subject:"\[OSM\-talk\] Import guidelines OSMF\/DWG governance"

2012/9/19 Vincent Pottier :
>> "Les données du cadastre ne peuvent former à elles seules les données
>> OSM. Ce qui interdit un import massif, direct et automatique"
>
> It means : "You cannot make a map with only data from cadastre. You can only
> mix them with other data".


Yes, and the interpretation of the French community (as in the wiki)
was that this would also make a massive import legally impossible.


> And in fact there is already other data in OSM, so we could...


Does this also mean that you can't render and distribute a map of a
small part of OSM data from France, if there is only cadastre in it?
Or render a subset of the French OSM data, like all building outlines?

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-19 Thread Vincent Pottier


Le 19/09/2012 16:23, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :

2012/9/19 Pieren :

The size of the whole French cadastre dataset is huge. We could upload
it in a single mass import with a bot using a seperate user account as
we did for the Corine Land Cover. We could follow 100% of the import
guidelines. Trust me, we have all the capacities in humans,
competences and computers to do it. But instead, we decided that
buildings have to be better integrated with the existing data and
better controlled by simple, average contributors in smaller chunks


actually looking at the summary in the osm wiki it looks as if you
can't do so for legal reasons:
"Les données du cadastre ne peuvent former à elles seules les données
OSM. Ce qui interdit un import massif, direct et automatique"
It means : "You cannot make a map with only data from cadastre. You can 
only mix them with other data".


And in fact there is already other data in OSM, so we could...
And in fact we don't have a proxy with cadastre data reprojected in WGA84.


top of the page, 2nd paragraph, "Il y a deux conditions à la
réutilisation des données du cadastre:":
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Cadastre_Fran%C3%A7ais/Conditions_d%27utilisation

;-)

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012/9/19 Pieren :
> The size of the whole French cadastre dataset is huge. We could upload
> it in a single mass import with a bot using a seperate user account as
> we did for the Corine Land Cover. We could follow 100% of the import
> guidelines. Trust me, we have all the capacities in humans,
> competences and computers to do it. But instead, we decided that
> buildings have to be better integrated with the existing data and
> better controlled by simple, average contributors in smaller chunks


actually looking at the summary in the osm wiki it looks as if you
can't do so for legal reasons:
"Les données du cadastre ne peuvent former à elles seules les données
OSM. Ce qui interdit un import massif, direct et automatique"

top of the page, 2nd paragraph, "Il y a deux conditions à la
réutilisation des données du cadastre:":
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Cadastre_Fran%C3%A7ais/Conditions_d%27utilisation

;-)

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012/9/19 Jean-Marc Liotier :
> the cadastre integration process represents such an amount of manual
> processing that some of those who did it took understandable personal
> offense that their work could be seen as just another botched mass import.
> If their input can be taken into account in the drafting of an inclusive
> policy covering massive edits, I'm sure that we'll soon be over that
> episode.


I'd like to raise another question in this context: citing the source.
It seems that you generally apply the source-tag to the osm object
instead of the changeset comment, but I'd propose to do it the other
way round. There are already tens of millions of objects in the db
with related source-tags
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=source+%3D+cadastre-dgi-fr
and putting it into the changeset comment could possibly reduce the
size of the objects tables in the db.

This leads also to another question: how should a mapper deal with
these source tags when he applies modifications to the object?

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial
>>subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase
>>the usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines
>>without addresses just don't really help with anything)

>Building outlines are an essential component of topographical maps,
>which have all sorts of uses. Buildings are an essential feature of
>flight simulator scenery that does not look dead. Building outlines help
>in identifying the position of localities. Even if you believe that OSM
>is only about roads, building outlines help in pointing to where ways
>may be missing. And I'm sure I have missed many other uses.


+1, building outlines also help to interpret urban typology, they are
useful when it comes to surveying housenumbers or ubicating POIs at
there correct spot, ...


And at this point the mechanism for applying updates from the data source 
becomes more important?


Still having to pull apart 'road-centric' data in the local area where 
everything is linked to the one way, I have no worry about adding this sort of 
data. It makes adding details like 'footpaths' as their own elements rather than 
some vague tag on a roadway meters away from it. Provided that we all follow the 
same rules when adding this sort of fine detail.


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012/9/18 Jean-Marc Liotier :
> On 09/18/2012 05:42 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
>> The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial
>> subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase
>> the usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines
>> without addresses just don't really help with anything)
> Building outlines are an essential component of topographical maps,
> which have all sorts of uses. Buildings are an essential feature of
> flight simulator scenery that does not look dead. Building outlines help
> in identifying the position of localities. Even if you believe that OSM
> is only about roads, building outlines help in pointing to where ways
> may be missing. And I'm sure I have missed many other uses.


+1, building outlines also help to interpret urban typology, they are
useful when it comes to surveying housenumbers or ubicating POIs at
there correct spot, ...

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Pieren wrote:

But let the local community decides when and who. And for that, we
need to contact people in their speaking language, not in English,
either through a local representative or e.g. standard messages
previously translated. Then check with the local community if or what
goes wrong with the person and only at the end, suspend his account.


A thought here which I think would work ...
One of the problems in some areas of the planet is working out which language to 
use to correspond, and while I can set that for my own account I can't see it on 
others? Perhaps a preferred language on the users info page?


