Actually Carol was at the first Atlanta Meeting also.
Lets do this - I've been thinking (I know - not good). Carol was as confused as I was on the intent of the landing page - then lets get through that. I don't know how we're going to collaborately edit it and have it make some sense but I see why you're wanting to stick it on the OSM US site since it deals with the US OSM imports. It needs to tie in somehow to the wiki (which I agree is confusing). I guess we probably need to wait for Martijn since we've most likely caused him to go running for cover.
Don't get frustrated - that's how it sounds to us (GIS folk) most of the time. In general comments get thrown around like "imports are hard" and "OSM is different" - I think you likened it to flying a 747 when you can't pilot a hang glider (or something). It's a data format that has it's quirks much like everything else. The kicker is not destroying data that already existed. That and having a useful import (landcover in Georgia not being one).
Take the feed back as confusion on our part - we thought we were going in Direction A - it seemed to change to Direction B. There's a lot of talk that goes on on our side of the fence. I know it may not look like it but we want to help.
Anyway - My .02 cents. Randy ----------------- Randal Hale, GISP North River Geographic Systems, Inc http://www.northrivergeographic.com 423.653.3611 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> twitter:rjhale http://about.me/rjhale On 11/04/2013 02:46 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Carol, My issue is this is not "Serge vs Carol" or "Serge vs Randal". In fact, I liked Randal for the few hours I met him back in Atlanta so many years ago (that doesn't mean I don't like you- I've just never met you). I will tell you that I'm quite frustrated when I read comments like this from you, "The fact that you have brought up on many occasions that GIS folk couldn't possibly understand how perform high level geospatial problem solving is quite frankly more than a little insulting." - as I've never said, or implied any such thing. You might as well have said "Oh Serge, he tortures puppies and eats babies". It certainly doesn't make me excited to work collaboratively with you. What I'm trying to do is limit the scope of the discussion to one document because the other documents (the guidelines, the role of the other groups, the role of the DWG) are separate. That doesn't mean I don't care about them, but I was asked by Martijn (OSM US president) to do something and that is what I'm doing for now. Of course the import guidelines need modification. I agree they need radical modification, and I bet if you polled most of the DWG they'd say the same thing. But changing that will take more time than "Let's throw a web page up talking about this issue directly". I've been frustrated because I'm looking for feedback on one thing, and the response has had a lot of other issues mixed in. It really muddies the waters, which is why I've been saying "Let's stick just to this, and only this way"- in order to try to get this done so that we could move onto other topics. I just want to avoid taking on too much at first and never getting it done. We've gone down that road a few times, and I'm trying to learn from past mistakes. - Serge _______________________________________________ Imports-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
_______________________________________________ Imports-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
