[Patch in discussion] Adding imagery_used to changeset tags

[Rub21]

Hello:

I've made a patch to JOSM adding the imagery_used=* tags to changesets.
​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:imagery%20used?uselang=en,

What does JOSM do right now?

Right now JOSM does not add imagery_used in the list of changeset tags.
according to documentation(​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Tags_on_changesets), every changeset should have:
comment=*,created_by=*,imagery_used=*,source=*,is_in=*

What does iD do?

In iD most of the list of tags comment=*,created_by=*,imagery_used=*,source=*,is_in=* are in changesets.
For example: ​http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33733752

What will the patch do?

The patch will fill imagery_used tag:

• Will automatically fill which layers are active when mapping, also consider if the layer is visible or not.
• If a user adds a new layer without an id, imagery_used will take the name of the layer.
• Will fill less or equal to 255 characters, according to ​https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2181

Here are some of my changesets examples:

• ​http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34315234
• ​http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34315192
• ​http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34315173

File attached *.diff* ​https://gist.github.com/Rub21/86981b40dc11eadd4d85

[simon04]

Thank you for this contribution.

• With this patch, the imagery layers are added to source (as name) as well as imagery_used (as id if available).
• The imagery_used isn't visible to the user (unless s/he opens the advanced tab).

Btw: we recently addressed a bug w.r.t. >255 chars, see #11686.

[simon04]

Starting from ticket:6381#comment:15, the discussion also relates to the imagery information.

[Rub21]

I fixed a issue in patch, when user does not display any imagery layer for mapping,the patch does not take any information.Therefore imagery_used will not fill.

Example:

• ​http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34338131

https://josm.openstreetmap.de/attachment/ticket/11910/imagery_used-fixed.diff

[simon04]

I don't like the proposed modification. I explained some issues in comment:2 and don't see a need for imagery_used in addition to source. Getting source tag added in the dialog and its behaviour accepted was a length process and involved lots of discussion (r6401, r6408-r6409, r6419, r6424, r6428, r6565, r6567, r6590, r6654; r6517). I don't want to be involved again, especially when not seeing the necessity.

[anonymous]

don't see a need for imagery_used in addition to source

simon04 - over here at Mapbox we are in conversations with imagery providers that would require us to report imagery used for tracing on OpenStreetMap. The simple idea is that Mapbox would license imagery, make it available to the OpenStreetMap community for tracing and Mapbox would pay the imagery provider for all features traced with their imagery.

For this approach to work we'll need some sort of automated reporting of imagery used when tracing. The approach my colleague Ruben is suggesting here would work.

These conversations are in early stages, but I'd like to get a headstart as it will take a while for the community to upgrade their editors.

Thoughts?

[Don-vip]

Replying to anonymous:

Thoughts?

I agree with Simon, I don't see the need to add imagery_used in addition to source now all the information is there.

Why the automated reporting system does not just consider the two tags?

[naoliv]

I guess one problem we are seeing is that JOSM doesn't automatically include the imagery layers in source (it's necessary to click in obtain from current layers; or if it should include, it doesn't work here).

Some people just don't include (or forget to include) the used imagery in source.

Is it that bad to automatically add every active imagery layer to imagery_used? (if they aren't already present in source)

For example, I use the A, B and C layers.
Then I add source=A (and forget about B and C).
JOSM could automatically include imagery_used=B;C in the changeset (under the hood, without any kind of user intervention).

[stoecker]

Prefill is one thing - "under the hood" another. The first is ok, the second not. So when we prefill any tag and users see and can remove it, then that's ok. But we don't want to do it under the hood - that should be limited to really important things.

[bastiK]

Replying to anonymous:

don't see a need for imagery_used in addition to source

simon04 - over here at Mapbox we are in conversations with imagery providers that would require us to report imagery used for tracing on OpenStreetMap. The simple idea is that Mapbox would license imagery, make it available to the OpenStreetMap community for tracing and Mapbox would pay the imagery provider for all features traced with their imagery.

Sounds like a reasonable request to me. Also it is not a 100% duplication: For the source field we add human readable names while the imagery_used field would list unique ids, which are ideally consistent across all editors.