Personally ( not limited to OSM ) when I receive an email from a contact who is 
obviously struggling I'll resort to google to send a 'translation' in what I 
think is the language they would prefer. It does help resolve confusion most of 
the time and can break the ice with the 'strange' use of technical terms ;)


On a second level, we are probably at a point where the 'check with the local 
community' should include copying this sort of matter to them? So the addition 
of a 'local community' selection would also help? It COULD help direct people to 
local language based support when they first register? And the local news list 
would get a post when someone joined who may need help? My data processing hat 
says "He selected French ... what French lists are registered so I can list 
them". 'Location' could add or filter the results?


On the specifics of the 'WikiProject France/Cadastre' ... while I can use Google 
to read up on the projects progress, it is only really a competent French 
speaking mapper who can provide an English translation that is accurate?  We do 
not do languages well ... that is a simple fact ... but it does require a little 
cooperation to fix that. I'm still not sure if the Cadastre data has the 
necessary unique identifiers to properly manage ongoing imports? The 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue entry is under 'One time 
import' and has not been updated since 2009 and provides a couple of broken 
links. This just needs tidying up a little with current information perhaps a 
summary in English? Even the Cadastre site provides an English version, but only 
for some of the content :( INFORMING the rest of the community what is going on 
is one of the 'requests' from the guide, and I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling 
that this has fallen a little behind in this case? That said, the whole 
Catalogue *IS* due for an overhaul :(


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-19 Thread Jean-Marc Liotier


On 19/09/2012 12:04, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> [..]

Thanks for the level-headed recapitulation - looks like we are moving 
forward.

Firstly, the status of the import guidelines needs to become less ambiguous.
At present we have three largely overlapping policies ('Mechanical Edit
Policy', 'Automated Edits code of conduct', and 'Import/Guidelines') on the
wiki, which are not always easy to find or understand. These need to be
abbreviated into one short, simple, unambiguous document, one that reflects
both the majority will of the existing community and OSMF's responsibility
to encourage future mappers, and then signed off by the OSMF board.
Sounds reasonable. Is there an habitual OSM way to set up the working 
group necessary to produce such document ? You can of course count on 
the input of the French community.

debate is more likely to reach an amicable resolution if carried out in a
less combative fashion? "Assume good faith" and all that.
With a collaborative process working toward a policy document, all the 
energy that poured out in debate will find a productive outlet.


I am sorry if you felt that some of us have been a bit too vindictive, 
but the cadastre integration process represents such an amount of manual 
processing that some of those who did it took understandable personal 
offense that their work could be seen as just another botched mass 
import. If their input can be taken into account in the drafting of an 
inclusive policy covering massive edits, I'm sure that we'll soon be 
over that episode.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-19 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Christian Quest wrote:
> As you're joining this topic, can you explain why you changed
> the guidelines in the wiki to make the dedicated account a
> requirement and not a recommendation anymore ?

As a few people have already said (Michael, Frederik, Simon etc.) this was
basically codifying existing best practice; there was a widespread
understanding among the worldwide community that this was the way to do it.
At the time, I recall that we were having difficulties with a succession of
bad, unregulated and undocumented imports from newcomers - time dulls the
memory but I think there were several in Canada.

It's also been observed, quite rightly, that the nuances of British English
- which tends to "gently suggest" when other languages would say "you
MUST!!!?!1" - are not easily appreciated by non-native speakers. We had a
case on talk-gb at a similar time where the wiki explained "don't do it"
with typical British understatement; a chap of Polish origin completely
misunderstood this, imported some unwanted data (in the UK) without
discussion - and incorrectly - and then got very aggressive when challenged.
Firming up the language is an attempt to avoid this type of
misunderstanding.

The Cadastre 'imports' are an unusual case, and the enthusiasm with which
Marc has taken to them is more unusual still. Clearly someone who just
traces building outlines in their village should not need to set up a
dedicated account just for that. On the other hand, an import of 115 948
nodes (changesets 12758927, 12759290, 12759667) is heavy-duty stuff on a
TIGER/Canvec scale, and the community consensus - outside France, at any
rate - has generally been that a separate account is required for this.

It's an interesting question as to whether local practice trumps general
community consensus. But I would caution against taking this concept of
'subsidiarity' too far. It's great when global norms are extended within the
spirit of OSM: for example, the German community has adopted the additional
tag motorroad=yes because OSM's long-established highway tagging didn't meet
their needs, and I applaud them for this.

But if, for example, the Moldavian community decided not to use
highway=motorway/trunk/primary at all, but chose road=1/2/3 instead, this
would damage every consumer, every newcomer, and lead to fragmentation and
unnecessary complexity. Saying "the local community has decided this" can
potentially lead to fossilisation: a group of 50 experienced users establish
a way of working that suits them, but which may not be in the interests of
newcomers. It isn't a silver bullet. (It's a similar situation to some of
the more relation-heavy tagging concepts that are introduced, whose users
then get annoyed when well-meaning newbies come along and inadvertently mess
them up.)

I think there are two things we can take from this.

Firstly, the status of the import guidelines needs to become less ambiguous.
At present we have three largely overlapping policies ('Mechanical Edit
Policy', 'Automated Edits code of conduct', and 'Import/Guidelines') on the
wiki, which are not always easy to find or understand. These need to be
abbreviated into one short, simple, unambiguous document, one that reflects
both the majority will of the existing community and OSMF's responsibility
to encourage future mappers, and then signed off by the OSMF board.

