Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Map Features in OpenStreetMap with Computer Vision

blog.mozilla.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 108 posts

Re: Map Features in OpenStreetMap with Computer Vision

#11

Post by halosghost »

daavoo wrote: post #6
stereo wrote: post #4

Hi from the OpenStreetMap Foundation. Please don't add AI-detected features directly to the database. The algorithms have problems with false positives, and with mapping straight or rectangular objects as wobbly, as shown in the second-to-last screenshot. As a helper to detect missing features, this is a precious tool. But we still need human intervention to make sure the detected objects are drawn correctly. See als…

> But we still need human intervention to make sure the detected objects are drawn correctly. Hi, I am the author. The demo app and any provided code example includes a step asking a human to verify the detected features. You can't upload them automatically unless you modify the source code. I reiterate the human verification across the docs, linked post, and any code samples. I haven't ever uploaded features automat…

I am afraid your “human in the loop” isn't [0].

You acknowledge the problem of AI slop up-front, but seem to have chosen to plow forward anyway. Please do consider your actions and their effects carefully [1]. You are in a position of potential influence; try not to squander it.

All the best,

-HG

[0]: https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/30/a-neck-in-a-noose/

[1]: https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/radical.pdf

Re: Map Features in OpenStreetMap with Computer Vision

#12

Post by Vinnl »

halosghost wrote: post #11
daavoo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But we still need human intervention to make sure the detected objects are drawn correctly. Hi, I am the author. The demo app and any provided code example includes a step asking a human to verify the detected features. You can't upload them automatically unless you modify the source code. I reiterate the human verification across the docs, linked post, and any code samples. I haven't ever uploaded features automat…

I am afraid your “human in the loop” isn't [0]. You acknowledge the problem of AI slop up-front, but seem to have chosen to plow forward anyway. Please do consider your actions and their effects carefully [1]. You are in a position of potential influence; try not to squander it. All the best, -HG [0]: https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/30/a-neck-in-a-noose/ [1]: https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/radical.pdf

"plow forward" and implying they didn't consider their actions and their effects seem ungenerous, given the list of precautions in the comment you're replying to.

You can disagree on whether the measures are effective, of course, but they're clearly not thoughtless.

Re: Map Features in OpenStreetMap with Computer Vision

#13

Post by stereo »

daavoo wrote: post #7
stereo wrote: post #4

Hi from the OpenStreetMap Foundation. Please don't add AI-detected features directly to the database. The algorithms have problems with false positives, and with mapping straight or rectangular objects as wobbly, as shown in the second-to-last screenshot. As a helper to detect missing features, this is a precious tool. But we still need human intervention to make sure the detected objects are drawn correctly. See als…

> straight or rectangular objects as wobbly, as shown in the second-to-last screenshot. This is a because the polygon is drawn as a mask in order to overlay it on the image. The actual polygon being uploaded doesn't have the wobbly features. It is True there are cases were the predicted polygon is wobbly and I encourage people to discard them. However I didn't publish this demo until I got a first version of the mode…

Hi! The Data Working Group had a look at the data, and decided to revert the two pool changesets. The polygons the algorithm had drawn were consistently of poor quality with stray nodes and nodes far outside the pool boundaries, and the imports hadn't been discussed with local communities.

Re: Map Features in OpenStreetMap with Computer Vision

#14

Post by Aachen »

daavoo wrote: post #7
stereo wrote: post #4

Hi from the OpenStreetMap Foundation. Please don't add AI-detected features directly to the database. The algorithms have problems with false positives, and with mapping straight or rectangular objects as wobbly, as shown in the second-to-last screenshot. As a helper to detect missing features, this is a precious tool. But we still need human intervention to make sure the detected objects are drawn correctly. See als…

> straight or rectangular objects as wobbly, as shown in the second-to-last screenshot. This is a because the polygon is drawn as a mask in order to overlay it on the image. The actual polygon being uploaded doesn't have the wobbly features. It is True there are cases were the predicted polygon is wobbly and I encourage people to discard them. However I didn't publish this demo until I got a first version of the mode…

I tried this out like a week ago and I was wondering the same so I tried to upload and... it's definitely uploading crap. I don't know what to tell you but all the clearly square ones I saw have bends on the straight lines

It's useful for finding ones that haven't been mapped but not for drawing them. It can get the 4 corners pretty accurate for pools that are square, many are half round at the ends though

Re: Map Features in OpenStreetMap with Computer Vision

#15

Post by boredpudding »

stereo wrote: post #13
daavoo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> straight or rectangular objects as wobbly, as shown in the second-to-last screenshot. This is a because the polygon is drawn as a mask in order to overlay it on the image. The actual polygon being uploaded doesn't have the wobbly features. It is True there are cases were the predicted polygon is wobbly and I encourage people to discard them. However I didn't publish this demo until I got a first version of the mode…

Hi! The Data Working Group had a look at the data, and decided to revert the two pool changesets. The polygons the algorithm had drawn were consistently of poor quality with stray nodes and nodes far outside the pool boundaries, and the imports hadn't been discussed with local communities.

Can you link the (now reverted) changesets? I can't seem to find them.