Replying to stoecker:

Prefill is one thing - "under the hood" another. The first is ok, the second not. So when we prefill any tag and users see and can remove it, then that's ok. But we don't want to do it under the hood - that should be limited to really important things.

As far as I can tell, the current patch only prefills; we should leave it like that.

[simon04]

Replying to bastiK:

Replying to stoecker:

Prefill is one thing - "under the hood" another. The first is ok, the second not. So when we prefill any tag and users see and can remove it, then that's ok. But we don't want to do it under the hood - that should be limited to really important things.

As far as I can tell, the current patch only prefills; we should leave it like that.

With the complexity and the 4 tabs of the upload dialog, "under the hood" is relative ;). imagery_used is shown in the "tags" tab (which I normally do not inspect), but not in the "settings" tab.

[naoliv]

For "under the hood" I mean to have imagery_used prefilled in the second tab ("Tags of new changeset")

[stoecker]

For the MapBox request an tag in our Maps list could add an attribute document-usage="true" (or a better name...). That way we would add the "imagery_used" tag only when really required to fulfill license conditions. I'd prefer that over yet another mechanisms to expose user data.

I think that would also solve HOT imagery usage conditions in some cases.

[Stereo]

I have seen people using non-free imagery, even using proxies to avoid blacklists.

We shouldn't expose user data unless necessary, but I do believe that, in the case of accurate imagery_used tags, it is. Beyond attribution for legal reasons, our ethical duty to other mappers and users of the map is to cite our sources.

[pnorman]

Right now JOSM does not add imagery_used in the list of changeset tags. according to documentation(​​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Tags_on_changesets), every changeset should have ...

You are misreading that page - the tags are listed there because they're common, not as a recommendation. There is no requirement for an imagery_used tag on changesets.

With that said, I'd like to see imagery_used, but not for the reasons Rub21 mentions, and I'm not sure this patch will accomplish what iD's imagery_used tag does, and it might not meet Mapbox's needs.

As iD implements, imagery_used has three features which give it an advantage over source

• It's very clearly about imagery, while you'd get source=survey, even if someone has background imagery up
• It autofills from the layers the user had up since their last upload, not just the layers currently available
• It reports URLs for custom imagery

The latter two reasons are what make it most useful for me. I don't see that this proposed patch accomplishes either.

I also don't see that it would provide useful data for Mapbox's reporting purposes, just a crude approximation. This might be good enough for what the imagery providers want, but it's only an approximation.

[pyrog]

Hi,
Could be useful to add (manually at least) imagery as value of imagery_used tag.

--
Yves

[anonymous]

I'm a strong proponent to offer imagery_used by default (and prefilled). The source of data most often is local knowledge and/or survey; aerial imagery is just used as an auxiliary means.

(I know JOSM project is run as a classical l337 community like it's 1995 and any change is bad™ per-se, but please consider it nonetheless.)

[Stereo]

@anonymous you can make your point better without antagonising others.

[simon04]

Ticket #13315 has been marked as a duplicate of this ticket.

[skyper]

1. There is a difference between the backgrounds displayed during an editing session and the backgrounds which were actually used as source.
2. As imagery sources only the most highest active imagery in layer list needs to be tied to the objects changed at that moment for all individual changes made on the objects. Quite a task.

How to handle certain objects like most relations or boundaries. How can this work with sessions or locally saved files when the imagery might not be in layer list anymore?

The most useful information I get from iD's imagery_used is that the wrong sources or a too small number sources were used.

[taylor.smock]

Replying to simon04:

Replying to bastiK:

Replying to stoecker:

Prefill is one thing - "under the hood" another. The first is ok, the second not. So when we prefill any tag and users see and can remove it, then that's ok. But we don't want to do it under the hood - that should be limited to really important things.

As far as I can tell, the current patch only prefills; we should leave it like that.

With the complexity and the 4 tabs of the upload dialog, "under the hood" is relative ;). imagery_used is shown in the "tags" tab (which I normally do not inspect), but not in the "settings" tab.

r18467 should help with this -- we could register an UploadHook, and then let the UI hint that something has changed. (Also, note that since simon04 wrote his comment, the Upload Dialog now only has two tabs, Description and Settings, with Changeset tags being a subpanel in Settings).