Secondly, we've just finished the licence change and I realise that some
people might miss the arguments... but could I gently suggest (there's that
British English reserve again) that a debate is more likely to reach an
amicable resolution if carried out in a less combative fashion? "Assume good
faith" and all that. Rabble-rousing on talk-fr@ to say "come to talk@ and
argue with people" is not really helpful, though I will admit to laughing
out loud at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2012-September/047956.html
:) A friendly "this policy doesn't accord with our local practice, can we
work something out?" message to start the thread would have been less likely
to get people's backs up than a long screed with a series of pointed
questions at the end.

cheers
Richard

--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-guidelines-OSMF-DWG-governance-tp5725810p5726103.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-19 Thread Pieren

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Are you saying that we should have had a vote on the wiki, or what? Who
> would have been eligible to vote? And are you at the same time saying that
> changing a policy on the wiki is not "clearly published"?

To progress a little bit in the debat and clear up some
misunderstandings.. It seems that nobody is able to say why the
separate user account became suddently mandatory in november when it
was earlier a recommendation. Never mind, it was not a problem for us
until someone was blocked just for this particular reason, not because
it was a good or bad, small or big import. No, just because he did not
use a separate account.
Some people say "just obey to the DWG telling you to follow the
guidelines". We say "we don't agree with the last change in the
guidelines because it does not fit our local practices" (some are also
saying that the DWG is working beyond his mandate but that's another
story).
What we explained is that we defined in France our own policy for this
particular data source (also on the wiki). We started it years ago.
The size of the whole French cadastre dataset is huge. We could upload
it in a single mass import with a bot using a seperate user account as
we did for the Corine Land Cover. We could follow 100% of the import
guidelines. Trust me, we have all the capacities in humans,
competences and computers to do it. But instead, we decided that
buildings have to be better integrated with the existing data and
better controlled by simple, average contributors in smaller chunks.
We also decided to exclude major parts of the dataset because it's not
usefull for OSM like the parcels or couldn't be well integrated
automatically like the roads, street names and address house numbers.
We decided limit the import to the railsways, buildings and waterways,
we decided to do it at the size of the dataset is itself published,
means at the municipality size; it can be a 2 millions inhabitants
city or a 50 houses village. We also learned from the previous
imports. The French community size is also big enough to manage this
kind of "crowdsourced" import itself. We are not so big as the Germans
(but hey, who is ?), we are 2 or 3 times smaller but just the second
or third biggest community in OSM. We have servers, we have a local
chapter, we have quality assurance tools, we have developers, we have
many eyes watching the map and reporting issues to the group, we have
one of the most active local mailing list. And we have our own policy
to import this dataset where finally the only main difference with the
standard guidelines is the separate user account. We are not against
it, we can even promote it. We are against making it mandatory.
Because we think that all the good reasons provided for this
requirement do not apply here. Even some DWG members admit that the
separate user account will not be checked for small imports. They are
just worry when they detect some stange behaviours or very active
users. Themselves, they cannot say when exactly the special account
becomes a reason to block someone after how many uploads, changsets or
edits. It's only when the contributor enters in their radar tools and
after some arbitrary decision.
What we ask is not much. We ask that the DWG is taking into account
the local communities and their local import policies when it is done
with all the good will and sincerity. But we also have our "black
sheeps". We also need the DWG for blocking users when it is necessary.
But let the local community decides when and who. And for that, we
need to contact people in their speaking language, not in English,
either through a local representative or e.g. standard messages
previously translated. Then check with the local community if or what
goes wrong with the person and only at the end, suspend his account.

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-19 Thread Christian Quest

2012/9/19 Frederik Ramm 

> Hi,
>
>
> On 09/19/2012 12:38 AM, Christian Quest wrote:
>
>> For me a mandatory rule on which someone bases a block decision must be
>> something decided publicly and shared with the community, and clearly
>> published/announced... and none of these has taken place here.
>>
>
> Are you saying that we should have had a vote on the wiki, or what? Who
> would have been eligible to vote? And are you at the same time saying that
> changing a policy on the wiki is not "clearly published"?
>
>
We're voting proposed tag scheme. We're discussing them on the wiki and on
tagging@ and these are soft rules.

Are you saying the same process could not be done for requirements (hard
rules) that can lead to blocks when not followed ?

So these hard rules are coming from nowhere ? There's no process to set
them ?

Yes, I'm saying that editing the wiki is not clearly publishing and
ANNOUNCING a major change.
The wiki is enormous, partly translated (Import guidelines are only
available in english and japanese and obviously the japanese translation is
not sync as it has been last edited before this new requirement was added
in the english version).

>  I didn't know about this change until I re-read the wiki page after Marc
>> being blocked. I would not be surprised he was not aware of the now
>> mandatory account that was optional for so long in the guidelines.
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure he wasn't aware of that rule. That's why we made him aware
> of it. Twice.
>

Yes but if we had been in the loop about deciding this new hard rules, we
would have complained at that time and open a discussion BEFORE setting the
rule.

The rule writing/setting process seems flawed to me. I've been involved in
rule writing in international sport competition for 10 years. Changing a
rule or setting new ones is something not to do in the shadow, but in the
light.

Do we have even a list of these "hard rules" somewhere ? By hard rules, I
mean the one that could get a contributor to be blocked or banned.

