Apr 25, 2024, 14:20 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > Considering that requiring local surveys in Antarctica would lead to > an empty map and that assuming that governments are always lying would > prevent us from importing government data > please reread message you are responding to "without any verification based on primary sources (local observations, satellite/aerial imagery, ground photos" using satellite or aerial imagery or ground photos does not require visiting such place in person BTW, I think that at this point https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Antarctica/Tagging#Roads_and_routes section should be removed. ("more intensively maintained than the other long distance routes" is not enough to be highway=trunk) > On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 04:51, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> wrote: > >> >> I wanted to add some cautionary advice here. >> >> Mapping in the Antarctic in OSM is to a much larger part than on other >> continents fueled by 'imagined' things. I am not talking about stuff here >> individually made up by mappers but more institutionally conjured ideas, >> projections and to some extent also political propaganda. The percentage of >> things mapped in the Antarctic in recent years that is based on secondary >> sources (government/institutional publications, wikipedia etc.) without any >> verification based on primary sources (local observations, satellite/aerial >> imagery, ground photos) is rather high - in a way that in the long term >> would become a serious problem for OpenStreetMap. >> >> Having looked at a lot of satellite imagery from the Antarctic over the >> years i can clearly say that a lot of claims that are being made about >> 'roads' in the Antarctic - in OSM or in Wikipedia - do not hold up in >> scrutiny against primary source evidence. And in such cases you'd have to >> ask yourself: Do you want OSM to represent the observable reality on the >> ground or do you want it to reflect the major consensus narrative of a >> certain cultural sphere. >> >> As a basic definition a route of navigation on land has two requirements to >> qualify as a road/path in OSM: >> >> * it is physically manifested in some form, at least during those periods >> when it is used (in case of seasonal roads on seasonally dry/frozen >> lakes/rivers for example). >> * it is used in the physically manifested form with some level of regularity >> and permanency. >> >> Two examples from outside the Antarctic that would probably not qualify: >> >> https://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=10.713939&lat=17.952688&zoom=13&num=3&mt0=bing-satellite&mt1=mapnik&mt2=nokia-satellite >> https://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=14.069293&lat=22.547244&zoom=17&num=3&mt0=bing-satellite&mt1=mapnik&mt2=nokia-satellite >> >> The first simply lacks a physical manifestation (because the ground is too >> dynamically re-shaped by wind and the route used is too variable in its >> exact course). The second visibly demonstrates that no single physically >> manifested track is commonly used by the different users of the route. Both >> of these are evidently verifiable routes of navigation (a bit like ferry >> routes) - but, by established meaning of the road tags in OSM, not roads >> (though of course mappers are free to map them as such - as evidenced by the >> examples). >> >> Looking concretely at long distance supply routes in the Antarctic - those >> are largely quite comparable to the linked to cases outside the Antarctic - >> except that most of them are much more sparsely used for very specific >> purposes (supply of a specific remote location with certain goods that are >> impossible or much less cost efficient to transport via airplane). By >> established conventions of functional road tagging in OSM these would almost >> all be service roads (no through-traffic to other destinations than the ones >> the route ends at). The level of physical manifestation varies a lot >> depending on local snow and wind conditions and type and frequency of use. >> Some routes that have likely not been used for many years are clearly >> visible in images while others (some of which are claimed to be used with >> high frequency on Wikipedia and elsewhere) have clearly no physical >> manifestation. >> >> In general, it is unlikely that mappers at large can be convinced to refrain >> from inflating tagging in the Antarctic to compensate for the variable scale >> of the Mercator projection or to reproduce certain subjective believes of >> importance. This applies to both routes of navigation and populated places. >> The solution would be to create distinct tagging to account for the >> concrete features that exist and are practically verifiable specifically to >> be used in parallel with the subjectively inflated (and therefore >> semantically meaningless) mainstream tags. In this specific case that would >> be tagging of routes of land navigation with sporadic use and >> permanently/regularly populated places that are not settlements in the sense >> that people individually settle there for a longer time, but that might >> still fulfill some of the functions settlements have elsewhere. The >> criteria for such tagging should be chosen for practical verifiability based >> on available primary sources. >> >> -- >> Christoph Hormann >> https://www.imagico.de/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > > -- > Fernando Trebien > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
