Edits omgeving Staphorst

Commodoortje · 2016-11-04 11:49:21

Martin Borsje wrote:

Overigens de voorlopig laatste changeset van GD geeft als cryptisch commentaar "Thanks for the perfect performance and architecture of OSM;>)" met een boerderij "Arbeid Adelt".
Misschien is dit echt de finale changeset van Gerrit op de openbare OSM-server.

De naam van de boerderij is door iemand anders aangebracht. De naam van de boerderij is inderdaad
Arbeid Adelt
2016-11-04_11-43-37.png?raw=1

SomeoneElse · 2016-11-04 12:10:55

Martin Borsje wrote:

Het probleem is echter dat de DWG geen Nederlands leest

Actually, I wouldn't bet on that...

Martin Borsje wrote:

en dus de inhoud van deze forumdraad niet kent.

... but that bit's certainly true. Although I've been vaguely aware of this thread since it started almost a year ago, I wouldn't assume that anyone else is. There are 18 pages of discussions here, so a brief summary of what's happened and what the continuing problems are would be really useful.

Thanks for the continuing changeset discussion comments - they do really help explain where the problems are.

Some of the "overlapping landuse" issues are to be expected though. The Netherlands had lots of landuse imports some years ago, making it much more difficult for new users to get started here than elsewhere, and what was imported doesn't always match my recollection for places I've visited (though I'm not familiar at all with the Zwolle-Meppel area at all).

Take the area around https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.63244/6.15755 for example. That came in 6 years ago through 3dshapes, and from looking at the imagery it would appear that it doesn't match.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/451072665/history was an attempt to improve things by adding a "landuse=farmland" which doesn't yet exist other than as a "hole" in the 3dshapes landuse=grass (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10311 … 07/6.15802 ).

So there's clearly more to be mapped here, but it's likely that some of the existing imported data will need to be deleted to allow that to take place. Is part of the problem here perhaps that users are unwilling to delete previously-imported data? In some countries that would indeed be a concern due to the overdependance on multipolygon's but that's not an issue with the 3dshapes data (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/6607083 ).

- Andy Townsend (DWG)

PS: Apologies for writing in English, but I suspect that people reading this will have far better knowledge of written English than I have of writing Dutch. If any clarification is needed please ask.

Martin Borsje · 2016-11-04 14:02:34

Hi Andy,

I hope I under estimate your fluency in reading Dutch. Further: the pictures as posted in this thread are illustrative in itself I think.

Let me start by indicating here the most important issues about Gerrit that do disqualify him as a valuable OSM editor; I hope other Dutch forum readers can add or detail here as well

Imports: Gerrit seems to work at a municipal (Staphorst) department where he has access to GIS services, which he uses to make imports from, mainly in his living area (Staphorst, Lemele and around); when importing (without proper source reference) he does not follow the OSM tagging scheme and imports unknown tag/value combinations, many times even in Dutch (e.g.: "attribution=testomgeving"). Gerrit has been informed and warned on that many times by forum users here and does not react
Tag/values: in addition to the imported data Gerrit also creates his own data, often at micro-scale, where he creates and applies OSM unknown 'fantasy' tags, also often in Dutch. He has been informed about that as well, with no structural results
Mapping for the renderer: in his micro-mapping efforts Gerrit uses tags/values improperly for the visual effect on the standard Mapnik rendering: e.g. regional admin boundaries to visualize individual house-parcel boundaries; he has been informed. Also he cuts up residential areas in individual parcels to make boundaries visual.
Overlapping areas: Gerrit has been many times informed about his practice to draw new landuses over, in or partially over existing landuse; not only old landuses but also over his own mapped landuse. Also he maps separate lines for adjacent landuses, without sharing the lines and nodes; keeping a 'vacuum' in between. He has been informed.
When editing Gerrit totally ignores the JOSM validator errors and warnings; checking his edits generates many, many errors and warnings.

If all above mentioned issues would be solved, there would be no reason to ban Gerrit. However it is his behaviour that causes us to ask for a ban:
- he does not improve; he keeps sticking in a vicious circle of repeating errors
- he makes many edits (also as a result of imports) and we, the other mappers, are tired and frustrated of correcting him again and again
- he very seldom reacts to the contents of messages posted in this forum, but circumvents the issue by answering a meaningless message or no message at all
- he does not (fully) repair the errors he made and leaves that to us
- his behaviour is permanent and pathologic; we, experienced Dutch mappers, have done everything to get Gerrit on the right track, without success.