PS: The other problem is that a lot of people are talking about french
cadastre imports without knowing exactly how it works, how it is done, the
work that's behind, etc. That's why I don't want to go on that part of the
discussion, it is another topic that should be split from the governance
one.

-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France -
http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-19 Thread Christian Quest

2012/9/19 Richard Fairhurst 

> Pieren wrote:
> > The one who never made a mistake in JOSM can be the first to
> > throw a stone.
>
> *waves*
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
Richard !

As you're joining this topic, can you explain why you changed the
guidelines in the wiki to make the dedicated account a requirement and not
a recommendation anymore ? As this been discussed with some other people ?
How ? When ?

-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France -
http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


guig...@free.fr wrote:

Please show me that I'm making jugement mistake, and show me that our
work, after beeing uncertain by licence, isn't threatened by
centralistic, autoritative, english only person who can set live or dead by
non community based decisions.


There is a lot of good support available world wide, but perhaps unfortunately 
the only language many of us can use is English, and it surprises me at times 
that some discussions on the lists are carried out in better English than I use 
myself by people who don't even speak it! :)


YES we need a little more diversity, but we also need to ensure that the SAME 
methods are used world wide, and here a 'centralistic' rule base is essential. 
And on top of that we need to help one another provide the tools that ensure 
that the 'guide lines' are followed.


Alright, this particular 'incident' was not handled perhaps as well as it could 
have been, and the correct information to make decisions HAS now been made 
available, but if a request is made then I don't think it is unreasonable to 
expect someone else who speaks English to help sort out the problem. I've not 
looked back through the 'history' but it sounds as if we SHOULD have been having 
this discussion in March? And been helping you at that stage to better manage 
the use of this data? There is a lot of good expertise available so the one 
thing we do NOT want is smaller groups doing their own thing :(


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-19 Thread Frederik Ramm


Hi,

On 09/19/2012 12:38 AM, Christian Quest wrote:

For me a mandatory rule on which someone bases a block decision must be
something decided publicly and shared with the community, and clearly
published/announced... and none of these has taken place here.


Are you saying that we should have had a vote on the wiki, or what? Who 
would have been eligible to vote? And are you at the same time saying 
that changing a policy on the wiki is not "clearly published"?



I didn't know about this change until I re-read the wiki page after Marc
being blocked. I would not be surprised he was not aware of the now
mandatory account that was optional for so long in the guidelines.


I'm pretty sure he wasn't aware of that rule. That's why we made him 
aware of it. Twice.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-19 Thread guiguid


complaining about the quality of his imports.
> The user was contacted, he didn't react as I understood. There for he 
> was "short time blocked". That's a very fair and fine reaction from 
> the DWG. The user was not banned or something, just blocked for short 
> time to gain his attention.
> And: why should the DWG contact the french community at first?

Perhaps, because the user doesn't understand English 

How do you react if you're blocked by a Chinese, Russian message ?
 > he didn't react
Will'you react ?

It's an important question for OSM community to have local admin.

The more I read this mailing list, the more I see a very central 
autoritative an non contributor based
organisation.

Please show me that I'm making jugement mistake, and show me that our 
work, after beeing uncertain by licence, isn't threatened by 
centralistic, autoritative, english only person who can set live or dead by
non community based decisions.

Guillaume DELVIT
Democratic OSM French contributor .

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Pieren wrote:

Finally, he decided that the best
solution to clean-up the mess was to delete the previous buildings
dataset and import the new one. But again, his first intention was to
upload the delta only.


I will be the first to admit to being a little lax in adding comments to my 
commits, and rolling things together that should have separate comments. With 
the volume of commits being made, it is probably not possible for review of 
every one, but in this case 'Datacleanup' WOULD have been better as 'messed up 
import, correct upload to follow' ... AND on an account flagged as 'import' it 
would attract less attention ... but part of the reason that this happened is 
that the importing of this data needs a little more automated help and that may 
well mean software to help filter the new dataset prior to even trying to apply 
it? Of cause the language problem does arise, but much as I hate it google 
translations can help here although another pet hate of mine is the continuing 
use of 'English' in the database. In these international times this data should 
be 'rationalised' so that a simple text_id is stored and displayed against a 
dictionary for all keys that are well defined - while using the English text as 
a key can be done, compressing the raw data should be the next target? And I 
only read English :)


Personally I've gone as far as I can with our own 'unusable' data set. I am 
using it to fulfil my customer requirements, and will be be very active once we 
get the go ahead to merge it with OSM. So I should probably be offering to help 
assess what is needed to support the French data import. Except my French is so 
bad that I'd not know where to start ;)


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Cartinus

On 09/19/2012 01:58 AM, Marc Sibert wrote:
> That's why we need of help of the machines... asta la vista, baby !

No, that is why you need more contributors. Preferably those who know
what is actually there in reality. Not people who only remotely map
stuff from secondary sources.

-- 
---
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Richard Fairhurst

Pieren wrote:
> The one who never made a mistake in JOSM can be the first to 
> throw a stone.

*waves*

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-guidelines-OSMF-DWG-governance-tp5725810p5726047.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Maarten Deen


On 2012-09-19 05:36, Willi wrote:

I really don't like the attitude expressed by several people here in
response to this subject and which is already contained in the 
subject

itself "OSMF/DWG governance".

