FE map with scale

No I don't think you are dumb. You deliberately take up contrary positions just for the sake of arguing. When I say hard as in quantum theory vs hard as in digging a hole, you claim quantum theory can be easy and digging holes can be hard.

No, I stated that "hard" is relative, and complexity depends not only on the task but also how the task is meant to be acheived.

You are so insistent that a spatial database is a map that you're prepared to ignore the obvious, that there are substantial differences between the two, so they require different names so that people understand their purpose.

Just like medicines and drugs.

insisting that a collection of cat photos is a map

And yet again you leave out the key part.
That would be like me claiming you say a picture is a map.

Not all pictures are maps.
Again, the key part is the location data.
The data that provides a MAPPING between locations and things at that location.

The only reason you are following this tortured logic at all is a determination to show that I haven't made a map at all.

There are plenty of other avenues for that, such as how your map has no labels at all or any indication of what various things, and no scale.
The only reason people would recognise it as a map is because it looks like other maps.

By your own claims of what a map is required to do, your picture is not a map.
The only reason you are coming up with those standards is to try to claim that the map you used isn't a map so you can claim you have made a map; while you ignore the fact that those standards would mean you haven't made a map, and in fact would rule out a lot of maps.

I don't think for one second that had you discovered GeoNames before this discussion that you would have described it to anyone as a map. You are just being deliberately obtuse.

You are the one being obtuse here. Context matters.
There are lots of maps I wouldn't normally describe as a map.

For example, street directories, i.e. maps of where various streets are, normally with an index to help find the street.
Unless someone specifically started discussing if it was a map or not, I likely would just call it a street directory and not think of calling it a map.

If Google Maps didn't have "maps" in its name, I probably wouldn't even describe that as a map.

Typically when referring to maps of all of Earth (or very large portions), I would refer to them as projections.

A single item can be described by many different words. People not using a particular word doesn't magically mean that thing isn't what is described by that particular word.

If you would like another example, consider people from Earth. How many people normally refer to those type of people as Earthlings?
Does that mean that no one on Earth is an Earthling? That we are actually all aliens, just because people don't normally use that word?

Clearly combining can make simple things complex. Atoms and Elephants for example. You don't need to state the blindingly obvious. I was clearly asking you to explain the specific example of determining position. There is no combining anything here it is just endless repetition of a simple process.

It seems I do need to state the obvious.
What you are describing as "simple repetition" is combining.

What would actually be simple repetition is repeatedly determining the latitude and longitude of a single location.

You are presupposing using a sextant+chronometer approach. Use a GPS.

You mean yet another thing FEers likely claim are in on the conspiracy, as they use satellites which orbit the globe and math based upon Earth being round to determine your location on Earth?

If you are doing that, you may as well "verify" the location on a map is correct, by checking that the map says it is there.

If you are using a sextant, why not use the stars, then you don't need to mess with the equation of time.

Because then you need to be able to identify what star is what.

It's impossible for me to fly to New York today for many reasons. Flying to New York is not difficult.

Notice how you have 2 different tasks.
Flying to New York is not difficult, but YOU flying to New York TODAY is impossible.

Try making the tasks the same.
Is you flying to New York today difficult?

It is quite possible for one task to be impossible, while a similar, but different, task is easy.

The entire task may be impossible, the individual steps are simple.

The individual steps being simple doesn't mean the overall task is simple or easy or possible.
There is quite a big difference between saying each individual step is simple/easy, and saying the overall task is simple/easy.

Use Google Maps if you like, just don't use the zoom or pan or search feature, because you've no idea what that's doing under the hood

Well that rules out GPS, because you have "no idea what it is doing under the hood".

See, I have a very good idea of what Google maps is doing under the hood. It is fetching an image (or several) based upon 3 coordinates, latitude, longitude and zoom.

It's Google Maps plural

Not Google's Maps.
So  if you want to appeal to the name, what is a Google? Or is it an adjective?
Or is it just a name which isn't definitive of what it is.

Are you saying Google Maps is really a spatial database that allows the user to make their own maps?

You also had no problem before talking about using Google maps AS A MAP, not as collection of maps. So you seem to want to change your position as you see fit to avoid problems with your claims.


But now your argument is basically refuting itself.
The point is to obtain an accurate map of the world. And you are saying the best you can achieve with that is a degree or 2. If that is the case, you don't need to accurately verify the location to a tiny fraction of a degree. You just need that degree or 2.

What exactly can I do with the GeoNames database (and I don't mean the online GeoNames application, I mean the database, the thing you download)?

What exactly can I do with the image you provided if I don't have a program that can open png files?

And it isn't like I can just download your picture, snap my fingers and have it magically a different projection.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 21, 2021, 03:12:45 PM

Your png file doesn't look like a map.
It looks like a string of random numbers (with some letters thrown in).

How do you know? To claim that, you would have to first view the file in some kind of software or dump the contents using some kind of dump program.

Which is kind of the point.
Again, PRESENTATION MATTERS!
You have chosen to use software which displays the GeoNames database as a table of text. That is why it looks like a table of text and not a map.
You could go to Google Maps server, or any electronic map, and present in a format which very few people would recognise as a map.

The point is, you cannot honestly argue that something isn't a map just because you present it in a way which people wouldn't normally recognise as a map.

Do you think internally they store them all as text files?

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

But you said it doesn't look like a duck, it doesn't swim like a duck and it doesn't quack like a duck, but still claim it is a duck.

Again, the claims you are making to try to say it can't be a map works just as well for "your map".

Quote

You are so insistent that a spatial database is a map that you're prepared to ignore the obvious, that there are substantial differences between the two, so they require different names so that people understand their purpose.

Just like medicines and drugs.

I'm sure we can have a field day back and forth arguing different definitions of drug and medicine and these definitions no doubt vary between different cultures. My interpretation would be that a medicine is a drug, a drug is not necessarily a medicine.

So let's say paracetamol is a drug and a medicine, where does that get us? Two names for exactly the same thing. I think only a true pedant would argue against that interpretation. I can take the drug paracetamol or the medicine paracetamol. Absolutely interchangeable. Contrast with map and spatial database.

Quote

The only reason you are following this tortured logic at all is a determination to show that I haven't made a map at all.

There are plenty of other avenues for that, such as how your map has no labels at all or any indication of what various things, and no scale.
The only reason people would recognise it as a map is because it looks like other maps.

If Joe public is going to immediately recognise it as a map with or without labels or scale, then that's reason enough for me. Passes my duck test for sure.

By your own claims of what a map is required to do, your picture is not a map.

Don't really care. If Joe public is happy that it's a map and you are the lone voice in the wilderness, fine by me.

Quote

I don't think for one second that had you discovered GeoNames before this discussion that you would have described it to anyone as a map. You are just being deliberately obtuse.

There are lots of maps I wouldn't normally describe as a map.

I'm sure there are.

For example, street directories, i.e. maps of where various streets are, normally with an index to help find the street.
Unless someone specifically started discussing if it was a map or not, I likely would just call it a street directory and not think of calling it a map.

Well I've a number of books containing maps. I call them books, but if you turn to a page with a map on it and say "what's" that, then I'm going to say "a map".

I have a map in my car, I'm not going to start calling my car a map either.

If Google Maps didn't have "maps" in its name, I probably wouldn't even describe that as a map.

Typically when referring to maps of all of Earth (or very large portions), I would refer to them as projections.

All accurate maps of ground features are projections of some sort or another. Do you want to stop using the word map altogether?

A single item can be described by many different words. People not using a particular word doesn't magically mean that thing isn't what is described by that particular word.

If you would like another example, consider people from Earth. How many people normally refer to those type of people as Earthlings?
Does that mean that no one on Earth is an Earthling? That we are actually all aliens, just because people don't normally use that word?

Apply my duck test then. Point to someone and ask are you an Earthling? They might look a bit puzzled, but they'll almost certainly understand what you are getting at. Show someone my map, ask "is this a map". Obviously they'll say "yes". Show them the spatial database anyhow you choose to, ask them "is this a map", you know full well what the answer will be. Maybe you can convince someone that a spacial database is a map if they've got an hour to spare, but I seriously doubt it.

Better yet, grab hold of them, show them your album of geotagged cat photos and say "look at my lovely map!". If you are lucky they'll back away slowly and you won't end up in a padded cell.

Quote

You are presupposing using a sextant+chronometer approach. Use a GPS.

You mean yet another thing FEers likely claim are in on the conspiracy, as they use satellites which orbit the globe and math based upon Earth being round to determine your location on Earth?

Yes I do. I'm trying to get to the bottom of where this complexity lies. If the complexity goes away entirely if you use GPS, then there is a separate topic to discuss, whether it is possible to convince someone that a GPS is accurate (doesn't matter what it is or how it works, plenty of people think it's ground based transmitters). So I repeat, if we were to use GPS, does the complexity disappear or not. If not, why not?

Quote

If you are using a sextant, why not use the stars, then you don't need to mess with the equation of time.

Because then you need to be able to identify what star is what.

OK, is that complex? Is that the real issue?

Quote

It's impossible for me to fly to New York today for many reasons. Flying to New York is not difficult.

Notice how you have 2 different tasks.
Flying to New York is not difficult, but YOU flying to New York TODAY is impossible.

Notice how it's exactly the same task with some constraints.

Quote

What exactly can I do with the GeoNames database (and I don't mean the online GeoNames application, I mean the database, the thing you download)?

What exactly can I do with the image you provided if I don't have a program that can open png files?

I'd suggest you take your device back to where you bought it and complain it is defective if it's incapable of opening a PNG.

So let's say paracetamol is a drug and a medicine, where does that get us? Two names for exactly the same thing. I think only a true pedant would argue against that interpretation. I can take the drug paracetamol or the medicine paracetamol. Absolutely interchangeable. Contrast with map and spatial database.

They are not completely interchangeable.
As you said, not all drugs are medicines.

That means they are not absolutely interchangeable.

If Joe public is going to immediately recognise it as a map with or without labels or scale, then that's reason enough for me. Passes my duck test for sure.

Just like a paper cut-out of a duck would pass your "duck" test.

Your standard seems to be "can I get some idiot to think this is a map"
That is a very poor standard.
It will result in plenty of maps being rejected as not a map and not-maps being deemed to be maps.

And now you even admit that you don't care if what you made is a map, as long as you can convince someone it is a map.

All accurate maps of ground features are projections of some sort or another. Do you want to stop using the word map altogether?

You sure do love completely missing the point don't you?
The point is people not instantly using the word doesn't mean it isn't that word.
So someone using the phrase spatial database doesn't mean it isn't a map.

Apply my duck test then. Point to someone and ask are you an Earthling?

That wasn't your "duck test".

Here is your duck test from before:

However, before leaving this alone, let me suggest an experiment for you. Print the following two out and show them to a random group of people on the street and ask them to describe what they see:

So that would mean to follow your duck test you don't ask specifically what they are. That is planting a suggestion which will alter what they say.
Instead it would be something like show a bunch of people either a picture of a human or an alien, and see how many recognise the human as an Earthling. Because no one would, by your reasoning that means that human is not an Earthling.

And again, you keep ignoring the point, it is not a map for people, it is a map for a computer.
Do you understand the difference?

If you would like something similar, take something from one culture, and ask someone from a fundamentally different culture, with no understanding of the original culture, and see if they still recognise it as what the original culture does.

Does the person from the second culture not recognising it mean the person from the first culture is wrong?
No.

So if you want the comparison to be valid and fair, get a sentient computer and ask it.

Yes I do. I'm trying to get to the bottom of where this complexity lies.

Which again shows you don't actually understand what complexity is.

Where is the complexity inside a clock?
Each gear simply meshes with another gear to turn. There is nothing complex at all. Yet the clock is complex.

Where it the complexity in a double pendulum? And pendulum is very simple.

The complexity comes from combining things.
If you are trying to understand where the complexity comes from by breaking it down into tiny parts, you don't understand what complexity is.

Notice how it's exactly the same task with some constraints.

You can't get much more contradictory than that.
A simple way to express that same statement is:
"Notice how it's exactly the same task, but different"

Those differences, those constraints, means it ISN'T the exact same task.
It is a different task.

What you are doing is saying task A is impossible, that doesn't mean task B is difficult.
That isn't surprising.
We are discussing task A.
You are saying that task A is easy, and that A is impossible.

That is a contradiction.
If it is easy, then it is possible.

I'd suggest you take your device back to where you bought it and complain it is defective if it's incapable of opening a PNG.

The device doesn't determine it, the software does.
And again, you ignore the point.

The point is that your png file is entirely useless as a map, without software which can open that png file, interpret what is inside it, and present it as an image.
Likewise, the spatial database is entirely useless as a map, without software which can open/access that database, interpret what is inside and present in some way.

Taking that database, treating it as a text file and printing it out to get people to say it isn't a map, is just as honest as taking that png file, opening it in a hex editor and printing out the hexadecimal string to get people to say it isn't a map.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 22, 2021, 06:42:11 AM

Apply my duck test then. Point to someone and ask are you an Earthling?

