Changeset #:73602495 Adjusting the newly created road data in OSM to better reflect the actual road. Without multiple GPS traces this would be impossible using aerial map data since the road is heavily covered by foliage. Also added minor roads in the area and updated POI names based on local knowledge.

The changeset #72188988 is based on my survey of June 23, 2019, on foot.

Satellite Imagery Offsets

• Bing (2019): -0.60; 3.71 in Shinkawa based on my GPS tracks, -1.20; 2.52 at Kuge Elementary School and its neighborhood, -0.16; 1.55 adjusted to GSImaps/ort and applied to a house along Motoarakawa-dori Street north of the elementary school
• Maxar Standard Imagery (Beta): 0.45;-7.91 at Kuge Elementary School and its neighborhood
• GSImaps/ort: 1.64; 0.75 in Shinkawa based on my GPS tracks, 2.69; 1.49 at Kumagaya Musashino Golf Center
• GSImaps/gazo4 (captured from 1988 to 1990): 2.09; 5.37 at Kumagaya Musashino Golf Center

Notes

1. I primarily referred to Bing imagery more than GSImaps/ort as Bing looks more recent than GSImaps/ort.
2. Does a farm road (way 703982043) still exist? **
3. Bushes hampered me from going forward on a farm road (way 440901657) beyond the node 6610395634. **
4. Bushes hampered me from going forward on a farm road (way 139699855) beyond the node 1531054085. **
5. Does a road (ways 139700288 and 139700774) still exist? **
6. The boundaries of Kumagaya Musashino Golf Center on the side of Arakawa River are not clear. However, GSImaps/gazo4 (captured from 1988 and 1990) suggests what appear to be hedges.
7. A fence (between the nodes 6535566259 and 6535566260 of the way 695996919) has no bend.
8. Boundaries between residential areas and rice fields in the southeast of Kuge Elementary School are not clear.

** I need a survey again especially in winter when bushes are expected to disappear.

Words

• Shinkawa … 新川
• Kuge Elementary School … 久下小学校
• Motoarakawa-dori Street … 元荒川通り
• Kumagaya Musashino Golf Center … 熊谷武蔵野ゴルフセンター
• Arakawa River … 荒川

My Pista ng Mapa 2019 Experience

I don’t know where to start in my Pista ng Mapa 2019 experience because everything was amazing and unforgettable, but I’ll start from the very beginning of my journey.

I was invited to Pista ng Mapa 2019 by my mentor. At that time, we just finished our CWTS++ session from our school. Us volunteers and with my mentor were just having our lunch and discussion from the session. At the end of the discussion, he mentioned to us that we should apply a scholarship for Pista ng Mapa 2019. I was interested about the conference and the experience that I will be gaining. As I got home, I applied for a scholarship to Pista ng Mapa 2019. (Spoiler Alert) At that moment, I didn’t know that my application will be accepted. Days went passed by, and shortly I received an email. But at that time I didn’t check on my email, so I wasn’t notified. A day after the email was sent, I was notified by my peer that we were both shortlisted in the scholarship. I was shocked and hoping to get the scholarship. Fast forward through time and I was in tears of joy because I was accepted.

2 weeks before the conference, I was nervous and excited at the same time. As I prepare myself for the conference, I practiced my public speaking skills and I prepared my knowledge to be shared in Dumaguete.

Days went passed by and fast forward to my first flight experience. I consider this experience as one of the memorable, because it is a starting point for my adulthood experience. As I arrived in the airport, it is time for me and my peer to travel through air for the first time. Fast forward to Dumaguete, landing was bumpy and finally we have landed safely.

Now here’s another memorable experience, when we were going to our accommodation. Long story short, we got lost but we found the location safely like after 30 minutes of finding it with some help online. I’ll consider it as a part of my being a mapper experience.

… See full entry

For my first time in OSM, I have done some edits in the area while going away from the city since the roads are non existent in OSM. References are GPS traces and aerial map views. Will be frequently travelling to country roads and recording GPS traces.

The changeset #71981822 is primarily based on my survey on foot on June 22, 2019.

Satellite Imagery Offsets

• Bing (2019): -0.16; 1.55 in Kuge 1-Chome to adjust to GSImaps/ort, -1.20; 2.52 primarily in Kuge around Tennis Club Yoshioka

Notes

1. Only two nodes (6594523342 and 1531054547) are sufficient to draw a slope (way 139699847) inside the embankment.
2. Only three nodes (4224678050, 4555818441, and 4224678043) are primarily sufficient to draw a slope (way 422732760).
3. The position of node 4138726640 is still unclear. I need more GPS data to accurately locate it.
4. I removed a slope (way 139486362) inside the embankment after my survey on July 7.
5. I used the tag “barrier=kerb” for the first time on a trial basis between nodes 1503600217 and 6594523209 on a road (way 27481282). The shapes of cuts at road crossings are temporary.
6. I removed a house (way 359007036) after my survey on July 7 confirmed it was demolished.