Governance. There's no governance. DWG is a group and everybody is 
free to
join it. The job is voluntary and unpaid. Being "just" a mapper I'm 
more

than happy that there are skilled people who help OSMF and the
administrators to keep the system running which I gladly can use for 
free.


Of course there is governance. The whole thread came out of this 
governance: the DWG blocked somebody because he didn't adhere to 
standards and didn't respond to mails.

If that's not governance, then what is?

Regards,
Maarten


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

Toby Murray wrote:

On 09/19/2012 02:23 AM, Michael Kugelmann wrote:

>>And: why should the DWG contact the french community at first ?

>To gain a better understanding of local practices that look dodgy from
>the DWG's point of view but may actually be the result of local
>consensus grounded in years of debate and experience with that specific
>data source ?

OR...

The import could be done with a dedicated account which has a brief
explanation in the account description that links to the wiki page
about the import and a mailing list archive where it has been
discussed among the local community. Then the DWG can see immediately
that the local community is behind it.

Which is where the guide lines have come from, but I will accept that they are 
not as well documented as they could be, and they are probably even less well 
translated into other languages? But see my other post in a bit ...

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Lucas Nussbaum

On 18/09/12 at 20:51 +0100, Lester Caine wrote:
> I think that one of the problems here is that if a large block of
> data is uploaded in one 'commit' it is difficult to know if it IS a
> manually edit, or something that has been created automatically
> off-line, and is being slipped in to bypass the bot rules.

I don't buy that argument. I think that what matters is that
changesets/commits are logically split, not split just to keep them
below some size limit and avoid raising eyebrows.

When integrating cadastre data, contributors work on a /commune/ by
/commune/ basis (a /commune/ is an administrative division, basically
similar to a city).

Why should contributors have to artificially split a commune into
several changesets? It's much more convenient to process the whole
commune at once.

Alternatively, if this was software development, what should probably be
done is:
1. commit the raw conversion for the vectorized cadastre, before the
   cleanup
2. clean up and upload modified buildings after the cleanup
3. add roads, etc. and upload

That would split the integration of a commune's cadastre, into several
logical commits, but I suspect that this would raise even more eyebrows
due to the nature of the first commit.

Or are you suggesting that the first commit should be made with a
separate account, but the two following commits should be done with a
normal account? That would generate many more changes, as many buildings
need to be fixed.

Lucas

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Willi

I really don't like the attitude expressed by several people here in
response to this subject and which is already contained in the subject
itself "OSMF/DWG governance".

Governance. There's no governance. DWG is a group and everybody is free to
join it. The job is voluntary and unpaid. Being "just" a mapper I'm more
than happy that there are skilled people who help OSMF and the
administrators to keep the system running which I gladly can use for free.

And if they would contact me and tell me that I'm doing something which is
not good for the system or might even cause problems I would say thank you
and be happy to follow their advice. I can map but I'm no OSM system expert
and I'm very interested that the system keeps running as good as it does.

If I travel in a foreign country problems arising from not speaking the
local language are for sure not to blame to the local people. And if I join
an international community problems arising from being unable to communicate
in the language of the community are for sure not to blame to the community.
In both cases it's my decision and therefore my problem.

DWG and administrators, thank you very much for doing this voluntary and
unpaid job. Keep on going and don't' get disappointed by people with
inappropriate attitude for community work. They are the minority.

Willi


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Toby Murray

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:
> On 09/19/2012 02:23 AM, Michael Kugelmann wrote:
>> And: why should the DWG contact the french community at first ?
> To gain a better understanding of local practices that look dodgy from
> the DWG's point of view but may actually be the result of local
> consensus grounded in years of debate and experience with that specific
> data source ?

OR...

The import could be done with a dedicated account which has a brief
explanation in the account description that links to the wiki page
about the import and a mailing list archive where it has been
discussed among the local community. Then the DWG can see immediately
that the local community is behind it.

Toby

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Jean-Marc Liotier

On 09/19/2012 02:23 AM, Michael Kugelmann wrote:
> And: why should the DWG contact the french community at first ?
To gain a better understanding of local practices that look dodgy from
the DWG's point of view but may actually be the result of local
consensus grounded in years of debate and experience with that specific
data source ?


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Michael Kugelmann


On 18.09.2012 20:56, Gert Gremmen wrote:

[...]
Plonk!


Sorry,
Michael.   :-(


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Michael Kugelmann


On 18.09.2012 15:42, Pieren wrote:

The user had been contacted by DWG
beforehand because he had imported several millions of objects under his
account,

Sounds as a mass, uncontrolled import but is not.

Didn't you read what Frederik and others wrote?


This user is very
active and well known in the French community and nobody came to us
complaining about the quality of his imports.
The user was contacted, he didn't react as I understood. There for he 
was "short time blocked". That's a very fair and fine reaction from the 
DWG. The user was not banned or something, just blocked for short time 
to gain his attention.
And: why should the DWG contact the french community at first? The user 
being is the contacted, which is sufficient accoording to my 
understanding. If the user likes it he can involve the community. But 
that's not the job ob the DWG. And I even would avoid to do so for 
privacy reasons.



Best regards,
Michael.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Le 18/09/2012 23:31, Frederik Ramm a écrit :

Marc,

On 18.09.2012 21:53, Marc Sibert wrote:

I thing the point is not why my account was blocked, but why someone
have the right to block an account and whatfor ?