That wasn't your "duck test".

My duck test is a flexible test, it doesn't really matter who asks what question in whatever form, of whom, you can ask yourself if you want to. The point is my map looks like a map, you can use it like a map, hang it on the wall in a classroom like a map etc. etc. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

So if you want the comparison to be valid and fair, get a sentient computer and ask it.

Oh yes please and why don't we ask Bigfoot and a Unicorn while we are at it, see what they think?

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 22, 2021, 06:42:11 AM

Yes I do. I'm trying to get to the bottom of where this complexity lies.

Which again shows you don't actually understand what complexity is.

Where is the complexity inside a clock?
Each gear simply meshes with another gear to turn. There is nothing complex at all. Yet the clock is complex.

Where it the complexity in a double pendulum? And pendulum is very simple.

The complexity comes from combining things.
If you are trying to understand where the complexity comes from by breaking it down into tiny parts, you don't understand what complexity is.

Oh a clock? Love this analogy, going to run with it if I may, see where this takes us.

So, let's start with two clocks, A and B and one of those large plastic boxes, divided up into lots of small compartments.

Let's start to dismantle B. We'll put each part in it's own compartment in the box. Once we've removed a couple of parts, clock B will cease to function as a clock, it is now practically useless. Continue on until B is completely dismantled and now sits in the box. Is A complex? Yes. Is B complex? Not any more, it's just a box of bits. So where did the complexity go? The key is that a clock is a very precisely constructed set of interconnected and critically interdependent parts such that any one part which is removed or defective is likely to render the whole thing useless. With B however, the parts are now independent of each other, an individual part can be defective or missing without any noticeable effect.

So now let's have a survey. 1000 people, each surveying 100 random locations. Are these interconnected and critically interdependent? Not at all. If one of our volunteers fails to complete their task or doesn't turn up, this has no effect whatsoever on the other 999.

So which is the closest analogy to our survey, clock A or the dismantled B in a box?

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 22, 2021, 06:42:11 AM

I'd suggest you take your device back to where you bought it and complain it is defective if it's incapable of opening a PNG.

The device doesn't determine it, the software does.
And again, you ignore the point.

The point is that your png file is entirely useless as a map, without software which can open that png file, interpret what is inside it, and present it as an image.
Likewise, the spatial database is entirely useless as a map, without software which can open/access that database, interpret what is inside and present in some way.

Taking that database, treating it as a text file and printing it out to get people to say it isn't a map, is just as honest as taking that png file, opening it in a hex editor and printing out the hexadecimal string to get people to say it isn't a map.

The point is you have a device which doesn't have any kind of Web browser on it (because any modern browser will natively open a PNG) and doesn't have any image capability whatsoever. You are talking about a DOS PC from the '80s. You are having to invent a nonsensical scenario to get around the fact that if you display a PNG in it's natural form, it will be an image, and there are lots of different ways to do that which any device bought in the last 10 years will have no problem with automatically.

The spatial database on the other hand doesn't have any software I can find, built in or downloadable, that is capable of displaying it in any form which any reasonable person would point to and recognise as a map.

My duck test is a flexible test, it doesn't really matter who asks what question in whatever form, of whom, you can ask yourself if you want to.

But you don't seem to like that. I accept it is a map, I'm sure there are plenty of mathematicians that would recognise it as a map as well. Conversely, I wouldn't say what you produced is a map, because it lacks so many things. You have a picture, with a few different coloured regions. There is no marking of latitude or longitude, there is no marking of what anything is, such as what country something is.

But if I can ask anyone, I'll just go ask a bunch of blind people if what you have is a map. What do you think they would say?

The point is my map looks like a map, you can use it like a map

Again, it bares superficial resemblence to some maps, and by your own criteria, you can't use it like a map.

Conversely, the spatial database you dismiss as not a map, you can use like a map, to determine the location of things, and determine what is at a particular location.
You can even find the location of multiple things and use that to  navigate between them, or determine the distance between them.

Oh yes please and why don't we ask Bigfoot and a Unicorn while we are at it, see what they think?

No thanks, neither of them are computers. But if you gave your "map" to a unicorn, do you think it would recognise it as a map?

Again, your argument is that it isn't a map, because a human, which this map is not for, would not recognise it as a map, when it is presented in one particular form.

Let's start to dismantle B. We'll put each part in it's own compartment in the box. Once we've removed a couple of parts, clock B will cease to function as a clock, it is now practically useless. Continue on until B is completely dismantled and now sits in the box. Is A complex? Yes. Is B complex? Not any more, it's just a box of bits. So where did the complexity go? The key is that a clock is a very precisely constructed set of interconnected and critically interdependent parts such that any one part which is removed or defective is likely to render the whole thing useless. With B however, the parts are now independent of each other, an individual part can be defective or missing without any noticeable effect.

You can actually remove a lot of the clock without it stopping working entirely.
For example, plenty have 3 hands, and you can remove a significant part of the mechanism driving one of them and still have the others functions just fine.

So now let's have a survey. 1000 people, each surveying 100 random locations. Are these interconnected and critically interdependent? Not at all. If one of our volunteers fails to complete their task or doesn't turn up, this has no effect whatsoever on the other 999.

So any system with redundancy is not complex, as you can remove that redundant component and the system still works?
Typically redundancy makes things more complex.

The question isn't what happens when you remove 1, it is what happens if you remove all bar 1?
With a clock, if you remove all bar 1 gear, it doesn't work at all. You just have a gear sitting there.

Likewise, if you want a map, you need more than 1 point, having a single point is useless for making a map.

The point is you have a device

Again, the point is, your claim of it not being a map is based entirely upon presentation and how a human perceives that presentation.
Humans not recognising a particular presentation of information as a map, doesn't mean it isn't a map. Especially not when it is a map for a computer, not a human.
What actually matters is the information. The presentation would be to determine what it is for.

a PNG in it's natural form

Is a stream of 1s and 0s.
Not a map.

In a less natural form, it is an archive, with compressed data.

In a less natural form it is a matrix of values.

It is only several steps away from the natural form that it is displayed as an image.

A database in its natural form is a collection of information. What matters is how you interact with it.

The spatial database on the other hand doesn't have any software I can find, built in or downloadable, that is capable of displaying it in any form which any reasonable person would point to and recognise as a map.

So you are saying "any reasonable person" would not point to what you produced and recognised as a map?

As for appealing to finding software, the PNG format was made in 1996, quite some time ago. It had quite few competing formats. I think the main one was GIF which was quite limited compared to PNG (but was animated). It was made into a standard. And then plenty of things adopted that standard. That is why it is so easy to open them.

Conversely, this database was made in 2005, it is a fairly niche thing, and there are competing databases. One of which is Google Maps. So it isn't surprising you can't easily find software to open it.

And you seemed to have ignored your contradiction.

Can an impossible task be easy?
Not a task similar to that impossible task, but the same task.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 23, 2021, 02:00:31 AM

My duck test is a flexible test, it doesn't really matter who asks what question in whatever form, of whom, you can ask yourself if you want to.

But you don't seem to like that. I accept it is a map, I'm sure there are plenty of mathematicians that would recognise it as a map as well. Conversely, I wouldn't say what you produced is a map, because it lacks so many things. You have a picture, with a few different coloured regions. There is no marking of latitude or longitude, there is no marking of what anything is, such as what country something is.

So with a little extra effort, adding a latitude/longitude grid and country names, it would be an acceptable map? Or are you then going to say it lacks some other feature which disqualifies it?

But if I can ask anyone, I'll just go ask a bunch of blind people if what you have is a map. What do you think they would say?

I'm guessing they would say "why are you asking us, we're blind".

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 23, 2021, 02:00:31 AM

The point is my map looks like a map, you can use it like a map

Again, it bares superficial resemblence to some maps, and by your own criteria, you can't use it like a map.


Conversely, the spatial database you dismiss as not a map, you can use like a map, to determine the location of things, and determine what is at a particular location.
You can even find the location of multiple things and use that to  navigate between them, or determine the distance between them.

I've said I can produce maps in several different projections at different scales. My rectangular world map would be a match for someone else's rectangular world map. What can I do with someone else's world map that can't be done with my world map?

There is no map in existence that anyone would instantly recognise as a map that you could swap out for a spatial database. Try putting a spatial database on a classroom wall.

How are you proposing to navigate between two cities using a spatial database? How are you going to measure the distance between two places using a spatial database?

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 23, 2021, 02:00:31 AM

Oh yes please and why don't we ask Bigfoot and a Unicorn while we are at it, see what they think?

No thanks, neither of them are computers. But if you gave your "map" to a unicorn, do you think it would recognise it as a map?

Missing the all important issue, which is that none of them actually exist so the exercise is theoretical and pointless.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 23, 2021, 02:00:31 AM

Let's start to dismantle B. We'll put each part in it's own compartment in the box. Once we've removed a couple of parts, clock B will cease to function as a clock, it is now practically useless. Continue on until B is completely dismantled and now sits in the box. Is A complex? Yes. Is B complex? Not any more, it's just a box of bits. So where did the complexity go? The key is that a clock is a very precisely constructed set of interconnected and critically interdependent parts such that any one part which is removed or defective is likely to render the whole thing useless. With B however, the parts are now independent of each other, an individual part can be defective or missing without any noticeable effect.

You can actually remove a lot of the clock without it stopping working entirely.
For example, plenty have 3 hands, and you can remove a significant part of the mechanism driving one of them and still have the others functions just fine.

Oh really. Well a complex clock is likely to have 100 plus parts. Randomly take away 10 of those and tell me if the clock still works.

Randomly take away 10 parts from a box of clock parts and tell me if you notice any significant change.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 23, 2021, 02:00:31 AM

a PNG in it's natural form

Is a stream of 1s and 0s.

No it isn't, it's magnetised particles on a disk platter or voltages in a wire or.... If you decide you want to interpret it as a stream of 1s and 0s or hex digits or octal digits or holes in a punched card, then of course you can, but one is no more natural than any other artificial interpretation of something that you basically expect to see as an image.

So with a little extra effort, adding a latitude/longitude grid and country names, it would be an acceptable map? Or are you then going to say it lacks some other feature which disqualifies it?

You were the one trying to provide a list of requirements for something to be a map.

But in my mind, the only problem then really preventing that from being a map is that you aren't actually mapping the countries.
For example, as already stated you are missing a large chunk of Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Russia, China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and loads of countries in the Middle east and South Africa, and Antarctica (although that isn't a country).

This is because you aren't actually mapping countries. Instead you are mapping specific places, and colouring by country.
So what you would actually need to do is put the names of all those places you have plotted onto the map.

I'm guessing they would say "why are you asking us, we're blind".

But the point remains. They don't recognise what you produced as a map.

I've said I can produce maps in several different projections at different scales. My rectangular world map would be a match for someone else's rectangular world map. What can I do with someone else's world map that can't be done with my world map?

How about determine where the US is, without already knowing where it is?
Grab a random map from Google, and hey, you've got it clearly labelled.
How about see the actual land of the country? Your map has far too many holes. Is most of Greenland water? (and no, I don't mean that in the sense of ice).

There is no map in existence that anyone would instantly recognise as a map that you could swap out for a spatial database. Try putting a spatial database on a classroom wall.

Most people recognise Google Maps as a map. That is a spatial database. Again, PRESENTATION MATTER!
Stop acting like a spatial database is just a table of text.

How are you proposing to navigate between two cities using a spatial database? How are you going to measure the distance between two places using a spatial database?

How would you do that on your map? Especially as your map doesn't even have those cities, and no indication of where any roads are?
Even if you did have those, if you wanted to follow a great circle route, the first step would be to determine the latitude and longitude of each location. You then plug these into formula to determine the distance and the direction to initially travel.

So the first thing you would do is get the information the spatial database provides directly.

Missing the all important issue

No, that would be you, continually.
I don't care if none exist. The point is your test is invalid.

Again, showing a human a particular presentation of a map for a computer and the human not recognising it as a map doesn't mean it isn't a map.

Oh really. Well a complex clock is likely to have 100 plus parts. Randomly take away 10 of those and tell me if the clock still works.

You sure do love ignoring the point.
Again, it depends upon what kind of redundancy is there.

If you were to randomly take away 10 parts of a plane, chances are the plane would still work. Does that mean it isn't complex?

Again, the issue is what value is a single part?
In all cases being discussed, except your box of parts, basically nothing.

It is only when combined with the other parts that it becomes useful.
That is what makes it complex.

No it isn't, it's magnetised particles on a disk platter

No, it isn't.
That is a few stages too far.
While it may be stored as that, in that form, it is not a PNG file. A PNG file is storage agnostic. It defined at the level of bytes, so technically I should have said a stream of bytes.

But that is the natural form, a stream of bytes. That is how the file format is defined. The first few bytes are the hex value 89, ASCII P, ASCII N, ASCII G, CR, LF, EOF, LF.
After that there are a series of chunks, again, specified with bytes.

