’s so awkward to select overlapping ways in JOSM (even if they aren’t connected) and it’s only slightly less awkward in iD. You’ll hear many justifications for one approach or another, but editor ergonomics have clearly hardened feelings. I don’t remember there being as much controversy over it a decade ago, when Potlatch was in vogue, with its superior behavior around selecting and following ways, and JOSM users favored a plugin that turned roadways into members of landuse multipolygon relations. :scream:

Personally, I’ve gone through quite a conversion over the years. Originally, I avoided connecting anything to landuse areas, until another mapper pointed me to something on the wiki endorsing landuse–roadway connections. That became the standard practice among the two or three of us who mapped in Ohio, more or less alone for several years. I reasoned that the highway way is an abstraction: though we align it to the centerline, it still represents the whole roadway, the edges of which do connect to areas classified by landuse.

However, in recent years, as the local community has grown, newer mappers became very frustrated with the increasingly tangled connections between landuse areas and roadways. One year, the local authorities put many new roundabouts, which required delicate surgery on the existing roadways. It was too much – the community reached a clear consensus to stop attaching the landuse areas to roadways. The map is still a messy mix of styles in this area, but over time it’ll transition to the less connected style.

This is not a pure victory for the never-connect-landuse camp. Boundaries still sometimes connect to roadways and landuse areas when they represent things that are defined in terms of each other in the real world. (I assume this is only relevant in some regions but not others.) And now that we aren’t consistently extending landuse areas to the centerline, we have to decide where the areas should end: at the fence? At the sidewalk? At the curb? Some sloppy mix of the three?

North 7th Street and North 5th Street
North 7th Street and North 5th Street1280×1080 130 KB

But even back when I was attaching landuse areas to roadways, I never attached natural=wood areas to roadways. In fact, I spent a lot of time ungluing them from roadways. natural=wood and other landcover tags represent something physical, rather than something abstract indicating the land’s predominant usage. There has to be a good reason for mapping a physical object at a distance from its true location or distorting its size and shape.

At the same time, it makes no sense to me that natural=wood would represent the tree trunks but must not represent the branches and leaves that happen to extend over the roadway. As shown above, tree cover can certainly envelop the roadway, to the point of it being effectively covered=yes.

4 Likes
18

Osmose is a tool to find issues in OSM data. It’s not always right and you can ignore or mark false positives. See the Osmose wiki or FAQ for more info.

Best regards, Hanna from CodeIT

1 Like
19

(replying to the thread title, not any of the posts)

If “Osmose drives you mad” why not stop using Osmose and use something else instead?

2 Likes
20

@Andy, I’ve just removed all bookmarks to the IMO abomination. Noticeable the Neis report has stopped updating the level 1/2/3 links… I’m always zero there. Could be technical, could be a signal too.

At any rate

Separation from roads

It is acceptable to map landuse to stop at the boundary of roads, and it is also acceptable for landuse to overlap road area on roads where the right of way is not significant enough to warrant a break in the landuse area.
… It is better to have the landuse boundary stop at the edge of the road, the edge of right of way, or overlap the road completely.

Ha, the bolded speaks to me.

The data consumers meanwhile ignore forests crossing roads of any significance, high or low long as not any tree is ‘mapped too close’ as it sometimes gets flagged. Oh, and there are motorway areas that intersect with motorways, but bridge and tunnel areas don’t, yet.

My mug of fav bev is in the left hand, the right hand used to push the answer button with the mouse.

21

I would tend to agree about tracing the edge of the canopy. This would be consistent with the way we typically map buildings as roof extents and don’t map a true footprint. In some cases I think we also concede the “true” coastline to one side of mangrove areas for similar visibility issues.

My tendency would be to show natural=wood crossing the road if the road can’t be clearly seen from the available aerial imagery (or vice versa seeing sky from the road) and to separate them if it can be.

In the orchard case I would also leave joined if it was the same functional unit. I would also be against splitting landuse=forest for forestry roads, but I don’t think we’ll get any sort of conclusion if we end up re-arguing natural vs landuse for “areas with trees”.

