Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Import guidelines proposal update
Pieren wrote: There definitely is not general agreement at this time that this passage should be changed. Could you please point out in archives (wiki or mailing list) where the separate account became generaly agreed ? Or you can simply tell me the communication channel and an approximate date, I will search myself. Pieren - I can remember the discussion in relation to the Canadian imports, but I don't have time to go back through. The general jist was that it was difficult to separate tidying up imported data from the 'base' import, and short term it would not be practical to make changes to the software to identify the differences, so the short term fix was to 'request' that the base import had a different user id. With the intention that a better solution would be looked into. We know that the process IS flawed, and that it needs tidying up, and since you have practical experience of handing this type of import, how about contributing to the overhaul? Actually where is THAT being debated? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Import guidelines proposal update
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate account: 1. it's easier to separate from normal contributions 2. it's more effecient for sourcing 3. it's easier to identify the source if we change the license. We faced that issue in the past for ODbl transition 1. We said we upload sourced elements. We can easily identify the changesets. We already reverted bad imports ourselves. Using the same account was never an issue for us. And let say, I create my 2nd account. What happens if I use it for normal contributions ? I will be blocked by the DWG ? Probably not. Finally I could stay and always contribute with my 2nd account. Or what will distinguish my import account(s) to my normal contribtuion account for the DWG ? Attributions in the profile ? Are we blocked if we specify more than one attribution in the user profile ? Are we blocked if our contributions do not correspond to the attribution in the user profile ? or if the DWG is not able to understand/translate it ? 2. They are other methods for sourcing, each with pros and cons (available or not in exports, duplicates, etc). And sourcing is complex because many contributions are mixing several sources. And rebuilding the whole history of an element is not trivial. 3. In our case, the dataset is released in a kind of Public Domaine where only attribution is required. The risk about a licence change is null (and it was not an issue for the cc-by-sa to ODbl transition). Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Import guidelines proposal update
Pieren wrote: Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate account: Pieren - please stop banging on about this - we know that the current process is flawed but it WAS put in place when problems arose in the Canadian imports, and it IS current practice. If one 'local group' is treated as a 'special case' then we will get into a cycle of 'me to' so please lets not got there. In your particular case, there are arguments either way, and it may be appropriate for someone to say sorry, I don't know that anybody has particularly done anything wrong - on either side! - it is just a matter of miss-understanding what people are saying? On both sides? Lets move all this energy into fixing the process and getting a robust mechanism moving forward! -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Import guidelines proposal update
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate account: 1. it's easier to separate from normal contributions 2. it's more effecient for sourcing 3. it's easier to identify the source if we change the license. We faced that issue in the past for ODbl transition Lester Is a separate account is the better and only way to have some metadata documenting imports? I don't think so.There are various ways to document imports. There were discussions on the Import listin 2009. Andy Allan opinion was that metadata like attribution should be on the Changeset and not on the geo feature. Other like Pieren suggested that it is sometime necessary to give attribution on the geo feature. Andy Allen also stated that using a dedicated account was something he less bothered about. When uploading to the OSM database, I think that the Changeset comment field can be used to both give attribution and indicate that it is bulk edit. This will be simple and as efficient. It will be easier to manage for both the contributor, the local chapter and the DWG. Pierre ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Import guidelines proposal update
De : 2012-09-20 Lester Caine lester at lsces.co.uk Pieren - please stop banging on about this - we know that the current process is flawed but it WAS put in place when problems arose in the Canadian imports, and it IS current practice. If one 'local group' is treated as a 'special case' then we will get into a cycle of 'me to' so please lets not got there. Lester I am a canadian contributor since jan 2010 and follow the Talk-Ca list. I dont remember a lot of discussions about this since then. Just some people expressing that they dont like imports by principle and prefer having fun mapping from gps traces. How much problems? How much discussions? Any consensus? Where and when? Pierre De : Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk À : OSM Talk talk@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Jeudi 20 septembre 2012 7h05 Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Import guidelines proposal update Pieren wrote: Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate account: Pieren - please stop banging on about this - we know that the current process is flawed but it WAS put in place when problems arose in the Canadian imports, and it IS current practice. If one 'local group' is treated as a 'special case' then we will get into a cycle of 'me to' so please lets not got there. In your particular case, there are arguments either way, and it may be appropriate for someone to say sorry, I don't know that anybody has particularly done anything wrong - on either side! - it is just a matter of miss-understanding what people are saying? On both sides? Lets move all this energy into fixing the process and getting a robust mechanism moving forward! -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Import guidelines proposal update
Pierre Béland wrote: Check the list of arguments presented here for the mandatory separate account: 1. it's easier to separate from normal contributions 2. it's more effecient for sourcing 3. it's easier to identify the source if we change the license. We faced that issue in the past for ODbl transition Lester Is a separate account is the better and only way to have some metadata documenting imports? I don't think so.There are various ways to document imports. To be honest I think that the 'separate account' was originally recommended for a single import of a complete set of data. So we all knew that this data came from 'xxx', but I'm not even sure now that when you select an object it still tells you that information? There were discussions on the Import listin 2009. Andy Allan opinion was that metadata like attribution should be on the Changeset and not on the geo feature. Other like Pieren suggested that it is sometime necessary to give attribution on the geo feature. Andy Allen also stated that using a dedicated account was something he less bothered about. When uploading to the OSM database, I think that the Changeset comment field can be used to both give attribution and indicate that it is bulk edit. This will be simple and as