Martin

========
[edit]: typo

Last edited by Martin Borsje (2016-11-04 14:49:12)

IIVQ · 2016-11-04 14:25:33

Added to Martin Borsje's excellent summary:

Apparant from his edits, GD imports data from (probably) his employer's GIS system. We have no clear answer yet of the licence and attribution conditions of this GIS, i.e. whether the updates aren't under copyright and/or database right, causing a potential liability problem (for OSM, and also for GD himself)

Tijmen

Last edited by IIVQ (2016-11-04 14:25:48)

Allroads · 2016-11-04 16:41:51

Earlier he mentioned that he took the data from.
There is mentioned, BGT downloads worden beschikbaar gesteld via de CC-BY-4.0 licentie.
BGT = Basisregistratie Grootschalige Topografie , Goverment name of this dataset.

Later he called it on the changeset "Basisregistratie Gemeentelijke Topografie" a twist, G for g gemeentlijke=municipality, bgt.
Maybe he still used the above download method or, as IIVQ mentioned, used data from (probably) his employer's GIS system.

No answer from him to this point, here on the forum or at changesets notes.

mboeringa · 2016-11-05 11:25:50

Martin Borsje wrote:

Overigens de voorlopig laatste changeset van GD geeft als cryptisch commentaar "Thanks for the perfect performance and architecture of OSM;>)" met een boerderij "Arbeid Adelt".
Misschien is dit echt de finale changeset van Gerrit op de openbare OSM-server.

Die boerderij met de naam "Arbeid Adelt" bestaat echt. Je kunt hem op Google Maps opzoeken.

Het changeset commentaar illustreert wat mij betreft echter weer wat ik altijd al dacht: dat er vooral "gratis" meegelift wordt op de OSM infrastructuur voor eigen doeleinden.

mboeringa · 2016-11-05 12:01:49

Andy,

As others stated, Martin Borsje's summary is accurate and to the point. The user is violating about every written or unwritten rules regarding usage of OSM infrastructure.

There is not much I can add to Martin's remarks, except maybe that the user's behaviour also sets a very unwanted precedent: that official government agencies can attempt to take over parts of OSM that they consider under their personal jurisdiction. This is highly undersirable from multiple points of view. Besides the obvious negative consequences of "control" by such an agency, it is likely that OSM is being used as a no-cost alternative to internal mapping servers. While the latter is probably to some extent allowed usage under fair usage policies, I doubt the OpenStreetMap community would like to see all professional GIS users of the globe to start micro-map their jurisdictions and more or less implicitly claim ownership.

As to the specific remark about "Is part of the problem here perhaps that users are unwilling to delete previously-imported data?":

While it is certainly true that there may be some "reluctance" at times to delete previously imported data, as it often requires extensive re-digitization to fill in the "gaps" with current data, it is only a secondary issue related to this request towards the DWG. Also, there are enough users in the Dutch community, that do make the modifications if and when required to update areas of the map. Of course, with high coverage of data in the Netherlands, noticing missing or outdated data is less obvious than in some other countries.

But again: these are secondary considerations regarding this request in my opinion.

Marco

Last edited by mboeringa (2016-11-05 12:24:00)

Martin Borsje · 2016-11-05 16:26:55

Gerrit is still active.

If we see, as an example, changeset 43420815, he maps a path as follows:

highway=path
area:highway=yes

Apart from senseless area tagging of a (rather small) footpath (area mapping of highways is still proposed) it should then be:
area:highway=path instead of 'yes'

If have not reverted it. Waiting other comments.

marczoutendijk · 2016-11-05 18:29:35

Gerrit is nu druk bezig met een serie bewerkingen: "Staphorst, foutjes hersteld" waarbij hij osmose als source opvoert!?

mboeringa · 2016-11-05 19:14:16

marczoutendijk wrote:

Gerrit is nu druk bezig met een serie bewerkingen: "Staphorst, foutjes hersteld" waarbij hij osmose als source opvoert!?

Hmmm..., dat kan toch in zekere zin?

Osmose als bron voor de lokatie van fouten, zodat je weet waar je wat moet fixen? Dat vergt vervolgens natuurlijk wel een andere bron van data of veld-inspectie + gezond verstand en editor tools om het probleem vervolgens te kunnen oplossen.

De kwaliteitscontrole tool "Osmose" natuurlijk niet te verwarren met de conversietool "Osmosis"...

De naamgevingen willen nog wel eens verwarrend zijn:

Osmose: http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/nl/map/

Osmosis: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmosis

Jan Westerhof · 2016-11-09 13:04:17

Ik vond een nieuwe toepassing van landuse=residential, gecombineerd met addr:full=*

Bijv. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429462702

Is het gebruikelijk om een adres aan een landuse te verbinden, dus niet aan een pand? En als je dat doet met addr:full, is een string als '7954GC13b' hetgeen is in te vullen? Is dat ergens besproken in de community, of gedocumenteerd?

