User talk:Xyz32
Climbing crag
Hi, I don't completely agree with this change [1] . We have 199 occurrences of climbing=boulder in the database which are now undocumented. Seems to me like climbing:boulder might be the better solution in many cases but it would be good to have them both documented. RicoZ (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I did the change to match the real life definition of a crag. From wiki: "Crag A small area with climbing routes, often just a small cliff face or a few boulders."
- I am currently working on a tool to try to clean up the sport=climbing nodes. And also by removing the documentation for "climbing=boulder" hopefully will discourage people from using it.
- "a few boulders" may or may not include a single boulder stone. I still see climbing=boulder usable for those simple cases whereas crags are good for places with more routes. Actually I would expect the single-stone-single-route case be by far the most used one for bouldering - can't even think of a bouldering stone offering multiple routes??
- What kind of cleanup are you planning on the climbing sites? Would be good to mention it on the Talk:Climbing discussion page and in the mailing list.
- Hi sorry for the delay. Usually a boulder has multiple routes, even if it has only one face accessible, people will just climb from different directions, so usually you get at least 2 routes on a boulder. Here is an example of some bouldering problems squeezed together on a small boulder: [2] (you will need to enable "map data" to see the neighbouring problems. For me the bouldering tag makes sense if we want to map a boulder the same way we map a cliff, but then it should not be marked as "climbing=boulder". To me "climbing=boulder" is equivalent to "climbing:boulder=*" and it is just data duplication.
- For the cleanup there are thousands of nodes that have the sport=climbing tag but no other information about climbing. I am trying to go through them and figure out what is what.
- Can we mark it as deprecated? To encourage people not to use it? and yes, a stone like the one in the picture is perfect for a few bouldering routes. Here is a nice example of a small stone being used as a bouldering climb: http://www.climbing.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Namibia-bouldering.jpg Xyz32 (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- We could, in this case I would prefer asking osm-talk for opinions. Easier we could reformulate the section to reflect current usage giving the more frequently used option higher prominence (and checking the stats aren't due to some nonsense). However I still don't fully understand why you want to get rid of it. It could be avoided, sure. But it is also making simple things easy and I do not see how it would create any problems? Perfect orthogonality isn't a self-purpose .. otherwise we could "easily" map freeways as highway=path + motor_vehicles=yes + bicycle=no + min_speed>=60 + lanes>=2 +surface=... RicoZ (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- I only have one reason, I want to keep the climbing tag as close to real life definitions as possible, to avoid confusions. Also I don't understand why bouldering needs a special case, and why not have a special tag for "top rope" as well, or "deep water" although there are bouldering crags over deep water so we will need a "bouldering deep water", and a "top rope deep water". Anyway if this is not a good enough reason I am fine with keeping the tag. Xyz32 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- I guess whoever invented it thought that there are enough lonely rocks with exactly one "route" to justify this special case. I also do not quite understand why there are climbing sites and crags, probably the relict from times when most climbing sites were mapped just as a single node sport=climbing? I would not remove any documented cases until they become totally obsolete but it would be great if the page can be restructured so it is easier to understand and guide mappers in the right direction. RicoZ (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- For bouldering, they could have just assumed this. As for cleaning up the mess, the next version of "Climb the World" will have an advanced editor that will give the users the possibility of using a template or modify the raw TAGS. It will also show "sport=climbing" tags that don't make any sense, so if people want to fix them it is easier to filter. I also made this, a webapp viewer for the climbing data: https://xyz-relativity.github.io/ClimbTheWorld/ Xyz32 (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- So if I understand your cleanup idea you search sport=climbing and depending on surrounding location and other attributes you try to complete the information piece by piece? Seems like hard manual work. Normally I would recommend osm-talk maling list but I have also created the outdoor-natural list so you may try this one as well. RicoZ (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Climbing difficulty, different scales?
On another idea train, I would only use one grading system, and let the UI do the conversion. For my APP I chose UIAA because that is the system used by the "International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation". I wasn't able to find out what system the "International Federation of Sport Climbing" is using though. Thank. Xyz32 (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are precedents where mappers are allowed (or even expected) to specify things in "their" units (like metric/imperial) and the data user is supposed to make the conversion. In some cases this is much preferred - if there is an information table on the ground specifying the difficulty in one scale than the mapper is expected to map what is on the ground an not interpret the data, especially as difficulty scales are somewhat subjective. I would not be surprised if the scales have some peculiarities that make automatic conversion problematic like loosing information, mishandling edge cases etc. If so it is probably better a climber visiting Yosemite has to learn about the Yosemite grading rather than getting partially incorrect information. Perhaps the best thing would be to gather information regarding possible conversions or equivalents and document it in the page. Also, if in some places the information is available in several scales it would be great to map all of those (and it would nice to have a tool capable of approximate conversions checking for obviously wrong values).
