On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Daniel Sabo <daniels...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 19, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> From what I can tell (talk-ca postings etc.) 'sammuell' is a fairly >> inexperienced OSMer who presumably thinks "this is how things are done". It >> isn't. How do we stop this impression taking hold? How do we explain that >> imports are _not_ welcome except as a last resort, and if you do them, you >> _must_ follow a very, very rigorous set of guidelines? > > Maybe you don't like it, but you are not the entire OSM community. Yes, in > this case someone overwritten what I presume was good surveyed data with an > import was stupid. But in general the fact that data was gathered by a > government surveyor with tools an order of magnitude more accurate than ours > does not, IMHO, make it less "worthy" of being in OSM.
David, how would you propose to measure consensus from the OSM community? > From my limited experience working with a bunch of conflicting government > shapefiles is a HUGE pain in the ass. Doing quality imports where we correct > conflicts based on actual research (on the ground or otherwise) IS adding > value. The process of reconciliation is painful and difficult, and, unfortunately, rarely is the importer the one making the corrections, especially in large scale imports. It's not reasonable for someone to survey all the airstrips in the world, but neither is it reasonable for a single person to verify all the streets in a city. I say this both as a previous "bad importer" and as someone who fixes errors on the map. Since you feel strongly about imports, how would you go about preserving their value while reducing the kinds of issues brought up on the list (conflicts, removal of ground surveyed data, etc.) - Serge _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
