I think the concerns about fragmenting OSM are valid. The problem with two databases and two toolchains is that you've just cut the "collaborative power" of OSM in half. I really think a situation in which all OSM users get to benefit from the PD data will be best. This will really make the whole idea a lot more palatable for the larger OSM community.
If we do set up a separate database and toolchain, I think we should definitely consider a mechanism (automated or manual) to regularly integrate public domain contributions into OSM. I suppose this could be trickier than I realize. For example: Someone uploads a route to the PD database while someone else uploads it to the main OSM database. Now you've got a conflict resolution problem. Still, I really think it best if all of OSM gets to benefit from the PD data. Landon On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, as Frederik noted in the other thread, keeping it low key is best. I'm > thinking parallel database running the same toolchain. No tools for > automatically propagating to the main database. > > I'm not trying to fragment the project and I'm hoping no-one else is. I'm > trying to maximize the value of my mapping data. > > If OSM/PD gains popularity, it will only be because that's what the > community wants. And that's a big 'if' that starts with someone saying he's > willing to host and maintain the database. > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Nic Roets wrote: >> >>> Many OSM contributors indicated that they are interested in a PD >>> alternative (Richard, Frederik, myself etc). I believe that having a PD >>> database (subset) many have a few applications. Like showcasing OSM on >>> website where a viral license will be an issue. Google Earth etc. >> >> None of which explains how, on a practical level, it is supposed to work. >> As I understand it the PD database would operate in parallel and people who >> wanted to would upload to both that and OSM but while that can work for new >> objects I don't see how it can work where an existing object is being >> edited. >> >> Not that I really care about how it works unless it is an official part of >> OSM that I and the other admins are going to be expected to provide >> resources for, which is where we came in with a request for resources to be >> allocated to the project. >> >>> We all want to improve OSM data quantity and quality. We just haven't >>> agreed on weather a viral license will help or hinder. Just like we haven't >>> agreed on JOSM vs. Potlatch. >> >> No, but some of us are trying to work to achieve the best consensus >> possible within the existing project while others appear to be trying to >> fragment the project. >> >> Tom >> >> -- >> Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >> http://www.compton.nu/ > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