It does not matter what medium that file is stored in, that is the natural form of a PNG.
It takes the computer several layers of processing to go from this natural form to the form of an image on a screen or printout.

And again you ignore the points that show you are wrong.

No comment on why PNG is so easily openable and why you wouldn't expect GeoNames to be?
Have you realised that line of reasoning is wrong?

No comment on the Google Maps spatial database having an easily accessible interface? Technically the more appropriate name is a GIS. This is because it contains not only the database, but the interface for it. Just like a PNG file is useless without an interface (the program to open and display it), a spatial database is useless without an interface (a program to access and display it).

If you want to say it is only the actual presentation that is the map, then my screen made the "map", not you.

And again, can an impossible task be easy?
You have said you flying to New York today is impossible, is that still the case today, and if so, is it easy?
Again, not just flying to New York in general, but YOU flying to New York today? Such that it is the same task.

There is no flat earth map on a flat piece of paper with a fixed scale and accurate distances. That fact all by itself should end the debate. But it won't.

See?  I was right.

This thread has degenerated into a pointless semantics debate.

Quote from: Platonius21 on July 03, 2021, 07:58:12 PM

There is no flat earth map on a flat piece of paper with a fixed scale and accurate distances. That fact all by itself should end the debate. But it won't.

See?  I was right.

This thread has degenerated into a pointless semantics debate.

Yep, agreed.

So what you would actually need to do is put the names of all those places you have plotted onto the map.

You are suggesting I put 11 million labels on a small map? That'll just create a complete mess.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 23, 2021, 05:06:08 AM

I'm guessing they would say "why are you asking us, we're blind".

But the point remains. They don't recognise what you produced as a map.

There are many situations where some issue needs to be resolved and the traditional way is put it before the public to decide one way or another. Trial by jury is one, referendums and elections are others.

You wouldn't expect to have a jury full of blind people to decide an issue that hinged on visual recognition, so I don't see the point in you bringing this up. Equally what is the point of saying ask a sentient computer. They don't exist.

I'm confident that if you just asked a few members of the general public what they thought, then they wouldn't have any trouble recognising one thing as a map and the other  as not a map. I can't see any unfairness in that test.

If you've other evidence to present, which has a bearing, by all means present it, but so far all I hear is you stating a database is a map because you say it is.

How about see the actual land of the country? Your map has far too many holes. Is most of Greenland water? (and no, I don't mean that in the sense of ice).

So I see you had absolutely no problem whatsoever in taking the thing I produced, which you claim is a stream of bytes, which has no labels of any kind and no grid, can't be called a map for any number of reasons and immediately identifying Greenland.

Most people recognise Google Maps as a map. That is a spatial database. Again, PRESENTATION MATTER!

So now Google Maps is a spatial database is it? Again, you just throw out a completely unsubstantiated claim with no evidence. Sure, it will no doubt make use of spatial data from a database. It also includes satellite and aerial photos. There is a world of difference between "is" and "uses". So you made the claim, show us the evidence.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 23, 2021, 05:06:08 AM

How are you proposing to navigate between two cities using a spatial database? How are you going to measure the distance between two places using a spatial database?

How would you do that on your map?

No, you made the claim about GeoNames, you justify your claim, don't change the subject. You claim it can be done, how?

If you were to randomly take away 10 parts of a plane, chances are the plane would still work. Does that mean it isn't complex?

No, no. We were talking about clocks and I asked you, which was the most appropriate analogy, the intact clock A or the dismantled clock B.

Randomly take 10 parts off a plane and I'm not flying on that plane thank you very much. I'll take the later flight.

But that is the natural form, a stream of bytes. That is how the file format is defined. The first few bytes are the hex value 89, ASCII P, ASCII N, ASCII G, CR, LF, EOF, LF.
After that there are a series of chunks, again, specified with bytes.

That's just one interpretation. There are many at many different levels and who cares anyway, it doesn't have to be a PNG, it could be BMP, GIF or JPEG. You can very easily convert between the different formats and the image will still look the same.

Print it onto some paper, still looks the same and your whole argument about is it bits or bytes is then redundant.

Now, can you tell me any way at all (which actually exists), other than using my software, how you can convert GeoNames into a diagrammatic map? If they are one and the same thing, then it should be at least possible to turn one into the other, just as you can turn one image format into an other.

You are suggesting I put 11 million labels on a small map? That'll just create a complete mess.

No, you could make it bigger.
Or make it interactive, so the point you highlight is shown.

But like I already said, with the map you provided, you don't have 11 million points.
You have less than 6 million, and the majority of them are blank.
I would say it is closer to 1 million.

You wouldn't expect to have a jury full of blind people to decide an issue that hinged on visual recognition

And with that, you have already biased it.
Again, you are basing it on what you want a map to be, and ignoring the underlying information.

But the same argument applies against you. You wouldn't use a jury of humans to determine if a map for a computer is a map.
All you succeed in doing with a jury of humans is show that it is not a map for humans.
Likewise, presenting your image to a jury of blind people, will simply show that it is not a map for blind people.

Again, that is why it is brought up.
Presentation, and who is evaluating it matters.

I can't see any unfairness in that test.

Because you don't want to.
Why would you expect a human to instinctively recognise a map for a computer as a map?
Their instincts will instinctively recognise a map for humans, and things which superficially resemble a map for humans, as a map.
But the map you object to being a map is not a map for humans. That is why it is unfair.

So I see you had absolutely no problem whatsoever in taking the thing I produced, which you claim is a stream of bytes, which has no labels of any kind and no grid, can't be called a map for any number of reasons and immediately identifying Greenland.

Only because I already know it is Greenland.
Give it to someone who has no idea of world geography, who has no idea what country is where or what each country looks like, and see if they can tell.

So now Google Maps is a spatial database is it?

Yes, the more complete term is GIS.
Because that includes both the underlying database, and the software to use it.
The software is what "opens" the database to present it in a way which is unambiguously a map.

Sure, it will no doubt make use of spatial data from a database.

i.e. it is a spatial database.

There is a world of difference between "is" and "uses".

The same can be argued against your "map".
What you have is a stream of bytes.
A program uses this stream of bytes to generate an image which is then displayed on a screen.
By your argument, you have not produced a map, you have a produce a stream of bytes which a computer can use to produce a map.

The stream of bytes is equivalent to the spatial database.
With a specific form of presentation, it will not be instinctively recognised as a map.

The web interface for Google Maps, for its spatial database is equivalent to a PNG viewer for your PNG file.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 23, 2021, 04:02:08 PM

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 23, 2021, 05:06:08 AM

How are you proposing to navigate between two cities using a spatial database? How are you going to measure the distance between two places using a spatial database?

How would you do that on your map? Especially as your map doesn't even have those cities, and no indication of where any roads are?
Even if you did have those, if you wanted to follow a great circle route, the first step would be to determine the latitude and longitude of each location. You then plug these into formula to determine the distance and the direction to initially travel.

So the first thing you would do is get the information the spatial database provides directly.

No, you made the claim about GeoNames, you justify your claim, don't change the subject.

I extended the quote a bit so you can easily see how you would do it. Why dishonestly strip away the very answer to your question? Is it because you know "your map" is no better than GeoNames for that task, and in fact "your map" is worse?

I asked how you would do it with your map, to show that your own argument against the spatial database being a map works against your own map. This is still the subject, the criteria you are trying to use to dismiss the map you used from being a map.

No, no. We were talking about clocks

Yes, and you appealed to redundancy, as if that redundancy meant it was no longer complex.
So I provided an example of a complex system with redundancy, to clearly show that redundancy does not make something non-complex.

If you want to stick to the clock, then the most appropriate analogy would be the intact clock, not the dismantled one. This is because map making still requires

That's just one interpretation.

No, that is the standard that defines the PNG format.
It is not merely an interpretation.
Also note that the parts I gave have nothing at all to do with the image itself, but actually describe it as a PNG file.

There are many at many different levels and who cares anyway, it doesn't have to be a PNG, it could be BMP, GIF or JPEG. You can very easily convert between the different formats and the image will still look the same.

You mean like how you converted between the txt file form of the spatial database to a png form?
(And no, they don't all look the same. For example, a JPEG has lossy compression, which will lose a large part of the data. GIF is limited in number of colours and has weird ways to show others, meaning the different formats do actually look different).

Print it onto some paper, still looks the same and your whole argument about is it bits or bytes is then redundant.

No, it isn't.
The argument is about presentation vs information.
You are now saying you can happily convert the format, appealing to the information that is contained, but all that information was already in the spatial database. Your output has less information. You converted it from one form to another.

You are explicitly trying to exclude one form of that information from being a map to claim you produced a map and didn't use an existing map.
Yet now you are trying to claim that you can happily convert it and it will still be the same thing.
But that means you didn't make a map, you converted an existing one to a different format, and in quite a lossy way.

Now, can you tell me any way at all (which actually exists), other than using my software, how you can convert GeoNames into a diagrammatic map? If they are one and the same thing, then it should be at least possible to turn one into the other, just as you can turn one image format into an other.

Again, I have already explained why it is non-trivial.
Images have a few main standards with a various benefits of each. They are standardised and quite commonly used for a variety of purposes. This makes software to open and convert them common place.

Geonames is far more niche, is significantly newer, not a standard, and that alone is enough to mean you wont easily be able to find software to access the database and convert it to other forms.
The ability or lack thereof to easily find such software is irrelevant to if it is a map or not.

If you produced yours using a niche image format which not everyone could easily open, would that then mean what you had is not a map?

If I made a map, and my own image format, and then saved that map in that format, would it not be a map, because it is an obscure format that not everyone can open?

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 25, 2021, 05:58:06 AM

You are suggesting I put 11 million labels on a small map? That'll just create a complete mess.

No, you could make it bigger.

11 million labels, how much bigger do you suggest?

But like I already said, with the map you provided, you don't have 11 million points.

Yes I do. The map has (over) 11 million plotted. Many of the points overlap because of the pixel size and scale. At the equator, each pixel represents a block of approximately 50 square miles. There may be several features inside that block.

Quote

You wouldn't expect to have a jury full of blind people to decide an issue that hinged on visual recognition

And with that, you have already biased it.
Again, you are basing it on what you want a map to be, and ignoring the underlying information.

But the same argument applies against you. You wouldn't use a jury of humans to determine if a map for a computer is a map.

Of course you would. If GeoNames decides to sue me because they claim I haven't done anything original (as I'm claiming) and everything hinges on whether GeoNames is or is not a map, who do you think is going to decide the issue? I don't recognise this world of yours where we all defer to a mythical sentient computer for answers.

The court of common sense isn't going to require much in the way of evidence from me that what I've produced is a map. The duck test says it's a map.

You on the other hand are making a claim which on the face of it, is unusual. What you have to prove is that a human readable text file with some words and numbers in, is a map. That's a pretty extraordinary claim, so you need to present lots of compelling evidence (does any recognised authority refer to is as a map? Do the creators refer to it as a map?) and a sensible argument. Simply repeating "it's a map, it's a map" in an echo chamber doesn't cut it.

Only because I already know it is Greenland.
Give it to someone who has no idea of world geography, who has no idea what country is where or what each country looks like, and see if they can tell.

Sure, give it to someone who has never heard of the word map, let alone seen one and they are not going to recognise it. So what. Proves nothing.

Quote

So now Google Maps is a spatial database is it?

Yes, the more complete term is GIS.
Because that includes both the underlying database, and the software to use it.
The software is what "opens" the database to present it in a way which is unambiguously a map.

Here we go again, yet another evidence free baseless assertion. Just for once can we see some actual evidence, pick some GIS software, plenty to choose from, demonstrate that it has an "underlying database" (why would it?) and then demonstrate that it generates a map from said mythical database (and nothing else).

I can point you to any number of tutorials for GIS software and all of them are going to start off from nothing, no "underlying database" and the first step is to add a base digitised map from Google or OpenStreetMap or Ordnance Survey or some other source. You then layer on additional information from other data sources to create the map you want.

Quote

Sure, it will no doubt make use of spatial data from a database.

i.e. it is a spatial database.

My car uses petrol. i.e. my car is petrol. Nonsensical and illogical conclusion.

By your argument, you have not produced a map, you have a produce a stream of bytes which a computer can use to produce a map.

My camera produces a stream of bytes. I listen to a stream of bytes on a music CD. I watch a stream of bytes when I go to the cinema. I'm typing a stream of bytes right now.

I say my camera takes pictures, my CD player plays music and I watch films at the cinema. According to you they are none of these things, they are just a stream of bytes. It might well be strictly accurate, but It's a very peculiar viewpoint.

Quote

No, no. We were talking about clocks

If you want to stick to the clock, then the most appropriate analogy would be the intact clock, not the dismantled one. This is because map making still requires

Still requires what exactly?

Geonames is far more niche, is significantly newer, not a standard, and that alone is enough to mean you wont easily be able to find software to access the database and convert it to other forms.
The ability or lack thereof to easily find such software is irrelevant to if it is a map or not.

