On 19.03.20 17:54, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > So - why are authoritative data sets an unwelcome addition?
At its core, OSM is a platform for collaboratively editing geodata. So the following would be strong reasons not to import a dataset: - other mappers should not edit it (because the dataset is the official source and changing it would just make it wrong) - other mappers cannot meaningfully edit it (because we cannot see the object in the real world and don't have access to useful sources). The way you describe it, collaborative editing doesn't seem to be a net benefit to your scenario, and in fact makes it harder to sync updates with the authoritative source. So as a thought experiment: Why not just convert your dataset to the OSM format to make it compatible with the OSM ecosystem, but skip the import into the main OSM database? In practice, I guess part of the answer for that is discoverability: Who wants to hunt down datasets scattered across various servers and portals? So it's tempting to put it all into a single big database. And I guess that's ok as long as it doesn't get in the way of the main purpose of that database too much – which is collaborative editing, not data distribution. But surely, with a decent implementation of compatible data layers tracked in some central repository, authoritative data could be used *with* OSM without being *in* OSM. Tobias _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
