Hi Andy, Sure. Might have to give us a few days though before we come back to you.
Can you also look at the import guidelines as it feels very heavy handed (almost police state) currently? I appreciate this is a big ask (I help SotM WG and understand the pressure WGs can be under) but I wonder whether having a more supportive process would be better and result in less work for the DWG in the long run. For example we could have a place that welcomes people who have third party data. It would guide them through the process of validating the licence and the data attributes (e.g. upload a sample for a crack team of OSM experienced members to review the data and propose sensible tags). This would be a much nicer experience than the current interrogation approach. It would also prevent the filibuster type responses you get via unstructured email. Best regards, *Rob* On 20 March 2017 at 22:39, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20/03/2017 12:34, Rob Nickerson wrote: > >> >> Let's step back, allow for this data to be completed (else it will be in >> a worse case) and find a sensible way forward for the guidelines when we >> have time to think with a fresh mind. >> > > Thanks Rob. Looking forward from here, would it be possible to document > where we are with the "trees" import (i.e. what's been decided so far - was > it "yes we'll import it, with these tags" or "yes we'll import it, and > we'll sort out the tagging later" or something else?) and also if possible > fill in some of the other gaps (e.g. how to handle changes from the source > dataset in the future)? > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list > Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands >
_______________________________________________ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
