Steve, On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 8:34 PM, stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:
> After my talk, Serge and Paul (Norman) had lunch with me, and while they > said that they did not represent the DWG, in fact they actually did. Serge > characterized this as "If a cop pulls you over and says 'I'm going to let > you off with a warning', you don't then respond 'But I wasn't doing anything > wrong' or more apropos, 'The law is unclear.'" He challenged my assertion > that a USBR is a real, tangible thing that ought to be mapped in OSM when it > doesn't have signs: Steve, there's so much wrong with your claim that I can't begin to take it all apart, but I will certainly defend myself against what I have no choice but to classify as "plain ol' lies". What I said to you at that time was that I was not wearing my DWG hat in talking with you because the DWG hadn't received a complaint about the proposed routes, which were the issue we were discussing. These were not official routes, these were (and now I will quote you) "[Using OSM as a] platform for discussion and debate in where the routes should be placed". I said that OSM was not a place for things which do not exist and are up for debate. That issue is quite clear and we had not one or two, at least three emails about it, in addition to the nearly hour long discussion we had at SOTM US. You then officially went to the DWG asking about the proposed and official routes, and the DWG position was that we were not going to intervene unless we received a complaint from a community member, but that if you kept pushing the issue, then the DWG would need to do an investigation, which might result in the deletion of your data. I didn't want to have to do that because while I think you were in the wrong, you were generally acting on what I felt to be good faith. I suggested to you that you drop the issue unless you wanted to make this official DWG business. In fact, you escalated the issue several times and I pleaded with you not to because I wanted to avoid needing the DWG to take an official stance on this data. That is where we left it. Proposals/plans do not belong in OSM. That is very clear. OSM is not a platform for debate about where things should be- it reflects ground truth only. USBR data is an edge case because it is not universally ground verifiable. The DWG has not taken a position on whether or not it belongs in OSM, but I personally believe that data which comes from a single source and is not ground verifiable does not belong in OSM. That view extends to government boundaries such as state and county boundaries. > No mention was made at > that lunch about "Import Guidelilnes" or that the network's entry into OSM > was "an import." That came later. That's correct, because you told me the work was done. If it was done, there was nothing left to discuss in regards to an import. Whether or not the non-proposed route data would be classified as an import is a matter of discussion. I personally believe that this would be an import- but am happy to entertain the idea that it's not- or whether or not the data belongs in OSM at all, which is still a discussion that needs to happen. The issue of utility, of course, is separate from the issue of "Does it belong in OSM", as we have had the question of ground verifiability many times with data which would be useful to have, including property lines, bird spotting data, wifi access points, etc. Your email contains things which I believe you know to be false. That kind of behavior certainly does not make for a condusive collaborative environment and I believe that you owe both Paul Norman and myself a personal appology. - Serge _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
