> The contact I had in the government of Quebec have raised issues on > delivering up-to-date datasets in OSM, such as the Administrative > boundaries of Québec (BDGA). > Could someone help this person to understand quickly the advantage for > his organisation to share its data with the OSM community. > Here are some of his reserve : > - He does not want his administration to be wrongly identified as the > contributor if someone of OSM edit his data that has been integrated > in OSM;
Good point. > - He does want an attribution somewhere; > - He does not want someone to call his administration because their is > an error in the data when it was someone of OSM that has edited the > data, not his organisation; What if the error comes from his organization ? Those two points seem to at least partly contradict each other. My interpretation is : we want attribution but we don't really want to update the data if there are problems even if it's our fault ... > - He is willing to cooperate, but he has issue when users edit his > data If he decides to donate the data, it's not "his" data anymore so he can say "I gave the data and it's not mine anymore" so there's no problem with people editing "his" data. I've always had problems with organizations that "owned" data, as if polygons describing bird sanctuaries (totally arbitrary example) belonged to any one organization. Organizations *cater* to the data. They do not own it. That said, there is a real challenge for organizations that want to donate data to OSM and benefit back from community edits and keep everyone happy in the process. Here's a very thoughtful piece I just read during my lunch break : "... it costs money to make existing data open. That sounds like an excuse, and it's often used as one, but underneath is a very real problem: existing procedures and datasets aren't created, managed, or distributed in an open fashion. This means that the data's probably incomplete, the document's not great, the systems it lives on are built for internal use only, and there's no formal process around managing and distributing updates. It costs money and time to figure out the new processes, build or buy the new systems, and train the staff." Go read the rest : http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/02/rethinking-open-data.html Cheers, Yves > and his organisation is wrongly identified has the producer. > > Thanks for your help. > > Cheers, > > Nicolas _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