Word

• Kuge … 久下

The changeset #71523426 is primarily based on my survey on foot on June 16, 2019.

Satellite Imagery Offsets

• Bing (2019): -0.30; 1.18 in Kuge 1-Chome, 0.89; 1.92 inside the embankment based on my GPS tracks

I’ve noticed that Bing imagery looks more recent than GSImaps/ort.

Notes

1. The geometry of a wall (way 699155219) on the side of Motoarakawa River is uncertain.
2. Only three nodes (5810198348, 6535565861, and 5810198347) are sufficient to draw a slope (way 699155176).
3. Bushes hampered me from going forward on a farm road (way 699155177) beyond the node 6565472849. **
4. Bushes prevented me from confirming farm roads (ways 699155178 and 440901659). **
5. Bushes hampered me from going forward on a farm road (way 562347565) beyond the node 6565472821 from the node 6565472823. **

** I need a survey again especially in winter when the bushes are expected to disappear.

Words

• Kuge … 久下
• Motoarakawa River … 元荒川

The changeset #71515557 is based on my survey on foot on June 15, 2019.

The changeset #71284545 is primarily based on my survey on foot on June 8 and 9, 2019.

Satellite Imagery Offset

• GSImaps/ort: 1.64; 0.75 inside the embankment based on my GPS tracks

Notes

1. Bushes hampered me from going forward on a farm road (way 139699872) beyond the node 1531054232 from the node 1531054132. **
2. It’s roughly less than 30 meters from the end (node 6549781078) of a farm road (way 697401612) to Kumagaya Musashino Golf Center.
3. Bushes hampered me from going forward on a farm road (way 440901658) beyond the node 6549781082 from the node 1531054272. **

** I need a survey especially in winter when bushes are expected to disappear.

We the Committee for communication, fundraising, program scholarship met on 19 f August, 2019 through mumble and finalized about the SoTM conference at Abidjan.

The changeset #71077188 is primarily based on my survey on foot on June 2, 2019.

Satellite Imagery Offsets

• Bing (2019): -0.75; 1.94 basically on the ground (This area is relatively flat), 2.08;-2.39 at the top of the embankment (My experience with GPS suggests the height is roughly 7 meters)
• GSImaps/ort: 1.64; 0.75 inside the embankment based on my GPS tracks

Notes

1. Does a section (between nodes 1531055593 and 5421471846) of a farm road (way 139700776) exist? **
2. Have most of the sections of a farm road (ways 695996855 and 139486524) disappeared? **

** I need a survey especially in winter when bushes are expected to disappear.

This is a gist of all the work that was done during the summer of 2019 under Google Summer Of Code (GSOC) to further improve the PT Assistant plugin which assists mappers in mapping Public Transport systems as well as Bicycle and hiking itineraries.

Aim of the Project

To further improve the plugin in a way that it helps mappers in mapping public transport systems as well as Bicycle itineraries with ease and a lot of further changes to make the plugin more helpful and flexible to the mapper. The assistant became more user-friendly and should act as a true assistant with smarter decision-making capabilities.

End Results

The plugin is now much more capable, processing the data in the background and presenting the result to enable the mappers to make decisions especially with new features like routing helper for bicycle, the extended data model for public transport, and some new key functions in old routing helper. All the major achievements of this summer have been listed below :

Extending routing helper for bicycles

Previous Routing Helper was dedicated to public transport so my task was to extend it further for Bicycles. As Bicycle follows the original mapping model for route relations, they are different than the route relations for public transport. Bicycle routes contain “forward” and backward roles on its ways to separate branches were traversing the route in one direction differs from the route in the opposite direction. The order of the member ways is different than pt-routes. So the basic idea of the router was the same first it starts from the beginning of the route and checks for gaps in the route and at every step, it checks for the validity of the current traversing way and if it finds something wrong it shows users options to fix that.

… See full entry

The creek

Is anyone else going to the Chaos Communications Camp next week? Does anyone know what, if any, OSM stuff will be going on. I’ll be there, but I’ve been very bad with research!

If you wanna meet up, gimmie a shout. 🙂

I’m now taking a look on Ichi-Sansho-Joho data from MLIT, Japan. This is quite powerful dataset about place name, and could be used as OpenStreetMap edits. (include imports, although it is not fully activated)

osm.wiki/JA:MLIT_ISJ

Seeing Japanese place/address name sample structure, some errors might be contained. This is a note for further works.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eAE72mjCLoJVGZo5qRhCYK22UxVQ8bpbQSU9ZLHq40o/edit#gid=0

• “11”,”埼玉県”,”11234”,”八潮市”,”112340013002”,”大字二丁目”,”35.821729”,”139.846276”,”0”,”3”

-> Code 3 could be error. Code 1 would be correct. This is quarter named “大字二丁目”. Despite of “丁目” is included.

