I made a maproulette challenge for this task in Durham County: http://maproulette.org/mr3/browse/challenges/3029
On Mon, 2018-05-07 at 14:54 -0400, James Umbanhowar wrote: > 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