1 Like
22

I think you’re not the only one who complains about spurious warnings in Osmose. Apparently, people in the Polish community (@Mateusz_Konieczny) suggested improvements in some checks, however they were not fixed - compared to JOSM devs who were more open to fixes in their validator.

1 Like
23

Sure, avoid whatever is written before that, that doesn’t mean nothing. Anyway, if you don’t want to break down landuse you are free to do that, but don’t complain if a QA tool suggests you to do otherwise.

EDIT: well, I see that you split the orchard landuse, so what’s the point of this thread?

24

The part left out where the ellipsis was inserted in the quoted paragraph is “it is strongly discouraged to glue landuse to road lines.”, which is why with the first sample I happened to be including writing the OP was fixed as well, disconnecting the single node from the road. ;P)

Maybe there’s other text between the lines printed in the same colour as the background that I can’t see. Maybe you can point me to a wiki that ‘best practice’ and proposes how to avoid the landuse crossing roads issue in general rather than the one specific to residential. Scrub and wood are flagged as well and those are natural. The one Minh Nguyễn linked to makes no recommendation at all, just has open discussion items so I do wonder how this got into Osmose.

Anyway, case you missed it, Osmose is passé for me. The others

On a good day.

25

  1. Osmose has many spurious and invalid reports, so fact that Osmose reports something does not matter

  2. You can report problems to Osmose authors, some systematic mistakes gets fixed

  3. This specific one does not look fully spurious and may reveal some cases worth tweaking, like ones screenshoted

  4. trying to reach 0 errors reported by Osmose on objects you last edited is waste of time and often leads to bad mapping to appease misbehaving QA tool.

You can just use better validators, like one in JOSM. And ignore Osmose.

other road classes can also go through forest without even interrupting canopy

4 Likes
26


|

  • | - |

What you appear to be mapping is private residential property.

actually I do not care for the type of property owner, it is also about public residential property. But it is about residential properties as opposed to generic space like roads, which are there to be driven and walked on. You don’t have to be a resident to walk on the street in a residential neighbourhood, and you are free to walk there as long as you like.

It would be as convenient, and more useful, to map the dedicated public highway areas.

Just do it if you believe it would be more useful. I am fine, and think it could be done, but find it less useful because it is basically all the space around the roads up to the properties.

I know people like how it looks, but it is extremely difficult to edit such data (as I have found over the weekend). Landuse in OSM is used for a whole range of purposes both inside and outside the project. This kind of detailed splitting of landuse often negates the value of such polygons.

Historically almost all landuse maps have used a minimum feature size, usually of a few hectares (25 has for Corine).

This is for medium and large scale analysis and not what the public authorities, who keep track of the actual landuse, usually apply (land register). They not only look at parcels/plots, but even below this (or e.g. they say the same plot is used for residential and commercial purpose).

Corine is not comparable to what we are doing in OSM. It is about remote sensing and generalising, not about recording the actual landuse in a way that it is associated with the land at a human scale level.

27

the intended use is mapping what the land is used for, and this is what I am using it for. The term “micromapping” is pejorative. “generalized” does not bear meaning without scale.

28

This is just not a landuse application.

29

Well it isn’t the roads, it isn’t the gardens, it isn’t the buildings, it isn’t the pavements, it isn’t the street furniture, it isn’t the amenities etc … what is it then?

2 Likes
30

And, may I add, this OCD tendency is almost peculiarly seen among mappers in the western world. The ‘it is technically correct’ crowd. Oh well.

31

As this analyses initially produced too more issues (note Osmose-QA report issues, not error). We choose to remove the reports of waterways and keep only motorway, trunk and primary for highway (removing all *_link too).

me ignore button is again in overdrive.

@SekeRob note, it is not your ignore button, but as explain in the confirm dialog it is false positive report. It hides the issues for all other contributors too. This should help us to improve the analyzers. Over using false-positive flood the real false positives. If the analyzers reported too many false positive, it is more a bug to be reported on github. There is no feature to hide issues only for you, yet. In this just ignore the class of the item, you can uncheck it in Osmose-QA.

3 Likes