• “27”,”大阪府”,”27145”,”堺市南区”,”271450017000”,”竹城台四丁”,”34.498107”,”135.500217”,”0”,”1”
• “27”,”大阪府”,”27145”,”堺市南区”,”271450035000”,”竹城台二丁”,”34.498169”,”135.505486”,”0”,”1”
• “27”,”大阪府”,”27145”,”堺市南区”,”271450074000”,”竹城台三丁”,”34.493790”,”135.503225”,”0”,”1”
• “27”,”大阪府”,”27145”,”堺市南区”,”271450075000”,”竹城台一丁”,”34.500963”,”135.510525”,”0”,”1”

-> Probably original structure is correct, but “n丁” should be devided in the case of use for OSM. Those are Code 1 column, but should be treated as variant of Code 3.

• “04”,”宮城県”,”04103”,”仙台市若林区”,”041030090000”,”蒲町東”,”38.245498”,”140.932557”,”0”,”3”
• “07”,”福島県”,”07207”,”須賀川市”,”072070142000”,”北山寺町”,”37.30542”,”140.364113”,”0”,”3”
• “07”,”福島県”,”07207”,”須賀川市”,”072070143000”,”西山寺町”,”37.303127”,”140.358357”,”0”,”3”
• “07”,”福島県”,”07207”,”須賀川市”,”072070144000”,”山寺町”,”37.302309”,”140.364716”,”0”,”3”

-> Code 3 might be error. I guess those lines should be Code 2.

And Code 3 lines (丁目) should be divided into 2 nodes. (quarter (町名) and neighbourhood (丁目).) Some quarter might be duplicated to Code 1 lines.

And it seems “釧路市昭和”（大字, quarter）and “釧路市昭和町” are same district, but need more check if it is correct.

To be fair, we were validating. We validated 5% of the tasks and invalidated 4%. So we went over 9% of the tasks. In 2 hours. With the group of 5 people. And one of us was validating for the first time.

The point is that the validation is not fixing. The validation is approving.

I would like to note our small contribution from Prague. Inspired by London Missing Maps mappers, we started small mapathons this summer. These mapathons are for advanced mappers, we use JOSM, and this time, it was a validation time. I went over multiple sources describing how to validate. I used OSM wiki as a primary source. Then LearnOSM, MissingMaps, and browsed multiple links pointed out by these sources. I attended HOT validation training webinar. I found out these pieces of information bloated, so I stripped them and picked up what I consider helpful.

There are fewer validators than mappers. If validators want to keep up with mappers, they need to validate faster than the mappers are mapping.

Our group was validating buildings with the following workflow:

• Find out if you are going to invalidate task, usually because of not-orthogonalized buildings, missing buildings, lousy geometry, or buildings mapped with bad imagery.

• Orthogonalize all the buildings with 4 nodes:

  • Ctrl + F and find buildings nodes:4 inview.
  • Press Q.

• Upload changes and invalidate task with the comment why.

Of course, if there is no problem and everything is mapped as described in instructions, just browse the square and find out if everything is really ok. MarkSeen plugin can help here. If there is one building with wrong dimensions or bad rotation, fix it (Utilsplugin2 and X for resizing help here a lot). If you find out the second one, invalidate. Validating is approving, remember?

… See full entry

Experiment on Disputed and Claimed OSM boundaries

I made an attempted to display boundaries according to some countries official point of view. Most of boundary are consensual. But some are de facto with no recognition from one or two of the neighbors. This facto are the ground mapped in OSM. But some countries have different political claims over the territories. Display this claim is often mandatory in these countries. So some boundaries or territories are disputed by countries. Disputed here meaning, that the country is not officially recognized the de facto ground status. Some other boundaries or territories are claimed. The idea here is partially based on the rejected proposed features “Mapping disputed boundaries”.

Consensual borders does not require more details.

Disputed boundaries are here treated as way level. As only a part of the de facto boundary is rejected.

Claim over territories are treated on boundary=claim relation as extent of the facto boundary relation. boundary=claim relation are not closed relation. De facto boundaries relation, minus disputed way, plus boundary=claim should done a closed relation.

In this experiment I do no try to rebuild this closed polygon. I based on osmborder to derive a modified version. Originally, the tool de-duplicate the border from the relations to ease the render.