AlbertP · 2016-11-09 13:16:01

@Jan Westerhof, de discussie over die vlakken bevindt zich ineens in het volgende topic: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtop … 17#p617117

Commodoortje · 2016-11-09 15:23:50

pffff
2016-11-09_15-20-40.png?raw=1

Martin Borsje · 2016-11-09 16:11:53

Dear Andy,

As you can read in this thread as in two other threads in the NL sub-frum, Gerrit has gone loose again.

Please take as DWG appropriate actions.

Regards

Martin

AlbertP · 2016-11-09 16:32:51

Just summarizing in English what happened in https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtop … 17#p617117 on request of Martin Borsje in that thread,

gerrit_dankelman had (again) created areas representing parcels, and tagged them with address:full = postal code + house number, for instance address:full=7954GC13b.

I told him that I highly doubted it was right to create these areas, and that it can lead to problems when there are more addresses on one parcel, and that the tag is unnecessary as postal code and house number have been mapped already, and this just leads to duplication of information.

Jan Westerhof replied, asking whether it is usual to draw parcels as areas, and also asked whether '7954GC13b' is an accepted or documented format for address:full (to the best of my knowledge, it is not). He suggested to stick to the tagging of addresses that gets imported from BAG as long as no better way has been agreed upon, and suggested to revert these edits.

Hope it's now documented well enough in this thread. I'm all for reverting the ways marking parcel boundaries.
There's pages of discussion (Dutch: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=52948) about mapping parcel boundaries as admin boundaries, then in this topic (Dutch) they re-appeared with weird Dutch-language tags, and then again on page 14 in this thread (Dutch: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtop … 8#p610448) they appeared tagged as landuse=residential. Nobody except Gerrit himself was fond of either way of tagging them, or convinced of their importance. Still, they keep appearing in new experiments.

Last edited by AlbertP (2016-11-09 16:45:29)

SomeoneElse · 2016-11-09 20:53:19

Thanks,

I've commented on a couple of problematical (for different reasons) changesets. We'll see what answer comes back.

Although I'm aware that it's very tiring to continue repeating yourselves, I'd encourage you to keep commenting on probleatical changesets as they are made, so that they'll appear at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-disc … .228/6.130 and keep commenting here, in order to understand the problems with any recent contributions.

There have been recent replies to questions about problematical mapping both to changeset discussion comments and in the forum, so hopefully that conversation will continue.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group

Jan Westerhof · 2016-11-10 17:08:57

Gerrit appears to have a real obsession with getting a line drawn on the map, around parcels. It's not entirely clear why he wants that, but the wish is consistent and lasting.

1. In 2015 he managed to draw lines with the tag boundary=administrative, which renders as a thin black line on the standard map. See the first message on the thread https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=52948 for an example.

Once others mappers noticed he filled the place of Staphorst with these tags, he received explanation that this was 'tagging for the renderer', a cardinal sin in OSM land. Eventually, all faulty tags were removed. This caused other mappers a lot of work, discussion, and patience with Mr Dankelman.

2. In January 2016 he started all over with parcel mapping, this time (ab)using barrier=fence to reach the same effect on the map - a thin line.
See https://forum.openstreetmap.org/post.ph … qid=571705 .
Any attempt to explain why 'tagging for the renderer' is wrong remained fruitless. Once again, he had already mapped many gardens with barrier=fence, which all had to be undone.

3. Earlier this month he started mapping parcels with landuse=residential with addr:full=<self-invented address format>.
See https://forum.openstreetmap.org/post.ph … qid=617163 .
This was also turned down by other mappers.

4. And now he wants to start again.... (see https://forum.openstreetmap.org/post.ph … id=617240).
This time he discovered a (faulty) use of barrier=wall in Leuven, and he suggests (again) to use this for marking a parcel.

As far as I can see, this is the fourth (!) attempt to abuse tags for marking a parcel, over a period of two years (!).
It has become a true obsession with him. Gerrit just does not get the concept of 'tagging for the renderer', or why this is wrong. It has been explained over and over, but without success..
Furthermore, he will start mapping the parcels before discussing it with the community, which is annoying. Plus, it's not just one or two parcels he will map, but large numbers, causing a lot of work to repair it.

And this parcel thing is just one of the things he is doing wrong.

I personally, am completely fed up with Mr Dankelmans contributions. For the large part, his edits are wrong, not useful and costing us a lot of time. It is database pollution.

Please let this stop.

