I second Jóhannes -- every dataset, including OSM itself (hehe) has errors. Consuming each additional dataset is a complex task -- each dataset has its own structure and conventions, thus the fewer datasets one has to work with, the better. The fundamental problem with 99.9% of the datasets excluding OSM is a very slow and complex feedback loop - it takes a lot of efforts to fix an error in the upstream data source.
Should we blindly import everything into OSM? No. Should we import relevant authoritative sources, tagging them as such, and using them especially for cases like disputed borders? Certainly, especially because in OSM we can fix the issues we notice with them. On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:56 PM Jóhannes Birgir Jensson <j...@betra.is> wrote: > As someone who started as a foot mapper but who is now also in an > "authoritative position" I'd like to answer Frederik here. > > Amongst my professional responsibilities is the dissemination of the > authoritative data set for protected areas in Iceland. Many of these are > huge, do not have lines drawn on the ground (or water or sea) and can only > partially be mapped on foot. > > However I believe including them is beneficial for OSM and its users and > so have been doing updates as I can. However it is not an easy process for > large areas, having to chop the huge Vatnajökulsþjóðgarður (over 15% of > Iceland) up due to max nodes is not an easy feat - and now I have to update > it due to expanded boundaries and quite honestly it is a daunting task (it > will be easier to delete it and re-import it in a very time consuming > manner). > > So - why are authoritative data sets an unwelcome addition? I have many > data sets that I need to disseminate but only some are useful for OSM (in > my view). Also keeping them in sync can get harder as the key-cleanup crew > was roaming around recently. > > Do we just want things we can see, not things that are real, have a basis > in law, and you can get arrested for doing the wrong things in the wrong > areas? > > Things are not black and white, data sets are of different qualities and > such a sweeping statement is not helpful. > > -- > Jóhannes / Stalfur > > 19. mars 2020 kl. 11:35, skrifaði "Frederik Ramm" <frede...@remote.org>: > > > difficult to import "authoritative data sets"; the problem is that > > authoritative data sets are fundamentally incompatible with the way we > > operate in OpenStreetMap. To quote just an obvious example, the > > government of India certainly has an authoritative data set about where > > their boundaries are, it's just that this does not align with facts on > > the ground and hence our data is different. The past has shown that > > petrol station chains also have "authoritative" data sets about their > > stations but they are riddled with bugs, and not suitable for wholesale > > import. > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
