2009/6/11 Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com>: > I'm surprised by the panic and outrage I'm hearing in this thread.
I think you have to be careful when interpreting these kinds of intentions and emotions in email. It's a very impersonal medium, so it's easy to misinterpret what people are actually thinking. Yes, I've been articulating the point of view that it isn't desirable to import/merge the geobase data into OSM verbatim, but that doesn't mean that I'm outraged, or that I'm totally inflexible on the resolution of the discussion. I'm actually really interested in what people have to say. Moreover, I think this latest thread has already turned up some insights which have been pretty valuable. > I'm not aware of anybody creating an OSM-CA branch of tagging that is > incompatible with "community standards". The conversations I've been > involved in have been aimed at making the very best interpretation of > the GeoBase (etc) data in terms of OSM tagging. Like including > attribution, the conversion tool used, the source uuid and using an > import_id. Those are all best practises. Best practices in terms of OSM or best practices in terms of GeoBase? Can you point to examples in other countries of people including this type of information as part of a bulk data import? (this isn't a rhetorical question-- I'd really like to know!) > Some of you fear that short ways will look bad on mapnik/osmarender. > Remember that the default tiles must be a general purpose rendering. By > that very nature some things will look better and some worse. And some > things just will not be rendered on a general purpose map at all. And > this is where OSM really shines, YOU CAN MAKE IT DO WHAT YOU WANT ON > YOUR MAP! Yes, but if I need to do special post-processing for every country to make my map display half-decently, isn't that a problem? The more practices we share with the rest of the world, the easier it will be for them to take advantage of our data. > But to suggest that the Thing To Do is to combine GeoBase ways, because > you like it that way? Surely there are more-productive things that you > can do? Add turn restrictions, block addressing, building outlines, or > points of interest perhaps? To me it's not a question of "what I like", but what the rest of the world is doing. And if we're doing things differently from the rest of the world, does it matter? For example, it may be that the (implied?) convention is that ways can end at any time, for any reason. If so, maybe we should just go ahead and split up the existing ways on intersections (using something like the tool I wrote up a while back: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2009-April/001001.html), slap in some geobase UUIDs, and update our renderers/editing tools/what have you to handle this type of case better. Perhaps this is a question for the broader OSM community to answer, has anyone asked? If not, I volunteer to do so. > And to delete the GeoBase nids/uuids? Why? Because you don't know what > you would do with them? That sounds like vandalism to me. As others have pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the question isn't so much whether to delete the UUIDs, but what the cost is for making them uniformly available on the map. -- William Lachance wrl...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