I think that we need import guidelines, and we need people who can 
block those who don't follow the guidelines, otherwise having 
guidelines doesn't make sense.
On that particuliar point you are right : rules have to be followed to 
maintain the community, or else "man will loose his head / on lui 
coupera la tête".
Many reasons have been given in support of the "separate account" rule 
in the guidelines already. But let me add one more thing:
None of these reasons apply to Cadastre uploads (previously 
discussed)... that only my point of view (not only mine in fact).
Others have said that you are a respected and well known mapper in 
France. If that's true, then I think that you should lead by example. 
Even if you feel that in your particular case you don't need a 
separate account - create one anyway, because others will follow your 
example, and if the message you send to new mappers in France is 
"don't bother about those silly policies" then we'll have people 
violating *other* aspects of the policy - even those you would agree 
with! - in no time.


Just like a professional pilot with thousands of flying hours' 
experience will still execute all procedures "by the book" instead of 
taking shortcuts that his experience would allow him to, a long-time 
respected mapper should also play by the book and be a good example to 
others.
Some time rules have to be breaked and changed because "the field" shows 
there limits. I would not lead to the wrong direction (to my mind). I do 
not simply "bother", but I think the policies *are* stupid in the 
Cadastre case. Now, we are arguing, discussing... I win :-) Next step, 
we will change the rule. I am french (latin ?), I used to discuss orders !

In fact DWG people just don't like imports and are jalous of the
"opendata" wind in France. Your anoying !


The amount of open geodata in the world is several orders of magnitude 
more than what we have in OSM. Decisions need to be made about which 
parts of that are worth importing; import everything and OSM comes to 
a grinding halt.

Again, I follow you on that point.
And in all that data, I choose French Cadastre (only buildings layer)
DWG does not have an "imports are bad" policy but if it were for me, 
personally, I would require from every importer an analysis about how 
the import does not only make the *map* better, but also makes the 
*community* better. Imports to help the community would be acceptable; 
imports "instead of" community would not.


I have the opposite point of view : The object of OSM is to be complete 
and usefull (full of "good" data), not to contribute endless. So first, 
import automaticaly and then correct with humain brain. Of course I 
learned that this extrem PoV is not available... also in french 
community. Still, data are for computers, not for humans !
Today, France has 50% more data in OSM than Germany. I am not jealous 
of that. I would be jealous if France had 50% more mappers and I 
sincerely hope that the French community can find ways to engage more 
people to help. But for all its data glory, the number of people who 
have made more than 100 edits this year in France is about 3000, and 
the same number in Germany is about 6000. This means - very roughly of 
course - that the average French OSMer must keep three times as much 
data current as the average German mapper. And you can't do that with 
imports forever - there comes a time when you'll have to switch to 
"maintenance mode".


Bye
Frederik


Humm you seem to like numbers. Personal contributions are too slow. Demo :

In France we have about 36000 municipalities. Has you wrote, there is 
about 1000 (up to 3000) active contributors in the country.  I needed 3 
months to cover my (small - 7000 inhabitants) village (without 
buildings). So we need about 36 * 3 = 108 months = 9 years.


That's why we need of help of the machines... asta la vista, baby !

My pleasure to read you.

--
Marc Sibert
mailto:m...@sibert.fr


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Tom Hughes


On 18/09/12 20:58, Eric Marsden wrote:


 - Openness/transparency. OSMF working groups are notoriously opaque,
   though some have improved over the last year by posting open
   minutes of meetings (which requires significant effort and which I
   applaud). Some of the technical measures implemented by OSMF
   are well designed in this regard; for example, it is possible for
   everyone to see the message posted by an admin justifying an
   account block. But historical information such as the number of
   blocks imposed per week are missing AFAICT (allows people to
   monitor for admin abuse).


It should be pretty obvious from browsing the block list:

  http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks

the first page of 20 entries normally covers at least a few weeks.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Michael Kugelmann


Am 18.09.2012 18:24, schrieb Richard Weait:

The one account
involved started this little thread was asked to use an import account
three times.  Then they created their import account.

I just can second Richard and Grant:
if a person is contacted three times by any working group and seems not 
at all to have reacted on their message a three day short block of the 
account seems to me as a fine and fair method of gaining some attention. 
So please cool down.


A general statement on the use of a seperate account for bot and 
imports: this was discussed years ago. And for my understanding the 
majority of the community agreed on it within the given discussions. As 
other stated: while the licence change process we very much learned that 
seperate accounts are a really good idea.
So maybe it was not written down in some guidelines, but since years the 
"imports/bots => seperate account" rule is present and mainly accepted 
and respected in the worldwide community. The change of the guidelines 
therefor is only a writing down of the practice used sind long term.



Best regards,
Michael.

PS: I'm not member of any working group, just writing his personal 
opinion as a long term member of the OSM community (since 2006/2007) and 
reader of multiple OSM mailing lists (>10) since years.





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Lester Caine  wrote:

> This is an area where there HAS NOT been any agreement other than the
> history WILL currently be maintained in the database. My question still
> remains - what happens when the data is next updated - will you delete
> everything again?

What Marc did not explain here is that this particular changeset was
the result of an "accident" during his working session on JOSM for
this municipality. He explained that on the French mailing list
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2012-September/047673.html).
His first intention was not to delete the previous building import
(2010). He downloaded it on JOSM and started to merge it with the 2012
new dataset but on a separate JOSM layer. He simply made a mistake and
started uploadling the wrong layer without merging the two JOSM layers
first (don't ask me the details). Finally, he decided that the best
solution to clean-up the mess was to delete the previous buildings
dataset and import the new one. But again, his first intention was to
upload the delta only.
The one who never made a mistake in JOSM can be the first to throw a stone.