Last edited by Jan Westerhof (2016-11-10 17:40:20)

marczoutendijk · 2016-11-10 18:53:17

In this forumpost:

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtop … 39#p617339

Gerrit is telling us he will quit:

gerrit_dankelman wrote:

..
Ik zal geen activiteiten meer uitvoeren.
Ik wil de Community geen schade berokkenen.
Laat horen wat ik nog moet herstellen.
Daarna zal ik de Community verlaten.
Mij is de wacht ook aan gezegd door DWG.
Groet Gerrit

I don't believe him because he wrote that earlier.
Also he wants us to tell him what he should fix.
I would say: every single addition to the OSM database that bears his name should be removed forever.

Martin Borsje · 2016-11-11 16:35:50

marczoutendijk wrote:

In this forumpost:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtop … 39#p617339
Gerrit is telling us he will quit:
gerrit_dankelman wrote:
..
Ik zal geen activiteiten meer uitvoeren.
Ik wil de Community geen schade berokkenen.
Laat horen wat ik nog moet herstellen.
Daarna zal ik de Community verlaten.
Mij is de wacht ook aan gezegd door DWG.
Groet Gerrit
I don't believe him because he wrote that earlier.
Also he wants us to tell him what he should fix.
I would say: every single addition to the OSM database that bears his name should be removed forever.

Marc,

Unfortunately you are right: Gerrit did not stop editing and is busy again. His message was, as almost everything coming from him, fake.

@Andrew: please block him and ask him to confirm his account deletion.

SomeoneElse · 2016-11-11 17:43:14

@Martin Borsje I only messaged him a couple of days ago. Given how long this has been going on for, I think we can wait a little bit longer. Current changes have comments such as "Residentials verwijderd" and "source=advies OSM Community", so I wouldn't assume bad faith.

Jan Westerhof · 2016-11-11 19:57:45

If I go to https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/gerrit_dankelman/ I get a message 'The user gerrit_dankelman does not exist'.

SomeoneElse · 2016-11-11 20:11:14

Jan Westerhof wrote:

If I go to https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/gerrit_dankelman/ I get a message 'The user gerrit_dankelman does not exist'.

The account has been deleted - you can see that by looking at a recent edit such as http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43561076 .

Martin Borsje · 2016-11-11 20:19:28

To all who this matters in this forum:

Needless to say that all in all this whole chain of events has been very sad. All the efforts Gerrit has done to make the map, in his views, better and completer. All the efforts of other forum members to help him, correct him and try to get him on track.
All the frustration but as well the immense patience many showed towards Gerrit and the hope on a good ending.

This is not the good ending I had hoped for, of course; it would have been much more satisfying if all involved would be satisfied and Gerrit would have taken the advices given.

I thank the DWG, especially Andrew for his involvement and finally Gerrit for his undoubtedly difficult decision to end his activities.

To us: let's go cautiously through Gerrit's edits and repair where necessary and keep his valuable additions.

Martin

Jan Westerhof · 2016-11-11 21:14:28

I agree. I feel sorry it had to come to this, at the same time I'm glad this thing has come to an end and we can now spend our time and energy on more positive matters.

Commodoortje · 2016-11-11 21:57:32

Vermoedelijk is gerrit ook actief geweest onder andere namen.
Ik was voornemens zijn landuse=residential op kavel contouren te verwijderen en daar kwam ik gebruiker user_402366 tegen.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/user_402366
Deze lokatie: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/5 … 3/6.253973
Ik wacht nog even met het verwijderen van de residentials alhier.
Om onderstaand plaatje beter te kunnen lezen: ► Rechtermuisknop ► afbeelding openen in nieuw tabblad
2016-11-11_21-55-34.png?raw=1

Last edited by Commodoortje (2016-11-11 22:00:23)

Announcement

#451 2016-11-04 11:49:21

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#452 2016-11-04 12:10:55

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#453 2016-11-04 14:02:34

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#454 2016-11-04 14:25:33

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#455 2016-11-04 16:41:51

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#456 2016-11-05 11:25:50

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#457 2016-11-05 12:01:49

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#458 2016-11-05 16:26:55

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#459 2016-11-05 18:29:35

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#460 2016-11-05 19:14:16

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#461 2016-11-09 13:04:17

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#462 2016-11-09 13:16:01

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#463 2016-11-09 15:23:50

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#464 2016-11-09 16:11:53

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#465 2016-11-09 16:32:51

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#466 2016-11-09 20:53:19

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#467 2016-11-10 17:08:57

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#468 2016-11-10 18:53:17

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#469 2016-11-11 16:35:50

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#470 2016-11-11 17:43:14

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#471 2016-11-11 19:57:45

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#472 2016-11-11 20:11:14

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#473 2016-11-11 20:19:28

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#474 2016-11-11 21:14:28

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

#475 2016-11-11 21:57:32

Re: Edits omgeving Staphorst

Board footer