On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
I disagree here. If the external source is "ground truth", then that's the data that should take precedence. A car share operator for example won't want a disused location shown, and may well make that a requirement of permitting the merge-sort. An import from a car share reservation system is definitive ground truth.
A car share operator, or anyone else can go in and mark a location as closed or delete it but the operator isn't automatically considered more authoratative than any other mapper. For example let us say a fast-food chain imports a database of their restaraunt locations and marks some of them as wheelchair=yes but I go visit the location and feel it doesn't qualify for that tag. The operators database can't complain ground truth or authority over someone who has actually visited that location and an automated script shouldn't 'undo' my change every month.
We can't accept imports with conditions like 'company XYZ gets to veto the tagging or changes of there locations'.
Steve _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
