Mike Thompson <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 2:07 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Oh, that makes sense - thanks for the explanation. So the idea is to never >> let known issues into the main dataset in the first place. >> > Opinions may differ in a project as big as OSM, but that is my > understanding of the consensus.
Yes, it's my understanding of consensus too, in addition to my opinion. Note that there are two sets of standards for OSM. One is for how a person doing mapping is judged, when they are mapping at human speed in an editor. We tend to have notions of the right way, but be pretty lenient about things going wrong and getting fixed later, because new people get things wrong, but we need new people to have more people and that's how later experienced people start. The other set of standards is for importsa and mechanical edits, basically anything at scale. There, we basically insist that everything is done fully meets standards of "done right". Yes, it means it is harder to do an import, and takes more time to write code, but if that's what it takes to do it right, that's how it is. We don't have any notion that it's better to let deficient imports happen because it makes it easier for people to do them. Generally I think people agree that if an import is slowed down or even doesn't happen because it's too hard to do it right, that's ok. >> And thanks to all for your patience, understanding, and expertise! >> > Thanks for listening to community input! Agreed - that's what this list is for and it's great to see it working, which it doesn't always seem to.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
