On Jan 19, 2019, at 1:22 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote: > As a point of information the 2020 web page I think was started by Julia and > very heavily edited by Stevea.
Sure I did, because it seriously lacked in the technical direction anybody would need to "map going forward" in the project/initiative as described. What tags, what tools, what's the finish line? It was hugely vague, essentially not a wiki that "nuts and bolts" OSM editors who wanted to make real contributions would be able to refer to and get concrete answers to their "how do I DO this?" questions. And that's what wikis normally do, not "catch imagination." > I think we are now agreed that the 2020 project with its idea of mapping > buildings in iD is not optimal. This distinction of "don't use iD, it sucks at allowing good building data to enter (except for tags, maybe)" is somewhat new to me. I don't doubt it happened, but it almost seems a "red herring distinction" (distraction?) at this point in time. And if "don't use a particular editor" is the bottom-line result from all the effort that came from writing that wiki, that's not a lot of bang for the buck. > However Julia's style did make its mark with many students and educators and > caught their imagination. Fine, glad to hear it. However, please don't pretend that wiki is the document that "roll up our sleeves" volunteers go-to to discover "HOW?" as the be-all and end-all of answers to our questions (most quite specific and somewhat technical, though truth be told, not truly difficult, simply trying to draw a line from "can't do it" to "ah, now I see how"). OSM volunteers need guidance and answers to their questions, especially in huge, nationwide endeavors. Plan! Answering "how do I do this in OSM" questions is what wikis in OSM are pretty good at doing, usually. While Julia's might have a style that appeals to students (and that's "not nothing") it was essentially "non wiki-like" in what wikis usually do. The remedy? Fix the existing wiki (that re-write, despite my best efforts, did not produce the desired results, or did so in odd and ineffective directions) OR write wholesale new wikis which DO get the job done. Largely, the Import Plan (the "current wiki" of this project) still doesn't fully do that (and an Import Plan is not a WikiProject), but "necessary steps to get the job done" are at least "out there somewhere," and hopefully will get better. (Look, Yaro "discovered" methods to move the ball forward, so it's possible). Anybody up for writing a real WikiProject for this endeavor? (Not me). The project really would benefit by this (and provincial-level wikis, too, imo) as well. We're in early days, let's see what unfolds. "The snowball is rolling downhill" and it's hard to predict what surprises OSM will reveal as things pick up mass and speed. > The import plan is not the 2020 web page, it is something different. The 2020 > web page has a pointer to it and it is the import plan or the import we are > talking about here. Starting with a fresh WikiProject (and even what it should be named are being thrown around, e.g. by Nate in the Talk tab) seems a fairly important direction to take. I've done this with WikiProject United States Bicycle Route System (fairly successfully) and WikiProject United States railways. The latter is a tough slog, starting from our 2007 TIGER data import of USA railways (many times more massive data than Canada's building import), though since I started to talk about this on talk-us in 2013-4, spoke about it at SOTM-US in Seattle in 2016 and at end of 2018, we now have almost half the US states (all Western states, some Eastern) with a wiki describing the state of their rail (both freight and passenger) and color-coded tables which describe how far along we are with TIGER Review. Replicate that, Canada, please, in your own way, at your own pace. Such massive, nationwide projects CAN be done, and while I'm not saying I did this single-handedly, I'm living proof that a dedicated leader can take it far, far forward. So, GO! You, I, many can bang out a decent (skeletal, at first, they always are) wiki in two hours to a weekend, so get busy. > The decision was taken by the small group who are putting this lot together, > to keep the 2020 as part of the name in order to link the two together. A > large part of the 2020 project was enriching the building outline data and > that I think was and still is important. Great. > What would be interesting is to hear from Canadian mappers what their current > thoughts are. The earlier talk-ca comments are still in talk-ca but remember > some time has passed since they were made. Certainly Nate for one was not > around in talk-ca when the matter was discussed. You asked for "Thoughts?" and you got mine. Yes, let's hear from Canadians, please. SteveA California P.S. Merci à Pierre pour son récent post de Toronto stats _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
