On these lines my one-liner for OSM is that it is "A project to create the best community-produced Open Geo Data set of the whole world of any (verifiable) physical object (and some non-physical data, too)."
So, my key points in that are: 1) Open Geodata 2) of all data, _integrated_ (no layers, at least yet; carries the centuries/millenia old tradition of handicraft vs. automation) 3) to which any and everyone is equally welcome to contribute to (with equal weight - meritocracy); with any appropriate data source, including gov data Cheers, -Jaakko -- Sent from my mobile. Excuse my brevity and/or typos. P.S. While on the go, SMS reaches me fastest. On Nov 26, 2012 9:19 AM, "Joseph Reeves" <iknowjos...@gmail.com> wrote: > Apologies for bringing up imports on the list. At least I didn't mention > the license change though! ;) > > >That's not wrong either, but not precise enough to distinguish a project > >such as OSM from e.g. governments' Open Data efforts. > > Continuing to play Devil's Advocate, I think this is just an issue of > imagination scope: Why do we need to distinguish OSM from governments' Open > Data efforts? Does that bring us any benefit? Are you trying to highlight a > difference of scale or is there one type of "Open" that's different from > some "other Open"? > > I'd like to imagine a future scenario in which a country's National > Mapping Agency decides that OSM is going to be the official source of > geographic data. As an NMA contributes and maintains data within OSM, the > "crowdsourced" argument becomes weaker and the "Open" word becomes more > important. > > Cheers, Joseph > > > > On 26 November 2012 13:43, Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> wrote: > >> On 26.11.2012 14:06, Joseph Reeves wrote: >> > Playing Devil's Advocate, "crowdsourced" isn't appropriate for large >> > swathes of OSM data: Europe, for example, is dominated by imported, not >> > crowdsourced, CORINE data. >> >> I don't believe that Europe is "dominated" by CORINE data. Several >> European countries never imported CORINE, and elsewhere most of the work >> would still consist of roads and other non-landuse data. >> >> Also consider that imports today almost necessarily have to be performed >> with manual interaction (to avoid duplicates and so on) and by various >> individuals. So even when imports take place, they are done in a >> "crowdsourced" manner. >> >> So I think "crowdsourced" is the most appropriate term that is still >> meaningful. >> >> > I'd describe OSM data simply as "open". >> >> That's not wrong either, but not precise enough to distinguish a project >> such as OSM from e.g. governments' Open Data efforts. That's because it >> overlaps with open licensing, which I assume will be stored separately >> in metadata, and various other associations of the term. >> >> Tobias >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
