My background is I'm a retired civil servant who has written and overseen procurement documents and fairly large procurements. Dotting the is and crossing the Ts are my speciality.
There are two parts to an import. The first part is the part played by the import mailing group. They confine themselves to is the license correct and do you have a reasonable plan. In this case the license is one of the few that has been confirmed by the Legal Working Group of OpenStreetMap and as such no questions were raised about it on the import mailing list. We have methodology that has been used before successfully with the Ottawa building outline import. There were major discussions both on talk-ca and the import mailing group before that import took place and we took note of the issues raised and addressed them. The licensing issue goes back about eight years to when I was talking to Federal Government Treasury Board and explaining their Open Data license did not align with OSM. That is why their license is now known as 2.0. The second part is the local group makes the decision to import they are the authority no one else. Apparently you were not part of the talk-ca when the discussions took place which would have been the time and place to raise concerns. When the Ottawa import was done there were one or two places where the existing buildings and the import overlapped. In the instructions on the import there are instructions to cover this. Specifically there is a validation step. I seem to recall the error rate was of the order of 1% and I expect this latest batch to be roughly the same. If you can identify which municipalities data is of poor quality then I'm sure we can remove these. For the most part these are from the foundation plans recorded by the municipality using professional surveying techniques. Would you like to clarify exactly where I failed to dot the Is and cross the Ts please. Many Thanks John On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 13:37, Nate Wessel <bike...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi John, > > As Steve has said, you seem to be the only one suggesting that thousands > of import committees might need to be formed. Certainly I'm not suggesting > that. > > My understanding of OSM import procedure (and wiki-style projects more > generally) is that imports should operate in an essentially consensual way > where possible. The goal is to build consent and bring people on board with > a project or a change by addressing their concerns in a meaningful and > respectful way. > > I think that I have made some substantive and troubling claims about the > quality of the data being imported. I've pointed out that this project has > not followed the import procedures that were produced by a community of > mappers larger than just those in Canada. > > So to respond to your implication, I am in some sense the one reviewing > the project, just as I would welcome you to find ways that my own > contributions could be better. If you want my credentials for reviewing > your work, here they are: > > 1) I am an active contributor to OSM in Toronto, where I live (and > elsewhere) > > 2) I am currently helping to lead a building import in Hamilton County > Ohio that has better addressed some of the issues I see this import > struggling with. I can help you do the same. > > 3) I've been doing research in GIS for a long time now, though I don't > need that to tell you that the issues I've described are hardly > insurmountable technically or even all that difficult to fix. It would take > maybe one day's hard work to get the technical side of this right. > > I think Canadian OSMers will agree that we can take a pause to get things > right on such a massive import. If they don't - if I'm shouted down or > better, if my critiques are adequately addressed, then I will leave you to > finish the project in peace. I might even lend a hand if all goes well, as > I sincerely hope it does :-) > > Best, > Nate Wessel > Jack of all trades, Master of Geography, PhD candidate in Urban Planning > NateWessel.com <http://natewessel.com> > > On 1/18/19 1:11 PM, john whelan wrote: > > I know of no other way to contact him but he made an interesting comment > that the project is on hold in the wiki pending review. > > Would he care to comment on who is supposed to be reviewing the project? > > My understanding is that the import was raised in talk-ca before it > commenced for comment and these were generally favourable. I took that as > the local mappers to Canada had been consulted and they are the "local > mappers" authority in this case. > > I understand he has concerns about local mappers making decisions but in > Canada we have been importing similar data through CANVEC for some time. > CANVEC data comes from a number of sources including municipal data. > > Is he suggesting that each of the 3,700 municipalities in Canada should > form a group of local mappers who can make individual decisions on whether > their municipal data should be imported and we should end up with 3,700 > import plans? > > Thanks John > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing > listTalk-ca@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > 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