It's been around 16 years and is very widely used. There are plugins for most of the major GIS programs, so yes, there is plenty of software available to make use of GeoNames, but nothing to turn it into a readable map. GeoNames is an incredibly useful resource, but it isn't a map, people don't use it as map. I haven't seen a single complaint out there from a GIS user saying, "I can't figure out how to display GeoNames as a map". On a map, yes, as a map, no.

11 million labels, how much bigger do you suggest?

As big as needed so you can see them all. Or, trim down the amount of labels you have, or make it hover.

Many of the points overlap because of the pixel size and scale.

And that means you have less than 11 million actual points on your image.

Of course you would.

No, you wouldn't.
Again, asking a bunch of people if they instinctively recognise it as a map is no more honest than asking a bunch of blind people if they recognise your image as a map.
It is not an honest test at all.

A far more honest approach would be trying to rationally analyse it, coming up with a simple set of criteria and seeing if it matches.

Give blind people a map made specifically for blind people and they will recognise it as one. But give them a map that isn't, and they wont.
The same applies for people in general. If they are given a map made for people (or even something superficially resembling one), they will likely recognise it as one. Give them a map in a form not made for a human and they wont.

That is why your test is dishonest and useless for determining if a map made for a computer is a map.

Sure, give it to someone who has never heard of the word map

Your strawman proves nothing. We can give people maps of fictional places, and they can use those maps to identify places in this fictional world, including determining their position relative to each other, and their size and so on. But your map doesn't allow people to identify anything they haven't already identified using an actual map.

demonstrate that it has an "underlying database" (why would it?)

Almost everything on the web operates with a form of a database. And that includes Google Maps. Just how do you think they store where everything is?

I can point you to any number of tutorials for GIS software and all of them are going to start off from nothing, no "underlying database" and the first step is to add a base digitised map from Google or OpenStreetMap or Ordnance Survey or some other source. You then layer on additional information from other data sources to create the map you want.

Try getting one that doesn't just grab a map from elsewhere.
Get one which starts from nothing and builds a map from scratch. And then tell me where it stores that information.

But as you want to appeal to OpenStreetMap as a source, should I have used that instead of Google Maps?
After all, its name is OpenStreetMap, singular. So I guess by your reasoning it is a single map rather than a collection.
You can then export a region of the map, and how does it export? Well it exports under the Open Data Commons Open Database License. That makes me think it is a database.

It exports a part of this database as an OSM file.
It starts out like this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<osm version="0.6" generator="CGImap 0.8.5 (2378980 spike-08.openstreetmap.org)" copyright="OpenStreetMap and contributors" attribution="http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright" license="http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/">
 <bounds minlat="52.6290900" minlon="1.2905400" maxlat="52.6304300" maxlon="1.2947600"/>
 <node id="328792" visible="true" version="10" changeset="9754443" timestamp="2011-11-06T12:36:32Z" user="Borbus" uid="379166" lat="52.6290653" lon="1.2911312"/>
 <node id="328797" visible="true" version="6" changeset="12130292" timestamp="2012-07-06T13:07:28Z" user="Pink Duck" uid="91657" lat="52.6306068" lon="1.2939000">
  <tag k="highway" v="traffic_signals"/>
 </node>And has other parts like this:
<node id="565464884" visible="true" version="6" changeset="107771006" timestamp="2021-07-11T07:48:39Z" user="Robert Whittaker" uid="84263" lat="52.6291890" lon="1.2907360">
  <tag k="addr:city" v="Norwich"/>
  <tag k="addr:housenumber" v="25"/>
  <tag k="addr:postcode" v="NR2 1JL"/>
  <tag k="addr:street" v="St Giles Street"/>
  <tag k="name" v="Kumon"/>
  <tag k="office" v="educational_institution"/>
  <tag k="phone" v="+44 1603 208886"/>
  <tag k="surveillance" v="public"/>
  <tag k="url" v="http://sites.google.com/site/norwichpolicecctv/"/>
  <tag k="website" v="https://www.kumon.co.uk/Norwich/index.htm"/>
 </node>
&
<way id="3403781" visible="true" version="20" changeset="72270203" timestamp="2019-07-15T15:12:52Z" user="Pink Duck" uid="91657">
  <nd ref="6616870093"/>
  <nd ref="431145948"/>
  <nd ref="1493186997"/>
  <nd ref="431146248"/>
  <nd ref="431146249"/>
  <nd ref="288780630"/>
  <nd ref="1493187030"/>
  <nd ref="431146247"/>
  <nd ref="328798"/>
  <nd ref="431146014"/>
  <tag k="highway" v="tertiary"/>
  <tag k="highway_authority_ref" v="C853"/>
  <tag k="lanes" v="1"/>
  <tag k="maintenance" v="salting"/>
  <tag k="maxspeed" v="20 mph"/>
  <tag k="name" v="Exchange Street"/>
  <tag k="oneway" v="yes"/>
  <tag k="parking:lane:right" v="no_parking"/>
  <tag k="postal_code" v="NR2 1DP"/>
  <tag k="salting:operator" v="Norwich City Council"/>
  <tag k="salting:ref" v="NKE043"/>
  <tag k="sidewalk" v="both"/>
  <tag k="source:highway_authority_ref" v="foi_request"/>
  <tag k="surface" v="asphalt"/>
 </way>Other than being an xml file instead of plain text, and having more information, this is quite like the export from GeoNames.
It would fail your "duck test" and people would not recognise this xml file as map.

Does this mean it isn't a map?
That something calling itself OpenStreetMAP isn't a map?
Just because it fails your dishonest duck test?

Yes, the xml is structured as a .osm file, and there is more compatibility, but I can't open it on my computer as anything other than text.
And that will apply to the vast majority of people.

My car uses petrol. i.e. my car is petrol. Nonsensical and illogical conclusion.

If you bothered reading what I said you would understand that is nothing like the comparison I was making.
Again, the database is the information that is stored, the software presents that information, just like a PNG file.

Should I provide the same kind of strawman for you?
An image viewer uses your file to produce what you call a map. For the sake of arguments, lets call it a map.
But that uses the file, it is not the file.
So by your claim, a car uses petrol, therefore petrol is a car. Nonsensical and illogical conclusion.

According to you they are none of these things

No, according to you they are, for the same reason you claim the spatial database is not a map.

Stop trying to apply a double standard. Either focus on the information itself, or focus on the actual presentation of that data.

Again, by your own argument, either that spatial database is already a map, because it contains all the information you "map" does and more, and you merely converted it; or you have not made a map, instead you have made a PNG file which my computer uses to make a map. (again, giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying its a map)
Which is it?

Still requires what exactly?

My bad, it seems I didn't finish that sentence, but from context it is quite clear, it still requires an interaction between the parts, quite unlike your non-interacting box of parts.

Again, does redundancy magically make something non-complex?

It's been around 16 years and is very widely used.

Widely used by who?
Almost everyone who uses a computer will use various image formats. But plenty of people would live their lives without the use of GeoNames.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 26, 2021, 04:17:34 AM

11 million labels, how much bigger do you suggest?

As big as needed so you can see them all. Or, trim down the amount of labels you have, or make it hover.

Well 11 million labels, if you printed them in an an average sized book in a reasonable font would require about 30k pages, so I guess my map would need to be of the order of 30k book sized pages. My rough calculation says about 1/4 acre. Probably a bit big to post here.

Quote

Many of the points overlap because of the pixel size and scale.

And that means you have less than 11 million actual points on your image.

It just means I chose to post it in a reasonable resolution for the forum. I still plotted all 11 million. They are all represented on the map and making a contribution even if the map is too grainy to resolve all of the detail. If I take a photo of the moon, every photon from every bit of the surface that enters the lens is contributing to the image, but that doesn't mean you can resolve it in the resultant image. I can't for example resolve the Apollo 11 lander.

Quote

Of course you would.

No, you wouldn't.

If I have a copyright dispute with GeoNames and we can't settle it, other than going to court, how else are we resolving it?

Quote

I can point you to any number of tutorials for GIS software and all of them are going to start off from nothing, no "underlying database" and the first step is to add a base digitised map from Google or OpenStreetMap or Ordnance Survey or some other source. You then layer on additional information from other data sources to create the map you want.

Try getting one that doesn't just grab a map from elsewhere.
Get one which starts from nothing and builds a map from scratch. And then tell me where it stores that information.

Yes indeed, please do. That's exactly my point. Will you please try and find one which starts from nothing and builds a map from scratch. I can't find one. Can you?

But as you want to appeal to OpenStreetMap as a source, should I have used that instead of Google Maps?
...
Other than being an xml file instead of plain text, and having more information, this is quite like the export from GeoNames.
It would fail your "duck test" and people would not recognise this xml file as map.

Does this mean it isn't a map?
That something calling itself OpenStreetMAP isn't a map?
Just because it fails your dishonest duck test?

Yes, the xml is structured as a .osm file, and there is more compatibility, but I can't open it on my computer as anything other than text.
And that will apply to the vast majority of people.

The particular snippet you show doesn't really work as a map, but I'm happy to call an OSM export a map. The OSM export exports nodes, ways, relations - keys and tags. These are all the components you need, so nodes are point features, ways are ordered lists of nodes, so think roads, coastline etc. A way may form a closed loop, e.g. a state boundary.

The OSM export format is expressly designed so you can easily reconstitute it visually as a map. You know where your road starts, you know where it goes next, you know where it finishes. The ordering information is crucial, it creates lines and polygons, it gives the whole thing shape. Without it you just have a list of unconnected points. That's the crucial difference between GeoNames and a map. GeoNames is just a list of point nodes. Nothing is connected to anything else. Unlike the OSM export, there is nothing to tell you how to connect the dots.

The iconic London Underground map is an interesting example. None of the nodes (stations) are in the right physical locations, but they are all connected together via routes. It works very well as a map, but remove the routing information and it is useless.

A quick search pulls up a good selection of easily available tools which will open an OSM export and display it in diagrammatic map format . Not hard to find. Contrast with GeoNames (still waiting to hear if you've found anything).

Quote

My car uses petrol. i.e. my car is petrol. Nonsensical and illogical conclusion.

If you bothered reading what I said you would understand that is nothing like the comparison I was making.

I said Google maps (probably) uses spatial data. You said i.e. it's a spatial database. The argument you used is basically this:

  Socrates uses string
  (Therefore/i.e./in other words) Socrates is string

The i.e. to me means "therefore" or "in other words"

Quote

Still requires what exactly?

My bad, it seems I didn't finish that sentence, but from context it is quite clear, it still requires an interaction between the parts, quite unlike your non-interacting box of parts.

What interaction?

You and I in completely different places, using our sextants or whatever to determine our location. Where is the interaction? These are completely independent events.

Quote

It's been around 16 years and is very widely used.

Widely used by who?
Almost everyone who uses a computer will use various image formats. But plenty of people would live their lives without the use of GeoNames.

Widely used by people who work with GIS around the world. I'm not saying widely as in a widely viewed TicTok video where you probably need a billion views to even count these days, but it's probably in the thousands would be my guess.

I doubt OSM export is any more widely used than GeoNames, but plenty of choice of software there. Why is that do you think? Possibly because enough people would want to use the OSM format as a map to make it worthwhile, whereas using GeoNames as a map is not something anyone really wants to do, because that's not what it's for?

This thread has degenerated into a pointless semantics debate.

You don't say.

Quote from: Platonius21 on July 24, 2021, 07:30:13 AM

This thread has degenerated into a pointless semantics debate.

You don't say.

Are you not entertained? 

Well 11 million labels, if you printed them in an an average sized book in a reasonable font would require about 30k pages, so I guess my map would need to be of the order of 30k book sized pages. My rough calculation says about 1/4 acre. Probably a bit big to post here.

Last time I checked, people don't post books here.

It just means I chose to post it in a reasonable resolution for the forum.

It means your final "map" has far less than 11 million points.

But you just keep making the argument that your format isn't really all that great for what you were trying to show.
Far too low a resolution for all those points you want to plot and even worse if you want labels for them to show what you are plotting.
It is almost like there might be some better format for this information to make it more useful, especially if you could use a computer to search through it.

If I have a copyright dispute with GeoNames and we can't settle it, other than going to court, how else are we resolving it?

Through legal arguments over what constitutes creative original work.
It being a map or not likely would not enter the discussion.
Instead the 2 most likely factors would be the copyright license, and it being primarily factual, the latter making it ineligible for copyright protection as you cannot copyright facts.

Yes indeed, please do. That's exactly my point. Will you please try and find one which starts from nothing and builds a map from scratch. I can't find one. Can you?

You were the one claiming to make a tutorial. So that's on you. But how many people are wanting to use GIS to make a map from scratch?
It is almost as if map making is really hard so not many people want to make a map entirely from scratch. They would prefer to use an existing map and add to it.


But like I said, the first step of your tutorial is to grab a map from a different GIS.

The particular snippet you show doesn't really work as a map, but I'm happy to call an OSM export a map.

I'm talking about the entire file, not just the map.

