On Jan 17, 2019, at 6:27 PM, Jarek Piórkowski <ja...@piorkowski.ca> wrote:
> When no one is responding, sometimes it is because they are fine with
> the message as-is. I read it. I was fine with it. This isn't an
> Australian election.
I'm not sure about the allusion to Australian elections, so I'll let that pass
(over my head). I will self-admonish at not saying more in November at the
"reboot post," as while I felt then that these (BC2020) efforts would go awry
(again) this time (and here we are) I also felt like some (would, do) see me as
a loud-mouth with an unwelcome message. Despite my continuing desire to be
polite ("you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar"), no amount
of sugar-coating was going to sweeten a dearth of consensus and a
still-vinegar-sour early-draft wiki into the green flag of "let's proceed."
I tried to write as much as I thought helpful into that wiki, however, it never
became more sharply focused, which badly needed doing. Lesson learned (by me,
how about Canadian OSM volunteers?). Honestly, I am not looking to flog
anybody here, let's simply learn how to do this better. There are kernels of
success here that can be further developed, so, go do that. Figure out how,
first, then proceed. Most/all of the principal and important players talking
to each other while/as you do so seems like "first grade" to me and isn't
really so hard, it's more like effort that needs to be truly expended rather
than wished for instead. OSM isn't a crowdsourcing magic trick. Especially
with nationwide efforts, it's "one building (rail line, bike route, park
boundary...) at a time." Do that well (early) and scale that up (after).
> I must say I find the panic about imperfect building shapes is a bit
> amusing considering the very poorly manually-drawn sidewalks I've been
> seeing and having to fix in Toronto, or thousands of laneways having a
> descriptive "name" added by our corporate friends. Do we aim for
> perfect, or for good? Because if it's perfect, I see a _lot_ to be
> reverted or deleted.
Thanks, Jarek. Considering I am a proponent of "perfection must not be the
enemy of good" (regarding OSM data entry), I think data which are "darn good,
though not perfect" DO deserve to enter into OSM. Sometimes "darn good" might
be 85%, 95% "good," as then we'll get it to 99% and then 100% over time. But
if the focus on "how" isn't sharp enough to get it to 85% (or so) during
initial entry, go back and start over to get that number up. 85% sounds
arbitrary, I know, but think of it as "a solid B" which might be "passes the
class for now" without failing. And it's good we develop a "meanwhile
strategy" to take it to 99% and then 100% in the (near- or at most mid-term)
future. This isn't outrageously difficult, though it does take patience and
coordination. Open communication is a prerequisite.
SteveA
California
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
