The pilot project that took place in Ottawa for all these building imports is what got me hooked into OSM in the first place. I would make only very minor changes here and there. I even attempted to draw building footprints but got burnt out after only doing a single street, which was very discouraging for me to continue.
When I saw the entire neighbourhood get flooded with new buildings that weren't there before, I was entirely intrigued and actually got on board with the locals to help with the process. I've been hooked since and have been to many meetups afterwards. Helping out with projects completely unrelated to the initial building import. I'm entirely of the belief that it is much more encouraging for a new user to make a minor change (eg. changing `building=yes` to `building=detached`) than it is to add every single minor detail to each object from scratch (visiting the location, drawing the building footprints manually, adding address data, etc.). It's just overwhelming for a new user. It is very much a cat-and-mouse type scenario with community driven projects like OSM. Apparently the issue with this import is the lack of community involvement but I can for sure tell you that this import will help flourish the community in the local areas. Especially if they only need to add or change minor tags than if they would have had to create all of this data by hand. With an import this size there is bound to be some errors that slip through. That's where the community comes through to correct these minor things. This is the whole point of OSM. A user creates an object with as much information as they know and the next user comes and adds onto that, and the next user adds and/or updates even more. Neither of those users on their own could have added as much detail as all of their knowledge combined. Are we supposed to just wait for a user who can add every single building with centimetre precision and every bit of detail simply because we can't? No, of course not. We do the best we can and have other users who know more than we do build on that. I fully endorse this import because I would love to see what it does for the local communities that apparently need to figure this import out for themselves. Cheers, Kyle On Jan. 18, 2019 05:40, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote: As Frederik Ramm once said(sorry i'm paraphrasing from memory please don't shoot me) There has never been a GO-Nogo for imports, you bring it up on the mailing lists with reasonable delay, is there no objections(in this case no one was saying anything about it for 2-3 weeks) then email the list that the import would start. On Fri., Jan. 18, 2019, 12:59 a.m. Alan Richards <alarob...@gmail.com<mailto:alarob...@gmail.com> wrote: Along the lines of what Jarek said, sometimes silence just means tacit acceptance, or that it's not that controversial. There's quite a bit of government data here that is supposedly "open" but unavailable for OSM, so I'm very glad Stats Can was able to find a way to collect municipal data and publish it under one national license. I was surprised myself it hadn't got more attention, but I'm firmly onboard with more imports if done with care. Manually adding buildings - especially residential neighborhoods, is about the most boring task I can think of, yet it does add a lot to the map. I'll admit I hadn't looked at the data quality myself, but I just did review several task squares around BC and they look pretty good. Houses were all in the right place, accurate, and generally as much or even more detailed than I typically see. Issues seemed to be mostly the larger commercial buildings being overly large or missing detail, but in general these are the buildings most likely to be already mapped. To a large degree, it's up the individual importer to do some quality control, review against existing object, satellite, etc. If we have specific issues we can and should address them, but if the data is largely good then I see no need to abort or revert. alarobric On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:41 PM Jarek Piórkowski <ja...@piorkowski.ca<mailto:ja...@piorkowski.ca>> wrote: On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 21:46, OSM Volunteer stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com<mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com>> wrote: > 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. Thank you for this commitment. I wish others shared it. Unfortunately the reality I've been seeing in OSM is that edits which are 90+% good (like this import) are challenged, while edits which are 50+% bad (maps.me<http://maps.me> submissions, wheelmap/rosemary v0.4.4 going to completely wrong locations for _years_) go unchallenged or are laboriously manually fixed afterward. --Jarek _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