The OSM export exports nodes, ways, relations - keys and tags. These are all the components you need, so nodes are point features, ways are ordered lists of nodes, so think roads, coastline etc. A way may form a closed loop, e.g. a state boundary.

Just like your text file which you repeatedly dismiss as not a map?
And your .osm fails your "duck test".
It isn't a file I can just give to anyone to open a computer, because most computers do not have the software to open it.
In its form as an xml file, it is a bunch of text that few people would recognise as a map.

That's the crucial difference between GeoNames and a map. GeoNames is just a list of point nodes. Nothing is connected to anything else.

And now you are just arguing against what you have produced.
You have a bunch of points plotted. The only "connection" information is their colour, which you obtained indirectly from the txt file.
So does that mean you don't have a map as all you have is a bunch of points?

All you have done is taken the information in the GeoName database and plotted it, the simplest being taking the coordinates as specified in the file and plotting them, with no transformation.
You have not added in any connecting information.

Again, your "map" contains far less information than the GeoNames database. Either that information is enough, and thus GeoNames is a map, or it lacks key information meaning it isn't a map and your png isn't a map.
Either the information is important and thus OSM and GeoNames can be considered maps, or the presentation is what matters so the osm file is not a map.


You are jumping around all over the place because you cannot come up with a consistent argument that allows what you made to be a map, and other things you recognise as a map to be a map, without also including GeoNames. Likewise you cannot come up with reasons why GeoNames isn't a map, without excluding other things you want to be a map.

A quick search pulls up a good selection of easily available tools which will open an OSM export and display it in diagrammatic map format . Not hard to find. Contrast with GeoNames (still waiting to hear if you've found anything).

You have already stated you can import it into GIS software.

I said Google maps (probably) uses spatial data. You said i.e. it's a spatial database. The argument you used is basically this:

Would you prefer if I said it is a graphical user interface for that spatial database?
It isn't simply that is just uses it, it is the source of the information displayed.
It uses that data in the same way that an image viewer uses a PNG file.

Again, by your reasoning (and just taking that the image is a map), you did not produce a map; you produced a PNG file.
My computer makes a map using your PNG file. That means the computer makes a map. It using the PNG file to make the map does not make the PNG file you made a map.

Otherwise, petrol is car, and string is Socrates.

What interaction?

The easiest way to understand the interaction is by their absence.
Try making your map from a single point and convincing anyone it is a map.
You need an interaction between the points such that there is some measure of distance between them such that they can be located relative to each other in this space (real or abstract).

Widely used by people who work with GIS around the world.

Remember, your standard was that anyone can open a png, and that if I can't I have a defective device, and that because you couldn't do the same with your .txt dump of GeoNames to get it in a pretty format, it isn't a map.

But now that it is something you want to be a map, you change your standard to allow it to be included.

I doubt OSM export is any more widely used than GeoNames, but plenty of choice of software there. Why is that do you think?

One is a really an xml file, which is quite useful for relations, where extra information can be easily added, and existing information can be removed without making it incompatible with existing software, this is because it is a very well defined format for data, which uses tags to identify what each piece of data is; while the other is a plain text file which requires quite precise understanding of exactly what each field is or is not to be able to get the data you want out of it, and a change to the format can break software using it.

One only contains locations of points, while the other has connection information. Normally when people want to show where something is they are doing to show how to navigate there, meaning streets are typically quite important, as are how those streets connect.

The network effect, combined with OSM starting first. More people use OSM, this leads to more software supporting it and more tutorials using it which leads to more people using it. And this use isn't just the exported data, but also data connected via a web API. This includes people like Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and so on.

Last time I checked, people don't post books here.

And you accuse me of missing the point? It's a rough calculation for the size of the map. 11 million labels would fill approximately 30k pages of a book. Tear each page out and lay in a grid pattern on the ground to get an estimate of how large the map would need to be to accommodate that many labels. Rough calculation says you would need a field of around 1/4 acre, so that's how large my map would need to be printed.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 26, 2021, 07:10:20 AM

It just means I chose to post it in a reasonable resolution for the forum.

It means your final "map" has far less than 11 million points.

If I were to generate the map at 9000x4500 resolution, I'd probably have 11 million separated data points. Double that just to be sure and print at 300dpi and that would make a very reasonable wall map. For the purposes of discussion on a forum, that resolution is completely impractical.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 26, 2021, 07:10:20 AM

If I have a copyright dispute with GeoNames and we can't settle it, other than going to court, how else are we resolving it?

Through legal arguments over what constitutes creative original work.
It being a map or not likely would not enter the discussion.
Instead the 2 most likely factors would be the copyright license, and it being primarily factual, the latter making it ineligible for copyright protection as you cannot copyright facts.

When I see a map or satellite image on TV news, it usually has an acknowledgement saying it's Google or whatever. I imagine that's because the news organisation has a specific legal agreement with Google, allowing them to do this. If I were to do the same and sell the image without permission, I would get into legal trouble over it.

You've stated many times that using GeoNames in the way that I do is no different to screenshotting a Google map, so if that were true, I'm copying GeoNames map and profiting from it if I decide to sell copies.

According to you, GeoNames would be within their rights to sue. I would argue that I've done no such thing. GeoNames is not a map and therefore I can't be accused of copying it.

This kind of issue crops up a lot with software. Did I just copy the idea or did I copy the code? One you can copyright, the other, usually not.

Courts decide these issues all the time. Sentient computers never do.
 

It is almost as if map making is really hard so not many people want to make a map entirely from scratch. They would prefer to use an existing map and add to it.

No, it's almost as if there are lots of maps available you can use and it's wasted effort to do it all yourself. However, if you are a flat earther and don't trust anything, you've ruled out using these maps and any software you didn't write yourself and you do need to make your own.

I'm offering a recipe for doing that. It has to be simple and it has to produce something that is recognisably a map with things in the right places.

And your .osm fails your "duck test".
It isn't a file I can just give to anyone to open a computer, because most computers do not have the software to open it.
In its form as an xml file, it is a bunch of text that few people would recognise as a map.

It doesn't fail my personal duck test because I used what you wrote, created an OSM export and opened it straight up with some software I already have. The styling is all wrong, so it would need to be tweaked, but the software had no problem whatsoever rendering it as a recognisable map:-

All you have done is taken the information in the GeoName database and plotted it, the simplest being taking the coordinates as specified in the file and plotting them, with no transformation.
You have not added in any connecting information.

There is a style of painting known as pointillism. The artist doesn't draw any lines or shapes, they create an image from small coloured dots in a pattern. My technique for drawing a map is essentially the same. The advantage is you don't need any shapes or lines or anything like that, only points. Technically very straightforward. It doesn't generate the best maps in the world, I don't claim that. It does generate usable, recognisable maps. If you want to write some software to generate your own map from an OSM export, you go ahead, but it'll be a lot more complicated.

There is a another good reason why my dots are not connected. GeoNames only contains points, nothing else, no information about if or how the points relate to each other. That is yet another reason why I reject your claim that it is a map. It is deficient for that purpose.

You have already stated you can import it into GIS software.

GIS can make use of it, but won't recognise it as a map. Because it isn't. GIS will immediately recognise an OSM export as a map and render it as a map without even being asked. If GIS were a sentient computer, it just voted.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 26, 2021, 07:10:20 AM

What interaction?

The easiest way to understand the interaction is by their absence.
Try making your map from a single point and convincing anyone it is a map.
You need an interaction between the points such that there is some measure of distance between them such that they can be located relative to each other in this space (real or abstract).

I can't make anything useful out of a single brick, but with enough I could make a wall or a house even. That doesn't mean the pile of bricks are interacting. No brick is any more important than any other. Contrast that with a clock. Remove the mainspring and it's completely useless because ultimately everything depends on it. Take any single brick away and I can still make a smaller wall or house.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 26, 2021, 07:10:20 AM

Widely used by people who work with GIS around the world.

Remember, your standard was that anyone can open a png, and that if I can't I have a defective device, and that because you couldn't do the same with your .txt dump of GeoNames to get it in a pretty format, it isn't a map.

That's my gold standard, yes. If you send me a file and I can double click on it and it opens as a photo of a cat or a video or a spreadsheet or a document, then I instantly recognise it for what it is.

Send me something that doesn't open or opens in some weird format, XML say and you now need to convince me. So you might say "download this software" and now I can open it and recognise it. However if you send me something and you can't provide me with any means at all to do anything with it, why should I believe any claim you make about what it is?

And you accuse me of missing the point?

Yes, the point is that you haven't really mapped anything. You have put a bunch of dots on a page, with no labels, nor any indication of what they are.

We aren't talking about a printed map either. If you noticed one of the suggestions I gave needs it to not be printed, as it is interactive.

When I see a map or satellite image on TV news, it usually has an acknowledgement saying it's Google or whatever. I imagine that's because the news organisation has a specific legal agreement with Google, allowing them to do this. If I were to do the same and sell the image without permission, I would get into legal trouble over it.

You mean a specific legal agreement to make sure they don't get sued.
It can be a lot easier to have an agreement in place to avoid being sued, rather than trying to stand on the moral high ground and get sued.

You've stated many times that using GeoNames in the way that I do is no different to screenshotting a Google map

No, I sated that calling what you did making a map is like saying taking a screenshot of Google maps is making a map.
There is a difference between making a map and the legal standard of copyright infringement.

Courts decide these issues all the time.

But not by asking people to just decide on instinct with no arguments?
How many court cases do you know of that just had a simple statement of the case to the jury for them to then go away and decide? I don't know of any.

No, it's almost as if there are lots of maps available you can use and it's wasted effort to do it all yourself. However, if you are a flat earther and don't trust anything, you've ruled out using these maps and any software you didn't write yourself and you do need to make your own.

I'm offering a recipe for doing that. It has to be simple and it has to produce something that is recognisably a map with things in the right places.

No, you aren't. You are offering a recipe of just taking an existing maps and converting it to a different form. Why should they trust that map, but not software?

It doesn't fail my personal duck test

Because you happily manipulate your duck test to pretend that everything you want to be a map is a map, and everything you don't' want to be a map isn't.

There is a style of painting known as pointillism.

There you go deflecting yet again.
You acted as if the osm format is a map because of that connection. Now you are saying no connection is actually required and just point are fine.

Again, you contradict yourself. Try being consistent for once.

If you want to write some software to generate your own map from an OSM export, you go ahead, but it'll be a lot more complicated.

The only part making it more "complicated" is that it is in xml format.
Instead of just grabbing the nth section of text to determine latitude and longitude, all you need to do is grab the nicely labelled lat and lon tags. A fairly trivial modification.

There is a another good reason why my dots are not connected. GeoNames only contains points, nothing else, no information about if or how the points relate to each other. That is yet another reason why I reject your claim that it is a map. It is deficient for that purpose.

Which would also mean what you produced isn't a map.

You can't have it both ways. Either that connection is required so you didn't make a map, or it isn't so GeoNames can be a map. Make up your mind and stick with it.
Stop contradicting yourself so you can pretend what you made is a map and what you used to make it isn't.

GIS can make use of it, but won't recognise it as a map.

You mean GIS wont produce it in a way you recognise as a map?
Just how does your GIS software render it?
Can it display it as a bunch of points on a blank canvas?

I can't make anything useful out of a single brick, but with enough I could make a wall or a house even. That doesn't mean the pile of bricks are interacting. No brick is any more important than any other.

It is a good thing you aren't an architect.
Each brick must hold the load of the bricks above. Take out enough and the wall collapses.
They do interact.
The fact that you can remove 1 without a problem (or possibly even several) doesn't mean they don't interact, it doesn't mean it isn't complex.
Take away the foundation and what do you think will happen?

Again, your argument appears to be that redundancy means it isn't complex.
Again, a plane has lots of redundancy. Does that mean a plane isn't complex?
You can take away load of individual parts and the plane will still fly just fine?

A clock doesn't typically need such redundancy as people's lives typically do not depend on it. The simplest redundancy is multiple clocks.

That's my gold standard, yes. If you send me a file and I can double click on it and it opens as a photo of a cat or a video or a spreadsheet or a document, then I instantly recognise it for what it is.

Yet you then contradict that standard with OSM.
What you should be doing is either claiming OSM isn't a map, because I can't just double click and open it, or claiming my device is defective because I can't open it.

But no, instead you say that YOU can open it so that is all that matters so you can keep on claiming everything you want to be a map is a map and nothing that you don't want to be a map is.

And remember, YOU were the one who brought in GeoNames, not me.
So why should I find software to open the format YOU provided?
And again, you have already said GIS software can open it.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 27, 2021, 03:04:16 AM

And you accuse me of missing the point?

Yes, the point is that you haven't really mapped anything. You have put a bunch of dots on a page, with no labels, nor any indication of what they are.

We aren't talking about a printed map either. If you noticed one of the suggestions I gave needs it to not be printed, as it is interactive.

You don't have to keep repeating your opinion. We don't agree on this point you claim I am missing. Meanwhile you frequently miss various points being made, which is ironic.

I've no intention of making an interactive map. Unnecessary and far to complicated, defeating the purpose of something which is intended to be (relatively) easy to accomplish.