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Marc Sibert wrote:

Le 18/09/2012 23:24, Lester Caine a écrit :

Marc Sibert wrote:

Again, I'm not a vandal : I do not detroy any work (and nobody complains about
that), I just "update" data (replace), that is not the point why my account was
blocked !

So, what have you done in my case ?


It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is one of
the major complaints about this type of import process. The EXISTING data has
been destroyed, and that is historic data that is now lost. When a new import
comes out will you again destroy this one and upload the new one? If some one
has gone through and added all the missing address and other details how will
you link that to the new import? Are you sure that no one has added some extra
data which has been delete this time?


I respond the point in my previous message.


What is missing with this type of import is any mechanism to link to the past
history and THAT is my complaint and one of the points of the guide line - you
have destroyed data - just as you have with other edits you have done where
you have deleted objects with several years history and replaced them with a
new object.


I remember a few months before, I use to destroy way and *replace* them with
brand new nodes & data in order to pass thru the "redaction bot", and you are
saying history is important ? LOLOLOLOLOL !


That was a problem for material in the UK as well, but the replacement data is 
of a much higher quality then before.



What we need in order to PROPERLY import this data is a unique ID for each
element in the source data that is maintained by the originator of the data,
so that when an 'update' arrives, the new data can be correctly matched to
that already contained in the OSM database.

Uniq ID ? LOLOLOL again ! Tell me what appends when I cut a way in 2 peaces : a
part keep the old ID and the other get a new one without *any* link with the
previous one. In fact, do you ever contribute ? Do you realy know how OSM (and
primary keys) works ? (just kidding). By the way history is still in diff files.
Well I took the trouble to look you up ... so you can see my history and look me 
up in the lists.



All your arguments are sensless !


Why?
This is an area where there HAS NOT been any agreement other than the history 
WILL currently be maintained in the database. My question still remains - what 
happens when the data is next updated - will you delete everything again?



So with regards the 'import guidelines' do you still think you have complied
with them? In some peoples eyes you probably have, but in others some useful
historic data has been lost. I'm in the second camp ...


Please explain me what the guidelines are protecting from : in *my* (and no
other) case I have still no answer. So I still do not consider "guidelines".
"Same player, try again..."


A mass delete of data without a proper comment triggered a response that 
something bad was happening. An explanation that this was a replacement for an 
import would have been flagged if the action was from an account that was 
FLAGGED as doing imports, but since it was not ... any more changes need to be 
stopped until the matter is sorted. PERSONALLY I would like to see the buildings 
that were present in 2010 still flagged as such in the database and that is my 
gripe with the lacks way the guide lines are written, but we DO still need to 
properly manage every import that is going to be updated at regular intervals so 
that YOU do not have to manually check every building every time!


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Christian Quest

2012/9/18 Frederik Ramm 

> Hi,
>
>
> On 18.09.2012 18:04, Christian Quest wrote:
>
>> Still no answer to my main original questions:
>> - who decided the import guidelines ?
>>
>
> It is a policy that has grown gradually. Just like other things in OSM
> have - you'll not find anything about a vote for highway=motorway on the
> Wiki either.
>
>

So who decided the last step to switch from a recommantation about the
dedicated account to a requirement ?
Just Richard who edited the wiki page ?

>
>  - who decided to make the dedicated account mandatory ?
>>
>
> We always expected people to set up a dedicated account for large imports
> and just adapted the wording to make that clearer.
>

Who is "we" ? DWG ?

 In the first version of the guideline, there was nothing about a dedicated
account, then it was recommended but absolutely not mandatory, then it
became mandatory... it has not always been required and the wording did not
make things clearer but changed something optional to something mandatory.

I'm still looking for who discussed this and where ? Any minutes ? Archives
?

For me a mandatory rule on which someone bases a block decision must be
something decided publicly and shared with the community, and clearly
published/announced... and none of these has taken place here.

> In another post, you have complained about the fact that the information
> is not straightforward, or not easy to find. However, I wish to repeat that
> nobody went to the offending user saying "you didn't read the policy, so we
> have blocked you and we'll revert your edits". The user was only blocked
> after being made aware of the policy and then continuing to ignore it. So
> this is not an issue of an user having difficulties in finding the
> applicable policy.
>
> As a DWG member, I don't expect subservience and I don't run around with
> guns blazing. But if I tell someone not to do something and they simply
> ignore me then I will block them in order to be listened to. If the user
> wants to discuss something with me that's fine but please discuss first,
> import later.
>
> How would you *like* import guidelines to be decided? Do you have any
> workable concept for that? Because I would really be interested.
>
>
I would definitely like them to be discussed prior to be changed on the
wiki and used to block users.

The "talk" on the wiki does not explain the change, and up to now nobody
has been able to explain the process that lead to something optional
becoming mandatory.

I didn't know about this change until I re-read the wiki page after Marc
being blocked. I would not be surprised he was not aware of the now
mandatory account that was optional for so long in the guidelines.

BTW, still applying to join DWG to deal with issues in France...

-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France -
http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Vincent Pottier


Le 19/09/2012 00:14, Vincent Pottier a écrit :


  Modified nodes
  De : ...
  Fr: ...