efficient. It will be easier to manage for both the contributor, the local chapter and the DWG. Comment fields are not documented as well as they should be and the 'problem' that instigated this thread is to my view of what's on line a very good example of why there WAS a problem. Correctly flagging information is essential and we do perhaps need a little more 'automatic' actions. I can see that the French data is perhaps not suited to a 'single import' which is then the problem, since multiple imports already processed in some way are just as much a problem? Lets try and make the 'initial' import as clean as possible even if that has to be to a staging area from which packets can be taken and manually processed. Identification can then be married back to the raw data in a location where anybody can see it? If that Knight Foundation grant is suitable I'd like to propose that it is directed towards the very tools I am talking about to take all the currently available data sources and importing them in as raw a format as possible into an overlay system from where they can be merged with the main database. Rather than the quite heroic efforts that are currently being used to import them? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Import guidelines proposal update
2012-09-20 Lester Caine lester at lsces.co.uk Comment fields are not documented as well as they should be and the 'problem' that instigated this thread is to my view of what's on line a very good example of why there WAS a problem. Correctly flagging information is essential and we do perhaps need a little more 'automatic' actions. I can see that the French data is perhaps not suited to a 'single import' which is then the problem, since multiple imports already processed in some way are just as much a problem? Lets try and make the 'initial' import as clean as possible even if that has to be to a staging area from which packets can be taken and manually processed. Identification can then be married back to the raw data in a location where anybody can see it? Do you mean that documenting well the comment field would be a satisfactory solution? Pierre ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Import guidelines proposal update
Béland Pierre wrote: 2012-09-20 Lester Caine lester at lsces.co.uk Comment fields are not documented as well as they should be and the 'problem' that instigated this thread is to my view of what's on line a very good example of why there WAS a problem. Correctly flagging information is essential and we do perhaps need a little more 'automatic' actions. I can see that the French data is perhaps not suited to a 'single import' which is then the problem, since multiple imports already processed in some way are just as much a problem? Lets try and make the 'initial' import as clean as possible even if that has to be to a staging area from which packets can be taken and manually processed. Identification can then be married back to the raw data in a location where anybody can see it? Do you mean that documenting well the comment field would be a satisfactory solution? In the short term it would help ... if you check the particular commit that caused all this uproar then a few extra words COULD have prevented a problem? I accept now there was a discussion on the French list but how many local lists do we have now? I can't see any reference to 'cadastre import' with reference to that activity but even then I would contest that wiping the original data was still wrong - even if a local group 'approved' it - but I'm not from the camp that prefer 'only current data' ;) Bulk deletes will always attract attention as they should and even if in this case the commit was 'Mistake with merging cadastre import - deleting to allow new data to load' I would expect SOMEONE to be checking that it was right! As others have said, I find the actions taken by DWG totally acceptable as there is no obvious attribution to 'cadastre import' ... which is all that was asked for previously? Alright insisting on a 'new account' may be wrong, but identifying the 'import source' somewhere is not unreasonable? We do have the problem of the 'language' used to inform other users and some English translations on some of the cadastre import stuff would help? I will add that I am very much opposed to any suggestion that the database should be 'carved up' and managed by different local groups. The DWG is not ideal, and as far as I am aware would welcome some additional help from wherever. But that is the ideal level to oversee the whole picture and in the end arbitrate when groups disagree amongst themselves. How many 'border disputes' will we have if we go down that path? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Import guidelines proposal update
2012-09-20 Lester Caine wrote Alright insisting on a 'new account' may be wrong, but identifying the 'import source' somewhere is not unreasonable? We do have the problem of the 'language' used to inform other users and some English translations on some of the cadastre import stuff would help? I will add that I am very much opposed to any suggestion that the database should be 'carved up' and managed by different local groups. The DWG is not ideal, and as far as I am aware would welcome some additional help from wherever. But that is the ideal level to oversee the whole picture and in the end arbitrate when groups disagree amongst themselves. How many 'border disputes' will we have if we go down that path? I will speak for the Québec community only. Management in a large organization cannot be made centralized only and with a few rules. When we say management, we are talking about following mapping and contributors, informing, teaching, organizing social events. In Canada, we have the Talk-ca discussion list were most of the discussion is in english. And often, there are no tools for monitoriging at regional or local level. I am a HOT member. Our work brings us in many countries were we try to develop local communities. We have to adapt to a multitude of cultures not to talk about computer literacy and language problems. The Knight Foundation 575,000$ award should help to adapt Openstreetmap infrastructure to the organization. I see two interesting text written by Kate Chapman and Mikel Maron of HOT that give good clues. Kate Chapman, http://www.maploser.com/2012/03/29/all-i-want-for-openstreetmap-is-simple/ Mikel Maron All I want fo OpenStreetMap ... Is Social and Attention http://brainoff.com/weblog/2012/03/30/1773 Pierre ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Import guidelines proposal update
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: There definitely is not general agreement at this time that this passage should be changed. Could you please point out in archives (wiki or mailing list) where the separate account became generaly agreed ? Or you can simply tell me the communication channel and an approximate date, I will search myself. It is funny to see that general agreement is required when you don't like the change and optional (as Frederik said, we have no voting system) when it's going to your way, Now we have two small groups. None of them can prove general agreement. How can we progress in a constructive way ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Imports] Import guidelines proposal update
Pieren writes: Could you please point out in archives (wiki or mailing list) where the separate account became generaly agreed ? It's always been generally agreed upon as far as I know. You could look at the wiki and see when the text was first edited to suggest a separate account. I would do it, but I don't give a shit. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