It can be a lot easier to have an agreement in place to avoid being sued, rather than trying to stand on the moral high ground and get sued.

Sure and if everyone made a watertight unambiguous legal agreement every time they did anything, there would be lots of unemployed lawyers. In the real world, they don't. I would be happy to sell my map without talking to GeoNames' lawyers. More fool me perhaps, but there it is.
 

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 27, 2021, 03:04:16 AM

Courts decide these issues all the time.

But not by asking people to just decide on instinct with no arguments?
How many court cases do you know of that just had a simple statement of the case to the jury for them to then go away and decide? I don't know of any.

You are the one making the claim that GeoNames is a map. Not can be used to make a map, but actually is a map. This is your claim, so it's up to you to make it convincing. As a sceptic, I rightly choose to reject your claim until such time as you present sufficient evidence.

Although I don't strictly need to present any evidence myself, I'm within my rights to just sit and wait to hear your reasoning and evidence, I have in fact pointed out several things which undermine your claim:

• The creators of GeoNames do not call it a map
• I cannot find any definition equating spatial database and map, they appear to refer to distinct things
• I haven't found anyone (apart from you) who calls it a map
• GIS software does not recognise it as a map (unlike say OSM export)
• I can't find anything (and neither can you apparently) which will recognise it as a map

No, you aren't. You are offering a recipe of just taking an existing maps and converting it to a different form. Why should they trust that map, but not software?

So nothing new, just repeating the same tired old rejected assertion ad infinitum based on no evidence.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 27, 2021, 03:04:16 AM

It doesn't fail my personal duck test

Because you happily manipulate your duck test to pretend that everything you want to be a map is a map, and everything you don't' want to be a map isn't.

I opened your exported OSM with no difficulty whatsoever and it looked like a duck map. You asked me before if I was happy to call this thing a map. It looks like a map, so yes. It's an extract from something which refers to itself as a map.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 27, 2021, 03:04:16 AM

There is a style of painting known as pointillism.

There you go deflecting yet again.
You acted as if the osm format is a map because of that connection. Now you are saying no connection is actually required and just point are fine.

Data intended to be usable as maps by GIS come in one of two formats, geotagged raster images (e.g. satellite or drone) or vector layers. The vector formats are never just points, there are relationships built into the data to allow you to connect points together as lines, paths or polygons (OSM export being a perfect example). GIS software understands many of these file types and renders them as maps. GeoNames does not fit that description. If they wanted GeoNames to be a map or intended it to be used to generate maps, then they could have added the additional routing linkages, but they did not.

I'm using a bit of lateral thinking to use a very simple to understand technique, similar to pointillism, to paint an image of something that at a suitable scale (e.g. the whole world), resembles a traditionally generated, similar map closely enough to be recognised straight away for what it represents. I'm calling that image a map. It's not the normal way to make a map, but it works.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 27, 2021, 03:04:16 AM

If you want to write some software to generate your own map from an OSM export, you go ahead, but it'll be a lot more complicated.

The only part making it more "complicated" is that it is in xml format.
Instead of just grabbing the nth section of text to determine latitude and longitude, all you need to do is grab the nicely labelled lat and lon tags. A fairly trivial modification.

So yes, if you ignore all the information which makes OSM export suitable for it's intended use as a map and just pick out lat/long of the point nodes and then use the pointillism technique, then you can generate a map like mine. It will no longer work at a local scale (see my screenshot and imagine it with only the little orange circles left).

Which would also mean what you produced isn't a map.

You can't have it both ways. Either that connection is required so you didn't make a map, or it isn't so GeoNames can be a map. Make up your mind and stick with it.
Stop contradicting yourself so you can pretend what you made is a map and what you used to make it isn't.

There is no contradiction. Something can be used to make a map that isn't a map. Something else can be a map and can be used as a map. Flour is not a cake. Bricks are not a house. I can give you instructions on how to turn flour into a cake or bricks into a house. You can use the same pointillism technique to generate a map image from anything geotagged (e.g. cat photos).

You claim that this makes geotagged cat photos a map. I can also turn these photos into a rug. Doesn't make cat photos a rug any more than it makes them a map. Your counter argument appears to consist of "this thing or collection of things is a map because I say so". That is not reasoned argument and you present no evidence.

I can't make a usable map on a very local scale like your OSM example because although I can plot the dots, I can't connect them up to make the roads and buildings, because the information necessary to do that simply isn't there.

At the scale of the world however, that doesn't matter because all I need to know is what is land (a plotted dot) and what isn't. The shapes of the continents appear naturally.

Each brick must hold the load of the bricks above. Take out enough and the wall collapses.
They do interact.

Missing the point as usual. I'm not comparing a wall with a clock, I'm comparing a pile of bricks with a clock. Take any brick away, the pile still a pile and it has value, that's why people pay good money for bricks. The value is not substantially altered by taking away a brick. All have equal value. There is no dependency. Remove the mainspring from your clock and it's reduced to little more than scrap value.

You don't have to keep repeating your opinion. We don't agree on this point you claim I am missing.

Yet instead of even trying to discuss the point, you run off on a tangent of printing out the map.
Again, without the labels, or even a legend, or basically anything to indicate what any of the points are, you haven't made a map.

You are the one making the claim that GeoNames is a map. Not can be used to make a map, but actually is a map.

And there you go missing the point.
That tangent was yours.
You were trying to suggest your useless test is valid because courts ask people things.
But your test relies upon them recognising it by pure instinct.
I pointed out that isn't how courts work. But rather than even acknowledge that you go straight off on the attack.

This is your claim, so it's up to you to make it convincing.

Technically it is your claim that you made a map.
I objected to that on the basis that you basically just took an existing map and converted it to a different format.

And that for the purposes of discussion, that is no better than just taking an existing map and saying "here is a map".
The point is FEers don't trust those existing maps, so there is no difference between just taking an existing map or converting one (even if you want to pretend you didn't just convert one and instead started with a dataset which you then made into a map). But you seem to want to run away from that discussion point and just try focusing on if you made a map or not.

As a sceptic, I rightly choose to reject your claim until such time as you present sufficient evidence.

I have in fact pointed out several things which undermine your claim:

You mean which you want to pretend don't.

• The creators of GeoNames do not call it a map

The creator of a street directory typically doesn't call it a map.
Someone not calling it something, doesn't mean it isn't that thing.

• I cannot find any definition equating spatial database and map, they appear to refer to distinct things

Just like medicine and drugs.
But I can't even find a "definition" for spatial database. Likely because in this phrase spatial is merely an adjective for the type of data stored in the database. i.e. a spatial database is a database that stores spatial information.
I can find a few examples of them and descriptions of them.
One is wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_database
And the first entry is Geodatabase, which provides, as further information Map database management.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_database_management

By definition, a map of Earth, or part of Earth is spatial.
If you want to store this in a database, then it is a spatial database.

Just what do you think the export from OSM was?
And the fact that I pointed out it is a DATABASE format?

• I haven't found anyone (apart from you) who calls it a map

I haven't found anyone (apart from you) discussing GeoNames at all. So it is you saying it isn't, vs me saying it is.

• GIS software does not recognise it as a map (unlike say OSM export)

Again, what happens when you open it in GIS software?
Can you get that software to display it as a bunch of points.

So nothing new, just repeating the same tired old rejected assertion ad infinitum based on no evidence.

Yep, that does seem to be all you can do.

I opened

Yes, YOU did, not me.
I downloaded it and was unable to just double click to open it.

Data intended to be usable as maps by GIS come in one of two formats

There you go deflecting yet again.
The issue here is if a collection of points can constitute a map or if you need connections between them.

If you need connections between these points for it to be a map, that rules out your image as well as GeoNames.
If you don't need connections, so you can try claiming what you produced is a map, then you cannot exclude GeoNames on that basis.

Your image has less information that GeoNames.
So if you are going to appeal to the information, either GeoNames is a map, or your image is not.
There is no honest standard based upon information contained you could use which in any way would indicate GeoNames is not a map but your image is.

This leaves presentation as the argument, but then OSM is not an image like you want a map to be.
You have shown that by objecting to the style when it is imported, which doesn't even match what is shown on OSM's website.
Instead, OSM is a text file, containing a list of nodes and relationships between them.
And that means either GeoNames is a map or the .OSM file is not.

This isn't lateral thinking you are using. If you were using such thinking, you would accept the GeoNames database as a map.
What you are doing is dishonestly trying to manipulate the standard back and forth such that anything you want to be a map can be deemed a map while anything you don't want to be a map will be rejected.

So yes, if you ignore all the information which makes OSM export suitable for it's intended use as a map and just pick out lat/long of the point nodes and then use the pointillism technique, then you can generate a map like mine.

So what you are saying is your "map" lacks the information which makes things suitable for intended use as a map?

Quote from: JackBlack on July 27, 2021, 05:09:27 AM

You can't have it both ways. Either that connection is required so you didn't make a map, or it isn't so GeoNames can be a map. Make up your mind and stick with it.
Stop contradicting yourself so you can pretend what you made is a map and what you used to make it isn't.

There is no contradiction. Something can be used to make a map that isn't a map.

And more deflection.
The argument being made there (which you just completely ignore), has nothing to do with if you can use something to make something else; but you pretend it is, to pretend there is no contradiction.

Again, you tried to dismiss GeoNames as a map, while excepting the .osm file, on the basis of the GeoNames file lacking connection information.
But your image also lacks connection information. You didn't add in any connection information.
Instead you took the information in that file, and plotted it, with a colour based upon the country.

Try to actually deal with what has been said, rather than ignoring and pretending I made a completely different argument.

Your counter argument appears to consist of "this thing or collection of things is a map because I say so".

No, it isn't.
Again, the important part is spatial information and an indication of what is at that location.

This is on the basis of what a map is.
It is something which links locations with what is at that location and vice versa. In the more general mathematical sense, it is something which links between 2 sets.
A map of cat sightings would link a location with a cat at that location.
It would allow you to pick a location and see what cat has been sighted there or nearby.
It would also allow you to pick a cat and find what location that cat has been sighted at.

For the former, the way humans are good at that is to have an image of some sort, where they find the location on the image and then see what is marked as being near there.
They also have some success trying to find a cat on that image, but it can be easier with an index.
But for a computer, the better way is to have the information in a database format rather than an image format.

So a map of cat sightings for a human would be a picture with points showing the location of the sightings, likely with a photo right next to that point, or some code to look up the photo, and possibly an index.
For a computer, it would likely be a database, or album.

At the scale of the world however, that doesn't matter because all I need to know is what is land (a plotted dot) and what isn't.

We have been over that, your image fails at that.
And GeoNames works fine for that.

Missing the point as usual.

That would still be you.

Again, you are trying to suggest that because there is redundancy it isn't complex. You are using a system with no redundancy to try to indicate that it is complex because every part is dependent or linked to every other part such that removing 1 part can make the entire thing not function.

But again, that reasoning of yours would indicate that anything which has redundancy is not complex.
So things like planes would not be complex because they have redundancy, where plenty of parts can be removed with no ill effect.

I'm not comparing a wall with a clock, I'm comparing a pile of bricks with a clock.

vs:

with enough I could make a wall or a house even.

It sure seems like you were discussing a wall, or even a house.

I think I'm about done with this. The discussion has veered off into petty squabbling now and that was never my intention. I apologise for my part in this and I'll try and keep my post civil.

I accept your point that not having labels or a grid weakens my claim to it being a map, so here they are, I've added them. Labels could be a bit tidier for sure and you'll no doubt have to zoom in to read them, but use your imagination, this is not a professional map.



Whilst a number of points have been raised, I believe I have one main claim, I have produced a map. My evidence for this is primarily the image I've posted and its close resemblance to other, similar, professional maps. If that isn't enough to convince you that this is a map, so be it.

Your claims I believe are:

• What I've produced isn't a map or doesn't count as a map (at least I think that's what you are claiming).
• What I've done doesn't amount to making a map.
• The general public (e.g. a jury) cannot be used to decide on the question of what is or is not a map.
• Any collection of geotagged items is a map (as opposed to could be used to make a map). This would include for a example a twitter conversation containing geotagged tweets.
• There are interactions between surveyed locations which makes a whole survey more complex than the sum of its individual parts.

I don't really think that you've provided much in the way of supporting evidence for any of these claims and as a consequence reject them all.

I'm particularly baffled by the last two. The argument for a collection of geotagged items being a map seems to be that if you can turn it into something that looks like a map, then that's what it is. This is surely a false equivalence, it doesn't follow. I can turn lots of things into other things without them being equivalent. Flour into a cake is an obvious example. Since this is not a logical argument and you haven't provided any evidence to back it up, it really seems to rest on your opinion and nothing else.

I simply don't understand the claimed interaction between survey locations. I don't think you've explained yourself at all well there. Again you just seem to claim it is true without any logical argument or evidence, so opinion only I think.

Generally I think you are swimming against the tide of common sense with quite a lot of your claims, but as I said, I do want to keep this civil, so don't take that observation personally.