So in the output of the tool, a way of boundary is marked as: * neutral, if is part of the standard de facto ground boundary framework, the standard OSM meaning of boundaries. * disputed, if has disputed=yes, dispute=yes, border_status=dispute, disputed_by or boundary=disputed tag, plus if is part of a boundary=claim relation. Typically can be rendered with dash. Note, a neutral de facto can be disputed. * disputed_by, list of countries code rejecting this way as a boundary. * claimed_by, list of countries code claiming this this way as boundary.

… See full entry

Why are mappers using landuse=village_green in the wrong way?

More than once in the past few years have I started and participated in various topics on the tagginglist (as well as on the local Dutch forum) where the precise use of the landuse=village_green was discussed.
A Village Green is a situation that is described in the wiki, and I quote:

“… is a distinctive part of a village centre. It’s an area of common land, usually grass but often including flowers, shrubs, small trees and a pond, located in the centre of a village (quintessentially English - defined separately from ‘common land’ under the Commons Registration Act 1965 and the Commons Act 2006).”

The proposal (in 2006) and the final voting (two in favor and none against!) never reached a wide audience (which back in 2006 of course was much smaller than nowadays) so nobody outside the UK really knew or understood its meaning and specific use.

The following text is partly copied from my posting on the tagging list:

Because I found out that the tag is greatly misused, I did an extended research to get more details about its current use.
My research is based on the OSM dataset of 14 july 2019.

The total number of tags for landuse=village_green is: 91645
I then took a selection of 22 countries (see table at end) and compared the uses per country to its use in the UK, because that country seems to be the main reason for the existence of this tag.
In those 22 countries the tag is used 55721 times and there are 5569 unique mappers responsible for using it.
I was surprised to see that in the country where I live, the Netherlands, the tag was used 260% more than in the UK!
Given the original definition you could expect that in the Netherlands (based on the number of cities/towns/villages and assuming that each of those indeed had a Village Green - which isn’t true) there could be at most 2440 Village Greens, not the 5131 we have now. Where, then, are the 2691 others located??

… See full entry

Added routes in Cambron-Saint-Vaincent, Chaussée-Notre-Dame-de-Louvignies, Casteau, Thieusies, Gottignies et Ville-Sur-Haine.

Back in March I posted a diary entry proposing to add basic support for disputed borders point-of-view (aka worldview) to OpenStreetMap. I was able to complete that work, primarily in March, April, May, and June of this year, by adding disputed=yes, disputed_by=*, claimed_by=*, and recognized_by=* tags. More work remains (see below), please contribute!

The open source Tilezen project was updated in June in v1.8 (changelog) to add support for the OpenStreetMap tags (view source). The Nextzen vector tile build now includes that data with circa 2019-July OSM planet file. Props to @Matt for the extensive work this entailed.

I released a new version of the Bubble Wrap map style for Tangram, using the Nextzen source to visualize these changes (PR #277). There’s now a “POV” point-of-view menu in the upper-right corner that will toggle the different visual treatments.

Examples in Kashmir and Taiwan

• Bubble Wrap at Kashmir for borders:
  • zoom 8 with OpenStreetMap data
  • zoom 5 with Natural Earth data
• Bubble Wrap at Taiwan for capital city:
  • zoom 8 with OpenStreetMap data
  • zoom 5 with Natural Earth data

… See full entry

https://www.youthmappers.org/single-post/2018/01/23/My-Passion-for-GIS-and-LionMapperTeam-Enugu-Campus

Published on 28th January 2018

It is a privilege to be a member of lion MappersTeam-Enugu Campus because it is a platform where I can contribute to a global mapping initiative and humanitarian service that helps respond to resilient communities. It also gives me the opportunity D show my skills and talent, already acquired before gaining admission to study Geoinformatics and Surveying at the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus. I had a life which introduced me to GIS early and I was able to produce a map at my previous school (AIFPU) showing all the natural and artificial features.

have always had a self-driven passion for GIS which is engraved in my heart

I was so excited when our Team Leader and Mentor, Victor N. Sunday, introduced Youth Mappers to us in a recent training at the University of Nigeria -Enugu Campus. I am so happy because this team gives me a training platform as well as the opportunity to map and place my community on global web map of OpenStreetMap. I would gladly volunteer my service though my chapter to contribute to this critical global geospatial database to solve the world’s special needs. I would also ensure that my friends and fellow students join this team to map our University of Nigeria, Enugu campus on the worldwide web of OSM because if a building or road is not found on a map, It does not exist

Most of us spend time and data on social media, now its time to pay more attention to mapping by contributing to the growth of this platform, because our work on this platform for 1 hour can save a generation

I want to be a GIS expert, to help people quench their curiosities and better understand the world around them. I believe GIS is a tool for solving problems. This is something I want to do for the rest of my life any given time

I want to provide a safe world using GIS where one can access any location at

… See full entry