- That is a problem, not uncommon for other tags in OSM. I think it is fine if your app can parse only the more frequent values and grading systems, the difficult cases are probably more appropriate for manual review. Other problems would arise if you would tell people to use a grading system they are not familiar with though I do not think changing it is an option at this point anyway. Editors like JOSM can be improved to help avoid garbage values, there is the ticket for climbing presets https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/16525 which I just amended and if you have a regex for grading values we can open another ticket asking to add it to the JOSM validator. RicoZ (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- If you need a CSV grade converter that does a good enough job (it is based on this pdf document: https://www.theuiaa.org/documents/mountaineering/THESCALESOFDIFFICULTYINCLIMBING_p1b.pdf ) let me know. Xyz32 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Anyway, glad that you are having a critical look at the climbing page, it had a somewhat hasty and not well prepared merge very recently and might still contain critical errors and bad or missing information. Btw I do not consider myself an expert on climbing, merely "adopted" several outdoor and mountain related subjects that needed some improvements or were getting lost in dead-end controversies. RicoZ (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem, well actually I am working on the "Climb the world" app and I have lately implemented showing all types of climbing tags (gyms, artificial walls, routes) and the filters I have to use for Overpass-api are getting quite complex due to all the special cases. Xyz32 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Missing file information
Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.
Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.
Are you the author of image File:Climb the World ARView.jpg ?
Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?
Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ".
Doing this would be already very useful.
Licensing - photos
In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?
In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.
Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?
Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?
If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.
You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified February 2022}} from the file page.
Licensing - other images
If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.
See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.
note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.
note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.
Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.
Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.
Help
Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.
Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).
If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.
--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Missing file information
Hello! And thanks for your upload - but some extra info is necessary.
Sorry for bothering you about this, but it is important to know source of the uploaded files.
Are you the creator of image File:Climb the World ico.png ?
Or is it copied from some other place (which one?)?
Please, add this info to the file page - something like "I took this photo" or "downloaded from -website link-" or "I took this screeshot of program XYZ" or "this is map generated from OpenStreetMap data and SRTM data" or "map generated from OSM data and only OSM data" or "This is my work based on file -link-to-page-with-that-file-and-its-licensing-info-" or "used file downloaded from internet to create it, no idea which one".
Doing this would be already very useful.
Licensing - photos
In case that you are the author of the image: Would you agree to open licensing of this image, allowing its use by anyone (similarly to your OSM edits)?
In case where it is a photo you (except relatively rare cases) author can make it available under a specific free license.
Would you be OK with CC0 (it allows use without attribution or any other requirement)?
Or do you prefer to require attribution and some other things using CC-BY-SA-4.0?
If you are the author: Please add {{CC0-self}} to the file page to publish the image under CC0 license.
You can also use {{CC-BY-SA-4.0-self|Xyz32}} to publish under CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.
Once you add missing data - please remove {{Unknown|subcategory=uploader notified March 2022}} from the file page.
Licensing - other images
If it is not a photo situation gets a bit more complicated.
See Drafts/Media file license chart that may help.
note: if you took screenshot of program made by someone else, screenshot of OSM editor with aerial imagery: then licensing of that elements also matter and you are not a sole author.
note: If you downloaded image made by someone else then you are NOT the author.
Note that in cases where photo is a screenshot of some software interface: usually it is needed to handle also copyright of software itself.
Note that in cases where aerial imagery is present: also licensing of an aerial imagery matter.
Help
Feel free to ask for help if you need it - you can do it for example by asking on Talk:Wiki: new topic.
Please ask there if you are not sure what is the proper next step. Especially when you are uploading files that are not your own work or are derivative work (screenshots, composition of images, using aerial imagery etc).
If you are interested in wider discussion about handling licencing at OSM Wiki, see this thread.
(sorry if I missed something that already states license and source: I am looking through over 20 000 files and fixing obvious cases on my own, in other I ask people who upladed files, but it is possible that I missed something - in such case also please answer)
--Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)