I think I'm about done with this. The discussion has veered off into petty squabbling now

Because you wanted to focus on technicalities of if what you produced was a map and if what you used was a map, rather than focus on the actual issue, FEers making a map without just taking an existing map (or as you would say, data), so they don't need to trust anything they would dismiss as part of the conspiracy.
And you went down this path of technicalities so you could claim it is easy to make a map.

And by your standard, it is trivial. I go to Google Maps, take a screenshot, and have made a map.

I accept your point that not having labels or a grid weakens my claim to it being a map, so here they are, I've added them.

And with that, it is more convincingly  a map. Not a great map, with massive holes in countries, but still a map. But it still fails with several of your arguments; and it still has the question of if you made it, or merely converted an existing map.

• What I've produced isn't a map or doesn't count as a map (at least I think that's what you are claiming).

It is more a case of the arguments you make against GeoNames being a map can equally apply to your map or other maps.
And that I have supported by using those arguments against your map and other maps.

• What I've done doesn't amount to making a map.

In the same way that taking a screenshot of one doesn't count, nor does taking an image of one and converting it.
You obtained all the data from the GeoNames file and merely plotted it. Now you have done one extra step by sticking names on it and gridlines, but even that is automated with some names overlapping.

So the question is did you really make a map, or did just convert an existing one?
Did you make this map:

Or did you merely convert an existing map?

• The general public (e.g. a jury) cannot be used to decide on the question of what is or is not a map.

Again, that is not what you were suggesting.
You wanted them to go based purely on instinct.
You merely wanted to present it to them, in a particular form, and see if they instinctively recognise it as a map.

That is not how a jury works.
If you want it to be a jury, then both sides need to be able to present evidence and arguments to that jury for the jury to then decide.

If this was a legal case, I would put in far more effort, such as going through all sorts of GIS software to find one that would let open/import the GeoNames .txt file and plot them as a collection of points.

• Any collection of geotagged items is a map (as opposed to could be used to make a map). This would include for a example a twitter conversation containing geotagged tweets.

Again, the key part that makes it a map is not the presentation, it is the linking of spatial and non-spatial data. The linking of a location and what is/was/happened there.
Also remember that you can present it in a way which strips out that information and that presentation is not a map as it no longer has that linking information.

You seem to be happy for someone to take that collection of tweets and plot points on a blank canvas based upon that geotag, and then call that a map, all because it is an image.

• There are interactions between surveyed locations which makes a whole survey more complex than the sum of its individual parts.

If you just to have a bunch of random people randomly survey a location and that's it, it isn't complex.
The complexity comes from organising a bunch of random people to collect and collate the data, to produce a map by collating the data.
That is what the interaction is.

I'm particularly baffled by the last two. The argument for a collection of geotagged items being a map seems to be that if you can turn it into something that looks like a map, then that's what it is. This is surely a false equivalence, it doesn't follow. I can turn lots of things into other things without them being equivalent. Flour into a cake is an obvious example.

That is a false equivalence.
With what I am suggesting, all the information is already there. All you need to do for you to accept it as a map is change how it is presented.
And what I am saying is the exact presentation doesn't matter. You are quite happy to accept the .osm file as a map, even though it is not an image, even though that is a collection of geotagged points with additional information linking those points together. So even you accept presentation is not the issue.
What is important is the information. That is what I have repeatedly appealed to. All the information that is in your map (and more) is already in that GeoNames database.

Just where did I suggest that because you can use it to make a map, that it is a map?

I have also repeatedly emphasised that presentation or format should not be determining factor, as different things want different formats.
A paper map for a human should be an image. A map for a computer which would do things like look up places (streets, buildings, suburbs, etc), or find a route between places, and so on, would be far better as a database, because that is a far more efficient way for a computer to work.

But the key part for the false equivalence is you can't make a cake with just flour.
It doesn't matter how much flour you have, it wont just magically change into a cake. You need more, for example, milk, butter eggs, oil and sugar.
But all you needed to do for GeoNames was plot it and then you were happy to call it a map.

If instead you wanted to claim the information from GeoNames wasn't enough, such as by saying GeoNames lacks the important information connecting nodes together, then you would have a case that GeoNames is not a map, but it would also mean what you presented isn't a map as you did not add that missing information.

There are really only 2 avenues, you either appeal to presentation, saying that because the GeoNames .txt file isn't an image, it isn't a map; but then the same applies to the .osm file; as it isn't an image it isn't a map, and that would mean if you take a .osm file, and turn it into an image, that constitutes "making a map" even though even you admit that is trivial to do; or you appeal to information, and thus because GeoNames had all the information your original "map" did, either it is a map, or your "map" isn't.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 28, 2021, 03:30:12 AM

I think I'm about done with this. The discussion has veered off into petty squabbling now

Because you wanted to focus on technicalities of if what you produced was a map and if what you used was a map, rather than focus on the actual issue

With respect, we're both to blame for the petty squabbling, it takes two to tango. I have apologised for my contribution, I haven't asked for, nor would expect you to respond in kind, but your response, sadly, is to just aggressively go on the attack and tell me it's all my fault. If I rise to the bait and respond, we're right back at it again aren't we?

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 28, 2021, 03:30:12 AM

• What I've produced isn't a map or doesn't count as a map (at least I think that's what you are claiming).

It is more a case of the arguments you make against GeoNames being a map can equally apply to your map or other maps.
And that I have supported by using those arguments against your map and other maps.

So, I think you are saying I can't have it both ways, if mine is a map, then GeoNames is a map? Don't accept that, but I think that's your argument?

So the question is did you really make a map, or did just convert an existing one?
Did you make this map:
Or did you merely convert an existing map?

No, neither of the above, all I did was open a file in some software package. That's literally all I did, didn't touch anything, just screenshotted what you saw. No different to me opening a Word document or a spreadsheet. I didn't make a map, didn't convert an existing map, just opened a file.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 28, 2021, 03:30:12 AM

• The general public (e.g. a jury) cannot be used to decide on the question of what is or is not a map.

Again, that is not what you were suggesting.

That is exactly what I was suggesting. Initially I said something like I could just show my map to someone, but then expanded that to you and I presenting a case to a jury. Maybe you missed that bit. Just to be clear, I present my case that what I have done constitutes map making and you present your case for GeoNames being a map. Obviously I or my counsel will question you about your claim and you and your counsel will question me about my claim. Perhaps these are two separate cases, one for each claim, but you get the idea.

The alternative seems to be to ask a non-existent sentient computer.

My belief is that your claims about geotagged collections and GeoNames in particular would require a lot stronger argument and evidence than you've currently presented, to sway anyone.

If this was a legal case, I would put in far more effort, such as going through all sorts of GIS software to find one that would let open/import the GeoNames .txt file and plot them as a collection of points.

Well good luck with that. You might be able to find a way to get a GIS system to use my technique to plot points, but again, that would be you essentially telling it what to do and how to do it. No different really to just writing your own program, as I did. I don't think for one second you'll find GIS software or any other software for that matter which will just open GeoNames and display a map for you with no additional work (in complete contrast to the OSM export). If you have to jump through hoops to transform one into the other, then that suggests they are not the same thing.

The complexity comes from organising a bunch of random people to collect and collate the data, to produce a map by collating the data.
That is what the interaction is.

Well finally you've answered the question. It's the organisation that makes it complex.

Some time ago I did some research into my family history and one of the tools I used was freecen. That database was put together by an organised group of volunteers who would decipher images of handwritten old census records. The organisation involved was very simple, a web site where you just pick a set of records to decipher and click a button or fill in a simple form to say "I've got this" so everyone else would leave you to it and at the end just post your results.

Really nothing that complicated required, it's just a type of booking system. A simple Web site with the potential survey sites divided up into manageable chunks and then you as a volunteer find something nearby and sign up to say you'll give it a go. A form to post your results and that's it.

Yes there is a bit of work to set it up, but hardly rocket science.

With respect, we're both to blame for the petty squabbling, it takes two to tango. I have apologised for my contribution, I haven't asked for, nor would expect you to respond in kind, but your response, sadly, is to just aggressively go on the attack and tell me it's all my fault. If I rise to the bait and respond, we're right back at it again aren't we?

I didn't say it is all your fault.
I gave a simple reason for why it went down this path.

So, I think you are saying I can't have it both ways, if mine is a map, then GeoNames is a map? Don't accept that, but I think that's your argument?

Pretty much. But it does also include other things, like the .osm file.
The problem is you want to shift around your standard so anything you want to be a map can be a map while anything you don't want to be a map can't be.

No, neither of the above, all I did was open a file in some software package. That's literally all I did, didn't touch anything, just screenshotted what you saw.

And in doing so you converted it from the .osm file to an image.
And notice how that is effectively what you did with the GeoNames file. The only distinction being that you made the software package, and the software package took care of the screenshotting for you and directly output an image.
You took the GeoNames file and converted it into an image.

That is exactly what I was suggesting. Initially I said something like I could just show my map to someone, but then expanded that to you and I presenting a case to a jury.

And where did you expand to presenting a case to a jury?
As opposed to acting like your suggestion is equivalent to a jury?

I can't find any indication of that in your post.
I think the first time a Jury was introduced was here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88705.msg2328191#msg2328191
In this you indicated trial by jury is one example of where the public decides an issue.
But even then you continued with:

I'm confident that if you just asked a few members of the general public what they thought, then they wouldn't have any trouble recognising one thing as a map and the other  as not a map. I can't see any unfairness in that test.

That is not saying you present an argument to the jury.
That is saying you just ask them what they think.

Then later on, in this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=88705.msg2328268#msg2328268
Instead of appealing to a court of law when discussing a jury, the type of court where arguments are presented, you instead appealed to the "court of common sense".

So it doesn't seem like you were suggesting that at all.

You also wanted to exclude blind people as they wouldn't be able to instinctively recognise your image as a map.

Well good luck with that. You might be able to find a way to get a GIS system to use my technique to plot points, but again, that would be you essentially telling it what to do and how to do it. No different really to just writing your own program, as I did. I don't think for one second you'll find GIS software or any other software for that matter which will just open GeoNames and display a map for you with no additional work (in complete contrast to the OSM export). If you have to jump through hoops to transform one into the other, then that suggests they are not the same thing.

I would already have to jump through hoops to be able to get software to open the .osm file. When things are niche it isn't surprising.

The organisation involved was very simple, a web site where you just pick a set of records to decipher and click a button or fill in a simple form to say "I've got this" so everyone else would leave you to it and at the end just post your results.

And there you go ignoring the complexity of it.
You are effectively focusing on a single component. Look at a clock, but instead of looking at the entire thing, look at a single gear. How complex is that gear?

The typical way to complete a complex task is by breaking it up into simpler tasks and then completing all of them.
That does not make the overall task less complex.

Building a clock is a complex task. But if you break it down to its individual step, it is not.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 28, 2021, 06:43:38 AM

No, neither of the above, all I did was open a file in some software package. That's literally all I did, didn't touch anything, just screenshotted what you saw.

And in doing so you converted it from the .osm file to an image.

Wow, so now if I open something, that's now converting it is it? "Hey I just sent you a photo". "Great, wait a minute while I just convert it". "?". You have a very strange way of looking at things.

The GeoNames files have two floating point numbers in columns 5 and 6. You cannot tell from the file itself what these numbers represent. The files come in TXT file format.

My software reads one of these files, reads columns 5 and 6 and mathematically transforms them into two completely different numbers (X & Y) and I then choose to treat these as co-ordinates to plot on a rectangular X-Y space.

I could just as easily choose to interpret this pair of numbers as a musical note and duration, mathematically transform them and play them through my speakers.

My point is I have to make a whole series of decisions about what to do with these numbers in order to interpret them in such a way as to produce a map.

If you try and load one of these into GIS, you have exactly the same problem, GIS has no idea what it is and what to do with it, it's a TXT file with some numbers and words in. You would have to make all the decisions.

The OSM format on the other hand, GIS understands exactly what that is meant to be, out of the box in just the same way as Excel understands an XLS file or Word understands a DOC file.

It's a no-brainer to me to say that an XLS file is a spreadsheet if I open it and hey presto! I see a spreadsheet. Now the OSM file, I've frankly never seen before and had no idea what my GIS software would make of it, but hey, it opens and I see a map, so that's enough for me.

GeoNames files? I've no idea. I don't know what to do with one, GIS doesn't know. I can import it into Excel if I make some decisions, such as telling Excel to use TAB as a separator. Does that make it a spreadsheet? Well I'm saying no, because I had to tell Excel how to interpret it.

The way I found out what was what was to read the additional documentation on their site and nowhere is there anything saying this was a map.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 28, 2021, 06:43:38 AM

That is exactly what I was suggesting. Initially I said something like I could just show my map to someone, but then expanded that to you and I presenting a case to a jury.

And where did you expand to presenting a case to a jury?

