Changeset: 60705711
Still vandalism
Closed by stefanct
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (13170 en) |
---|---|
source | obvious |
Discussion
-
Comment from willebrord
Could you please explain? The summit cross is definitley there and a cross check in other guides/maps confirmed the name (see e.g. "Wien wandert" guide, Rittberger+Knapp 2015, http://www.freytagberndt.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/9783902999023_Innenansicht_01.pdf , S.14)
-
Comment from stefanct
Hi willebrord,
there is a guy (apparently called Peter-Paul) who tried really hard to
name the peak in question after himself. He lied on multiple occasions when
questioned about his source and apparently even installed the cross you
linked in the changeset. There have been quite some discussions on how
to deal with him (at the at-talk mailing list) and your change did
spark another one, unfortunately.All and every reference that is linked to the name "Peter-Paul-Berg"
are directly manufactured by this guy or indirectly derived from his
OSM edits - like your linked reference from freytag&berndt, which has
the OSM attribution directly on the map showing the false name. -
Comment from willebrord
Ah, I see what I got involved in here. ;)
Even though the peak might not have an "official" name I think we already reached the "point of no return": There obviously already is a more or less commonly used name for it; we can find "Peter-Paul-Berg" in printed guides [1] and maps [1], other online maps [2] that partly base on OSM data, hiking reports [3,4], mountain panoramas [5], mountain weather forecast [6].
It does not matter that all this (might) date(s) back to the original "Peter-Paul-Berg" entry a couple of years ago - now the name is here and probably will stay here. The only thing we can decide is if we want to include this information in OSM as well.
And since the peak does not have an "official" name in my opinion we cannot say "Peter-Paul-Berg" is "the false name" per se; there are various comparable (regarding the history of the naming and the topographic prominence) precedents (e.g. "Hoher Ge" [7], "Sperkhermstein") in the the Wienerwald region that are included in OSM with their "unofficial" names (since they do not have any "official" name too).
Thus, following the OSM "good practice" guidelines [8,9] I personally think this name should certainly be included as well.tl;dr
I think there is no point in hiding relevant information from the OSM user only due to the fact that the name is not "official".[1] "Wien wandert" guide, Rittberger+Knapp 2015, http://www.freytagberndt.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/9783902999023_Innenansicht_01.pdf , p14
[2] https://www.strava.com/segments/7421364
[3] http://www.gipfeltreffen.at/forum/gipfeltreffen/alpinoptikum/gipfelquiz/84285-peter-paul-berg-494m-wienerwald-5620
[4] http://www.inntranetz.at/galerie/touren/2016/latisberg.html
[5] http://mapio.net/pic/p-76813516/
[6] http://www.metgis.com/de/bergwetter/peter-paul-berg.html
[7] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weissenbach_bei_M%C3%B6dling#Hoher_Ge
[8] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground
[9] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule -
Comment from freebeer
Hallo willebrord,
When researching this issue some years back, every single reference i could find all linked back to osm data.
for a legitimate name, i expect to be able to find some mention that is completely independent.
that automated weather services and the like have dumped osm with errors, means it is no surprise that these errors can be found in realty listings or weather reports for misspellings or totally bogus names.
i see this when attempting to research obvious US TIGER data errors for a popularity check, where worse, TIGER was used by google and directly by other services.
Just as osm seeks to obtain correct data, jt should not keep around the bogus data that can still be found elsewhere, cached in print, in outdated maps.me dumps, or in unvetted unmaintained database dumps. osm has reached the point it is taken too seriously to allow that. the amount of undiscovered pokemon fake data is a threat as much as this.
it is impressive to see that osm is no longer a niche product, but that means to me the integrity of osm data is that much more important, and osm cannot simply give in to accepting errors that have made it public here but nowhere officially.
it is not so much that the name is not official, but it sees no use outside of osm circles, not even by a portion of the public, and deserves to be handled like other osm fiction.
if that makes any sense. -
Comment from willebrord
I beg to differ. The situation here is completely different: This is _not_ a "fictional" place. The peak exists in real world, can be identified [5, see reference above] as a peak in real world (even without the now installed summit cross) and is even marked so in OSM.
The only "problem" is that it has no official name. In these cases, the commonly accepted procedure historically was to give it the name that the first person claims. Apparently someone did that at least 6(!) years ago and as a consequence this very name spread across the internet [2-6] and even on printed maps [1]. Personally, I see this as a modern version of "shouting a new name at the market square".
In fact, I know plenty of people who indeed refer to this peak as "Peter-Paul-Berg" (and I can assure that I am not "peterpp" himself and i do not even know this guy ;) ). In the mountain bike community this name is already well known since in Strava (a very popular social network for cyclists) it is the most(!) prominent peak in Vienna due to strange map rendering [10] since a couple of years(!).This is the only name we have. Why not use it?
-
Comment from stefanct
the place exists but the name does not. as explained above *all* references are directly from osm/peterpp which actually shows how important it is to ensure good data quality. [5] for example was a picture uploaded by peterpp to wikimedia commons which got removed from there (because of the peak in question) and will vanish from the net eventually (hopefully). i don't know strava but if they are using outdated osm data (else the name could only be visible relatively shortly) and some users fell for that this is no reason to prolong their fallacy. neither [8] nor [9] really apply here either (their is no dispute between governmental bodies or different sources). apart from all of that i would additional argue that the proposed name should not be used due to general prevention (Generalprävention), i.e. to show potential other vandals that faking names (i presume you agree as well that this started as a fake) is futile.
not every peak needs or has a name, but if people want to give this one a name it should be original and anything but the fake name. maybe even your community can come up with and establish a more suitable name :)
-
Comment from willebrord
No, I do not agree that "this started as a fake"! This peak did not have any name and following the commonly accepted procedure someone successfully gave it a name and spread the name. That's it.
The discussion is not about if it is acceptable _how_ "Peter-Paul-Berg" got its name! This is irrelevant. _Now_ it is too late for "general prevention", it would just be stubbornness.
Only because you are obviously still mad at "peterpp" does not mean that we should not use an established name.
Who are we to judge if a peak "needs a name" or if an already established name is "suitable" (Are these [11] "suitable" names?)? In my opinion this is pretty pretentious.
"On the Ground Rule: If the dispute can not be resolved through discussion, then the simple default rule is whatever name, designation, etc are used by the people on the ground at that location are used in the non-localized tags." [9, see references above]
Following this rule I will undo your changes to make my point of view clear.[11] https://www.blog.tirol/2017/06/tiroler-gipfel-und-ihre-namen/
-
Comment from stefanct
If you think adding a name tag to OSM with some arbitrary value that nobody but the person itself is aware of at the time is "a commonly accepted procedure" to establish a name for a landmark than I seriously doubt that you should edit any collaborative worldwide content at all. Also, there is still 0 proof that the name is used by anybody but two anonymous OSM users with few contributions. Thus if you want to apply [9] the peak does not have a name because nobody in the vicinity knows it by any name.
The discussion about the topic at hand on the respective mailing list is pretty clear. Please don't start another futile edit war.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
Quoting a bunch of sites that all use OSM data is just an example of https://xkcd.com/978/ . If someone can produce a source that _predates_ the name being invented by an OSMer called "Peter-Paul" then it makes sense to have it as a "name" here, if not then it doesn't - the fact that maps and guides that use OSM data also have OSM errors in them is neither surprising nor relevant. If it is genuinely in use (by actual humans, not just people creating walking maps and guides based on old OSM data) then perhaps it deserves to be in there as a "loc_name".
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.
Nodes (1)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |