Hello everyone, OP again.
It seems like we have reached a consensus on all the issues and that we can start with small-scale tests, which will grow slowly until we have full and continuous data integration. I would like to thank everyone involved for the feedback and different perspectives on the issues and especially the Dutch' to provide a glimpse into their workflow, which will resemble our own process. Have fun mapping! Bye! Pieter Vander Vennet Op ma 5 nov. 2018 om 23:26 schreef Gertjan Idema <[email protected]>: > I'm sorry to hear that and I'm sure this was not the intention of writer > of the changeset comment. > > In this particular case, the new mapper changed the building outline to > the top view base on aerial imaging, which was quite different from the > footprint due to parallax. As far as I can find, the changeset has been > reverted based on mutual consent between the two mappers. But I don't if > the difference between the top view on aerial imaging and the foot print > was explained to the new mapper. > > Mapping discussions like these are inevitable in OSM, independent > whether the data comes from government data or not. The quality of the > government data in the Netherlands is very good. But if we are aware > that the government data is incorrect, we put the correct data in OSM > and inform the municipality so they can update their database. The > response differs between municipalities, but is generally improving. > > One thing that we might improve in our presentation of government data > is to take the 'under investigation' flag into account and present this > information to the mappers. Unfortunately that field is currently not > available in the official WFS service. > > On 05/11/2018 21:31, Andy Townsend wrote: > > On 05/11/2018 19:35, Gertjan Idema wrote: > >> > >> We have no issue with mappers being afraid to touch buildings because > >> of the building id's. > >> > > > > You do have cases of new mappers being told that they are "doing it > > wrong" because they try and update OSM data that is (at least > > partially) regularly updated by imported government data, though. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/63105329 is one that springs > > to mind (mainly because it's a buolding I've visited a very long time > > ago). Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, this mapper > > didn't feel able to continue in OSM. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Andy > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Imports mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports > > _______________________________________________ > Imports mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