I wasn't explicit, but I'm basically saying here we put the issue to trial in the normal way, so evidence is presented, questions are asked and a judgement is made. What I'm basically saying is one way or another, people decide these things. Whether it's asking the man on the street, the court of public opinion or full trial by jury. In the olden days it would be the King. This is really a response to your fantasy sentient computer idea.

If I have a copyright dispute with GeoNames and we can't settle it, other than going to court, how else are we resolving it?

Courts decide these issues all the time. Sentient computers never do.

I would already have to jump through hoops to be able to get software to open the .osm file. When things are niche it isn't surprising.

No more than if I sent you a Powerpoint presentation or a spreadsheet and you didn't have the software to open it. Once you have the appropriate software (and downloading software is hardly difficult is it), opens straight away.

There's a big difference between opens right away and I might be able to do something useful with this if I could figure it out.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 28, 2021, 06:43:38 AM

The organisation involved was very simple, a web site where you just pick a set of records to decipher and click a button or fill in a simple form to say "I've got this" so everyone else would leave you to it and at the end just post your results.

And there you go ignoring the complexity of it.
You are effectively focusing on a single component. Look at a clock, but instead of looking at the entire thing, look at a single gear. How complex is that gear?

The typical way to complete a complex task is by breaking it up into simpler tasks and then completing all of them.
That does not make the overall task less complex.

Building a clock is a complex task. But if you break it down to its individual step, it is not.

If you have a booking system such as I've outlined, so your volunteers aren't treading on others toes and you have a Web page where they can record their results, what more do you need? You keep saying over and over, "it's complex", you've finally expanded on this and said it needs organising, OK so now I've organised it for you, now where is this elusive complexity that you keep banging on about but never actually explain?

Wow, so now if I open something, that's now converting it is it?

You didn't just open it.
You opened it, and then took a screenshot, producing an image file.
It was a .osm file. It is now a .png.
That is converting it.
Just like if I take your .png and make it a .jpg or .gif. That is converting it because you have converted it do a different format.
You even stripped away a bunch of information. It doesn't have any labels.

The GeoNames files have two floating point numbers in columns 5 and 6. You cannot tell from the file itself what these numbers represent. The files come in TXT file format.

A png file is a bunch of bytes. You cannot tell from the file itself what any of these bytes represent. It only by first recognising it as a .png file and running it through a problem which can understand that format and process it that you can get meaningful information from it.

If I take a .osm file, and strip off the header information and just label it .xml (or even better, .txt).
Does that mean if I then use that file to plot a bunch of points based upon the "lat" and "lon" attribute (no idea what they could possibly mean), that I have made a map, rather than just taking an existing one and tweaking it a bit?

In addition, when I downloaded it, I didn't get a .txt file. I got a .zip file.
When I look inside, I find a readme.txt, which clearly explains what these numbers represent:
"latitude          : latitude in decimal degrees (wgs84)
longitude         : longitude in decimal degrees (wgs84)"
So the file I got contained all the information that is needed.

mathematically transforms

By scaling an putting in an offset.

If you try and load one of these into GIS, you have exactly the same problem, GIS has no idea what it is and what to do with it

So what did you mean before when you said:

Quote from: JackBlack on July 25, 2021, 05:07:43 PM

Geonames is far more niche, is significantly newer, not a standard, and that alone is enough to mean you wont easily be able to find software to access the database and convert it to other forms.
The ability or lack thereof to easily find such software is irrelevant to if it is a map or not.

It's been around 16 years and is very widely used. There are plugins for most of the major GIS programs, so yes, there is plenty of software available to make use of GeoNames

You weren't claiming that GIS software can understand it, and that it is actually a niche format.

It's a no-brainer to me to say that an XLS file is a spreadsheet if I open it and hey presto!

How about an xlsx? Do you also think that is a spreadsheet (ignoring the technicality of neither actually being a spreadsheet as spreadsheets are saved in a workbook).

Now the OSM file, I've frankly never seen before and had no idea what my GIS software would make of it, but hey, it opens and I see a map, so that's enough for me.

So now name it .xml, and see if it still works just as nicely.
Regardless, give it to someone who has no idea what GIS even means, and has never used GIS software before and doesn't have any.
Double click and what happens? What would you like top open this with?

I can import it into Excel if I make some decisions, such as telling Excel to use TAB as a separator. Does that make it a spreadsheet? Well I'm saying no, because I had to tell Excel how to interpret it.

I don't. I just open it in excel and it knows that tabs should be delimiters for text files.

The way I found out what was what was to read the additional documentation on their site and nowhere is there anything saying this was a map.

So you didn't get a readme with the file clearly stating what the file was? It was in the same zip file for me.

I wasn't explicit, but I'm basically saying here we put the issue to trial in the normal way, so evidence is presented, questions are asked and a judgement is made. What I'm basically saying is one way or another, people decide these things. Whether it's asking the man on the street, the court of public opinion or full trial by jury. In the olden days it would be the King. This is really a response to your fantasy sentient computer idea.

And with that you entirely miss the point.
You brought up the public because they instinctively recognise things which look like things they have seen before, as that thing. Some even recognise clouds as those things. That doesn't make it those things.
But the important point, is that this is based upon visual similarity rather than anything logical, and you are having them compare it only to things they are used to.
That would mean all you would be determining is if it is a map for a human. If you want to do the same for a map for a computer, it is useless to present it to a human. You need to present it to its target audience, as the non-target audience may not recognise it.

As another example, Star Fleet ships from Star Trek are quite recognisable. If you present an image of a ship which bears visual resemblance to such ships, those who watch Star Trek would likely recognise it quite well. Those unfamiliar with Star Trek likely wouldn't, because they aren't the target audience. And that also applies to the more niche things from it, like the Tricorder, or ships of other groups.

So the idea of a sentient computer came from your suggestion, but making it fair. If you want to judge if a map for a computer is a map, by instinct and recognition, you need to present it to the target audience, i.e. a computer, and if you want it to answer questions in a meaningful way, it needs to be sentient. It isn't my fault, that your "test" requires the impossible to be fair.

If you instead want it to be like a trial, then ditch the jury and stick to logical arguments.

No more than if I sent you a Powerpoint presentation or a spreadsheet and you didn't have the software to open it. Once you have the appropriate software (and downloading software is hardly difficult is it), opens straight away.

Remember, the point you made was that ANYONE should be able to see your map, and you indicated my device is defective if I don't get a nice image.
But again, the exact same applies to the GeoNames file. All it requires for you to accept that it is a map is the appropriate software to visualise it.
And like almost all software, there is more than one way top open it and visualise it (i.e. have it displayed on your screen).
I can open the .osm file, quite simply, in a text editor, where it looks nothing like a map.

If you have a booking system such as I've outlined, so your volunteers aren't treading on others toes and you have a Web page where they can record their results, what more do you need?

Or in another words, if you have a complex system to organise it, how is it complex? I wonder...

And again, don't try to break it down into individual steps.
Again, lots of complex tasks are a series of non-complex steps.
Building a clock is complex, but the individual steps are not.

You trying to break it down into parts shows that you do not understand complexity.

You didn't just open it.
You opened it, and then took a screenshot, producing an image file.

The screenshotting was in no way necessary. I'd already opened the file, not otherwise touched it, not converted it in any way and I was able to determine to my satisfaction that it was a map.

I could have just told you that's what I had done and that's what I found, but, being a helpful fellow, decided to screenshot it for your benefit. I invite you to install your own software and open it yourself, then you don't need my screenshot.

You even stripped away a bunch of information. It doesn't have any labels.

I did no such thing. That is how it opened. It may not look exactly like your original map, but it is still clearly (to me at least), a map.

I suspect that the default export format lacks the necessary styling instructions to tell GIS how it should look. Certainly with Ordnance Survey, if you want your maps looking a particular way, you download a separate stylesheet of your choice. OSM may have something similar or maybe there are better export options, I don't know, the format is completely new to me.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 29, 2021, 02:28:42 AM

mathematically transforms

By scaling an putting in an offset.

Last time I checked, scaling and transformation are both mathematical transformation operations.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 29, 2021, 02:28:42 AM

It's a no-brainer to me to say that an XLS file is a spreadsheet if I open it and hey presto!

How about an xlsx? Do you also think that is a spreadsheet (ignoring the technicality of neither actually being a spreadsheet as spreadsheets are saved in a workbook).

Yes, it's another variation of my flexible duck test. It will just open and look (and indeed work if it has embedded calculations) as a spreadsheet, so it's a spreadsheet.

If you instead want it to be like a trial, then ditch the jury and stick to logical arguments.

Go ahead then let's hear a properly formulated sound, deductive argument, which will inevitably make me reverse my position. A nicely formulated syllogism perhaps.

Remember, the point you made was that ANYONE should be able to see your map, and you indicated my device is defective if I don't get a nice image.

I already explained that my gold standard is you just double click and it opens. You were going out of your way to make out that a PNG isn't an image it's bits or bytes (I can't remember now) and I was simply pointing out that if you have a device that doesn't know how to natively open a PNG and display it as the creator intended, well in this day and age, that device is defective.

Quote from: robinofloxley on July 29, 2021, 02:28:42 AM

If you have a booking system such as I've outlined, so your volunteers aren't treading on others toes and you have a Web page where they can record their results, what more do you need?

Or in another words, if you have a complex system to organise it, how is it complex? I wonder...

And again, don't try to break it down into individual steps.
Again, lots of complex tasks are a series of non-complex steps.
Building a clock is complex, but the individual steps are not.

You trying to break it down into parts shows that you do not understand complexity.

The typical way to complete a complex task is by breaking it up into simpler tasks and then completing all of them.

And again, don't try to break it down into individual steps.

So to complete the task, I have to break it down, but I mustn't break it down. Yeah that makes sense.

You're dodging the question yet again. Where is the complexity? OK, maybe I don't understand complexity, try explaining it then. We're not making clocks anymore we're just going out and about and recording two numbers. Here are the steps for each volunteer.

• Go to Web site, pick an un-surveyed area and register as a volunteer for that area.
• Go and record some locations in latitude/longitude format.
• Go to Web site and enter your results.

That's it, no interaction needed between the volunteers.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 29, 2021, 04:21:44 AM

You didn't just open it.
You opened it, and then took a screenshot, producing an image file.

The screenshotting was in no way necessary

But it was done.
That means you have now converted it to a different format.
But even if you didn't, it still doesn't look like what is on OSM's website.

So again, did you make a new map, or merely convert an existing one?

It may not look exactly like your original map

i.e. it was converted to something different.
So again, did you make a new map, or did you convert an existing one?

Last time I checked, scaling and transformation are both mathematical transformation operations.

Yes, and they are both trivial, and done all the time with image viewing software. For example, zooming and panning an image.

Yes, it's another variation of my flexible duck test. It will just open and look (and indeed work if it has embedded calculations) as a spreadsheet, so it's a spreadsheet.

And did you know that what it actually is is a zip file with a collection of primarily xml files?

Go ahead then let's hear a properly formulated sound, deductive argument, which will inevitably make me reverse my position. A nicely formulated syllogism perhaps.

As you are the one claiming to have made a map, the burden is on you to do that.
You have attempted to do so with simple arguments, which I have then used against the .osm file or your resulting image file.

I already explained that my gold standard is you just double click and it opens.

And that isn't the case for the .osm file.
I double click, and it doesn't open. It asks what I want to open it in.
The only way to get anything meaningful from it (without going to the hassle of trying to find some niche software to open it) is to open it in a text editor, at which point, by your standard it does not look like a map.

That means your gold standard fails for a .osm file and declares that it is not a map.
But because you don't like that outcome you want to change it and make it so you can have a .osm file as a map.

So to complete the task, I have to break it down, but I mustn't break it down. Yeah that makes sense.

Are you capable of responding honestly?

If you want to COMPLETE a complex task, you break it down into SIMPLER tasks.
Notice that this breaking down makes things simpler.

If you want to try to find where the complexity lies, you don't break it down.
Trying to break it down into individual steps to find where the complexity lies shows you don't understand complexity.

Notice how when viewed honestly, there is no problem?

There is a very big distinction between completing a task and trying to find where complexity is.

So no, I'm dodging the question, you are continually either failing to understand what complexity is, or dishonestly pretending to not understand.

This is what started down the path of analysing a clock.
Which part of a clock is complex? NONE!.
It is the assembled clock which is.
A spring is not complex, a gear is not complex, and so on.

So if you use your ridiculous method of trying to find complexity in a clock, you will find there is no complex and thus falsely declare that a clock is not complex.
If you want to disagree, then tell me which individual part of a clock is complex. Not how this part interacts as part of the whole, but the individual component.

And likewise, you are trying to pull the same dishonest BS as you first did when claiming map making is easy, by trying to ignore the hard part.

But no, why don't you explain how it is all simple, describing the entire process, starting from nothing and ending up with a map.

And with more dishonesty, you also seem to love ignoring significant parts of my post.
Before you claimed that you could easily open GeoNames in GIS software. This what part of your claim to try to say it isn't a map, because it is easily opened and doesn't look like a map. But now you have claimed that GIS software doesn't know what to do with it, making it even more niche.