I've looked at some of the data available from Durham County and: 1. There are very few missing streets in Durham County.
2. Some of the streets in the Durham County database are planned, but not yet built. This means that ground truthing (or orthoimagery truthing) would be needed. Sadly, the newest orthoimagery is 2-3 years old. On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 13:08 -0400, Mike N wrote: > On 5/7/2018 11:20 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > > first step would be to verify license compatibility, you need a > > clear > > statement from the > > county that they permit publication under the ODbL (note that if > > data is > > public domain, > > or published under a CC0 license (effectively public domain), the > > answer > > is yes.) > > > Agreed - even better than checking for permission for ODBL usage, > would be just to give explicit permission to bring into OSM, such as > template #3: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission - that > allows for a future OSM license change without having to re-obtain > permission from the source. > > Then when coupled with a tasking manager or MapRoulette, this > would > make a great group project. Assuming that the source data is open, > tasks can be created just with the deltas and the new streets added > as > you were planning. Once the license issues are addressed, let us > know > and we'll be glad to pitch in where needed. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