Re: Map Features in OpenStreetMap with Computer Vision

#16

Post by daavoo »

stereo wrote: post #13
daavoo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> straight or rectangular objects as wobbly, as shown in the second-to-last screenshot. This is a because the polygon is drawn as a mask in order to overlay it on the image. The actual polygon being uploaded doesn't have the wobbly features. It is True there are cases were the predicted polygon is wobbly and I encourage people to discard them. However I didn't publish this demo until I got a first version of the mode…

Hi! The Data Working Group had a look at the data, and decided to revert the two pool changesets. The polygons the algorithm had drawn were consistently of poor quality with stray nodes and nodes far outside the pool boundaries, and the imports hadn't been discussed with local communities.

Hi, thanks for the feedback.

I have disabled the hosted demo for now, and will remove the uploading part from the code in favor of showing an URL that will open the editor at the location.

If its of any help, you can find any contributed polygon with the tag `created_by=https://github.com/mozilla-ai/osm-ai-helper`. Feel free to remove all of them (or I can do it myself once I access a PC).

I will be happy to continue the discussion on what is a good prediction or not. I have mapped a lot of swimming pools myself and edited and removed a lot of (presumably) human contributed polygons that looked worse (too my eyes) than the predictions I approved to be uploaded.

Re: Map Features in OpenStreetMap with Computer Vision

#17

Post by Aachen »

pastage wrote: post #9
orbital-decay wrote: post #8

Experiencing automated mapping first-hand makes me extremely wary of it. I've travelled across South America on a motorcycle, and OSM has a large amount of edits there that look automated (particularly in Brazil), making it barely usable in certain places. I'm not even talking about rural roads but also fairly large cities.

Armchair mapping will always result in bad maps. I usually try to use mapwithme and leave photo notes describing issues when I travel, I take photos of fences and play grounds, other people take scenic pictures. So it might very well be automatic mapping, just saying that I know my armchair mapping can be pretty bad when I gonand check it OTG.

By bad, do you mean incomplete or that it's often actually wrong? Because my experience is that it's very complementary and I see things on aerial that I didn't irl and of course also vice versa. Mapping from the air seems to work well to me

North Korea should be an interesting example, I guess we have no chance of anyone commenting on it but there's people who've been mapping it from actual satellite imagery, so very poor quality compared to the airplane-based georeferenced photographs we're used to in most countries. If armchair mapping makes bad maps, that will be the best example to have someone check out, but alas. (The visitor-accessible parts may not count as much because a mapper could have visited those)

Re: Map Features in OpenStreetMap with Computer Vision

#18

Post by yorwba »

daavoo wrote: post #6
stereo wrote: post #4

Hi from the OpenStreetMap Foundation. Please don't add AI-detected features directly to the database. The algorithms have problems with false positives, and with mapping straight or rectangular objects as wobbly, as shown in the second-to-last screenshot. As a helper to detect missing features, this is a precious tool. But we still need human intervention to make sure the detected objects are drawn correctly. See als…

> But we still need human intervention to make sure the detected objects are drawn correctly. Hi, I am the author. The demo app and any provided code example includes a step asking a human to verify the detected features. You can't upload them automatically unless you modify the source code. I reiterate the human verification across the docs, linked post, and any code samples. I haven't ever uploaded features automat…

> Happy to hear and implement any ideas on how to improve the process to prevent automated features to be uploaded.

Idea: do not automatically create features that a human can simply approve, instead require them to draw the polygon themselves.

Re: Map Features in OpenStreetMap with Computer Vision

#19

Post by necovek »

halosghost wrote: post #11
daavoo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But we still need human intervention to make sure the detected objects are drawn correctly. Hi, I am the author. The demo app and any provided code example includes a step asking a human to verify the detected features. You can't upload them automatically unless you modify the source code. I reiterate the human verification across the docs, linked post, and any code samples. I haven't ever uploaded features automat…

I am afraid your “human in the loop” isn't [0]. You acknowledge the problem of AI slop up-front, but seem to have chosen to plow forward anyway. Please do consider your actions and their effects carefully [1]. You are in a position of potential influence; try not to squander it. All the best, -HG [0]: https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/30/a-neck-in-a-noose/ [1]: https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/radical.pdf

I believe your critique would be more valuable if you've actually uncovered cases where the human in the loop missed these issues and bad or "wobbly" data ended up in the OSM database: did this happen? (the other comment from another person confirms it has)

Otherwise, you are discounting their effort based on a prejudice — others might be unable to supervise an AI, but someone who's actually developed it might have a better chance of success.

Re: Map Features in OpenStreetMap with Computer Vision

#20

Post by yorwba »

necovek wrote: post #19
halosghost wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am afraid your “human in the loop” isn't [0]. You acknowledge the problem of AI slop up-front, but seem to have chosen to plow forward anyway. Please do consider your actions and their effects carefully [1]. You are in a position of potential influence; try not to squander it. All the best, -HG [0]: https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/30/a-neck-in-a-noose/ [1]: https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/radical.pdf

I believe your critique would be more valuable if you've actually uncovered cases where the human in the loop missed these issues and bad or "wobbly" data ended up in the OSM database: did this happen? (the other comment from another person confirms it has) Otherwise, you are discounting their effort based on a prejudice — others might be unable to supervise an AI, but someone who's actually developed it might have a…

The screenshot in the article shows wobbly data. You may need to zoom in and look closely to notice.
Post reply on HN