> Threads here, consensus and the wiki declared it dead, as it failed on a number of fronts, primarily that it didn't respect OSM in certain ways in which OSM must be respected.
The pilot project itself did manage to get a fair amount of accurate data into OSM. That data is still there and can be used. It was instrumental in supporting the HOT summit in Ottawa. It managed to raise awareness within local government both in Canada and in Africa about how OSM could be useful and it clarified a number of legal issues about importing data. > And I'm not boasting, but I did put some effort into the richest set of potential tags (harvested from our wikis) than I believe anybody else did, and I don't really have any specific interest in the project, except that it be a WELL RUN project. (So I tried very hard to "seed it well"). You mean me getting the recumbent trike out and site inspecting a few hundred buildings and adding tags to them was for nought? How sad. There is still a gentle movement to gather more data over time, whether we are keeping the current building data up to date is a separate issue. Stats is still trying to find ways to make building outlines available under their Open Data license. The feedback I'm referring to was the number of buildings tagged and the total number of tags on the buildings. When I saw the analysis it was quite interesting to see the numbers going up. What I didn't see is those parts of the map that had low numbers of building tags. The approach used on the pilot to import building outlines manually has been picked up by Microsoft who have been making them available for the USA and I understand Stats were involved with discussions with Microsoft about some technical aspects. The Ottawa pilot was a perfect storm in many ways with many different players involved coming together. Reproducing it is harder than it first seems. What I would like to see is someone pick up doing analysis with R r.org to see if we can build the feedback loops that might help motivate getting the tags populated. Cheerio John On 6 September 2018 at 16:39, OSM Volunteer stevea < stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > On Sep 6, 2018, at 1:14 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote > (replying to me, stevea): > > > Hm, we tried to revive the wiki, a tried-and-true OSM methodology for > doing EXACTLY that. Is there something wrong with that idea? > > > > No this project was initiated by Stats Canada, but without clear > requirements or feedback about what had been achieved. The Stats Can side > wasn't dependant on normal OSM mappers but my understanding was it was > hoping to draw in new mappers. > > John, BC2020i (note the i) was initiated by Stats Canada. Threads here, > consensus and the wiki declared it dead, as it failed on a number of > fronts, primarily that it didn't respect OSM in certain ways in which OSM > must be respected. It MIGHT have become resurrected as BC2020 (no i) and > the wiki were attempts to do that, especially as Stats Canada was out of > the picture by then, as they weren't going to contribute to either the wiki > or the BC2020 itself, though, like anybody who "takes" (uses, and not in a > bad way) OSM data, StatsCanada would be welcome to the results of BC2020 > (and BC2020i is dead, I'll say it one more time). We stripped away what > was wrong with "i" and slightly renamed the project to conform to the way > that OSM has, can, does and will complete projects (including, but > requiring that we use wikis). BC2020 seems to have become moribund and > ineffective, though I continue to hold out high hopes that it can be > successful. > > OSM actually DOES have clear requirements or feedback, part of those are > naturally "built in" to crowdsourced projects, part of those need a bit of > goosing along by prompting volunteers to communicate well (wiki is ONE way, > not the only way) via simple things like reporting progress and/or > continuing to sharpen up focus because tagging started out as an early > draft, but now is a "more complete" or "final" draft. Sure, any good > project wants to start out with clear goals (and should) but a modest bit > of mid-course correction certainly won't prevent successful completion. > > > Fine but a couple of maperthons that were organised had data quality > issues and no clear guidance about what tags were most valuable. > > That's because no QA was planned up front, just like I suggested to do > last year and into January of this year. And I'm not boasting, but I did > put some effort into the richest set of potential tags (harvested from our > wikis) than I believe anybody else did, and I don't really have any > specific interest in the project, except that it be a WELL RUN project. > (So I tried very hard to "seed it well"). In crowdsourcing, yes, this can > be challenging, but communication is the lynchpin that allows it. Wikis, > at least in OSM can be and often are a critical component of the successful > ongoing (status reporting, etc.) and completion of projects. > > > I could be wrong but I'm not aware of any significant movement on the > project. > > OSM (worldwide, not "just" in Canada or any particular country) seems to > be in a communication crisis, where everybody thinks that some sort of > "secret-special-sauce walkie-talkie" (like GitHub or Slack) will solve > everything. No. While those have their place (let me emphasize, I truly > mean that) they will continue to Balkanize (fracture) and legally bind > (have you READ the contracts GitHub and Slack ask you to agree to?!) OSM > volunteers far past the state of hobble-and-wobble, it will kill us. > > Talking about GitHub is like pilot-radio-chatter: specialized, harmful to > BUILDING new community (which is CRITICAL in BC2020) and will keep you > grounded as certain as a hurricane. OSM Canada knows how to crawl, and > even walk. To run, and even fly, especially with BC2020, use what we > have. The fancy stuff might (MIGHT!) be used later. > > SteveA
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