@Frederic,
I was not to play a match againts Germany... but I found a way to tell 
that French contributors don't do only "importing buildings".
And I hope we would have a wide community, but we already have a strong 
one (becoming stronger with the Cadastre story !), and increasing those 
last months.


And I think that the import we made (CLC, BMO...) did not stop 
newcomers, but put them at ease to start mapping, not in a desert.

--
FrViPofm

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Le 19/09/2012 00:01, Lester Caine a écrit :

Marc Sibert wrote:
It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is 
one of

the major complaints about this type of import process.


STOP ! I do not read you after this sentence (I will do it after 
writing this

answer).


Now that you have read the rest of the message what is your answer?
I have nothing to do with DWG but I support their action simply 
because this needs to be sorted properly, and as far as *I* am 
concerned it hasn't been.


What is missing is LINKING to the existing imported data rather than 
unilaterally deciding it can be destroyed ... did you discuss 
destroying it with anybody?


This is not an opinion : I select specificaly the old buildings 
(untouched since the first import in 2010) using JOSM search tool, 
then importing a new set of data, then undouble and check using the 
validator ! I spent more than 2 (two) days of work in order to 
produce that work ! I'm not a newbe discovering JOSM & OSM. Of 
course, like everyone I could have done errors, but I do (more than) 
my best. And again nobody complains about vandalism or destroying 
data : that's not the point !
And another 'request' is that changes are committed every 30 minutes 
or so, not after 2 days work. The CORRECT procedure would have been to 
take a block of buildings at a time. If you have to delete the 
existing data then at least it's more easily linked to the new smaller 
import.


Easy : I worked 2 days with JOSM offline : have a look to thoses 
changsets, they belong to the same set of work (in fact I proced in the 
wrong order : add new data, then remove old ones)


#13110932 vendredi 14 septembre 2012 22:06 Réfection du bâti de 
Montlouis sur Loire - DataCleanUp
#13103866 vendredi 14 septembre 2012 08:55 Datacleanup - 
Montlouis sur Loire
#13101791 jeudi 13 septembre 2012 23:19 Réfection du bâti de 
Montlouis sur Loire
#13101128 jeudi 13 septembre 2012 23:14 Réfection du bâti de 
Montlouis sur Loire


Later I will check 
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/map/?zoom=14&lat=47.38974&lon=0.8164

to see if other errors apear (not a vandal, do I precise it before ?)

Regards,

--
Marc Sibert
mailto:m...@sibert.fr


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Vincent Pottier


Le 18/09/2012 23:31, Frederik Ramm a écrit :



Today, France has 50% more data in OSM than Germany. I am not jealous 
of that. I would be jealous if France had 50% more mappers and I 
sincerely hope that the French community can find ways to engage more 
people to help. But for all its data glory, the number of people who 
have made more than 100 edits this year in France is about 3000, and 
the same number in Germany is about 6000. This means - very roughly of 
course - that the average French OSMer must keep three times as much 
data current as the average German mapper. And you can't do that with 
imports forever - there comes a time when you'll have to switch to 
"maintenance mode".


Bye
Frederik

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2012-September/047209.html 
(Sorry, in French)


  Modified nodes
  De : 47 555
  Fr: 106 606

"maintenance mode" Maybe it is started...
--
FrViPofm

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Le 18/09/2012 23:24, Lester Caine a écrit :

Marc Sibert wrote:
Again, I'm not a vandal : I do not detroy any work (and nobody 
complains about
that), I just "update" data (replace), that is not the point why my 
account was

blocked !

So, what have you done in my case ?


It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is 
one of the major complaints about this type of import process. The 
EXISTING data has been destroyed, and that is historic data that is 
now lost. When a new import comes out will you again destroy this one 
and upload the new one? If some one has gone through and added all the 
missing address and other details how will you link that to the new 
import? Are you sure that no one has added some extra data which has 
been delete this time?



I respond the point in my previous message.

What is missing with this type of import is any mechanism to link to 
the past history and THAT is my complaint and one of the points of the 
guide line - you have destroyed data - just as you have with other 
edits you have done where you have deleted objects with several years 
history and replaced them with a new object.


I remember a few months before, I use to destroy way and *replace* them 
with brand new nodes & data in order to pass thru the "redaction bot", 
and you are saying history is important ? LOLOLOLOLOL !
What we need in order to PROPERLY import this data is a unique ID for 
each element in the source data that is maintained by the originator 
of the data, so that when an 'update' arrives, the new data can be 
correctly matched to that already contained in the OSM database.
Uniq ID ? LOLOLOL again ! Tell me what appends when I cut a way in 2 
peaces : a part keep the old ID and the other get a new one without 
*any* link with the previous one. In fact, do you ever contribute ? Do 
you realy know how OSM (and primary keys) works ? (just kidding). By the 
way history is still in diff files.


All your arguments are sensless !

...
So with regards the 'import guidelines' do you still think you have 
complied with them? In some peoples eyes you probably have, but in 
others some useful historic data has been lost. I'm in the second camp 
...


Please explain me what the guidelines are protecting from : in *my* (and 
no other) case I have still no answer. So I still do not consider 
"guidelines".

"Same player, try again..."

Regards,

--
Marc Sibert
mailto:m...@sibert.fr


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Marc Sibert wrote:

It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is one of
the major complaints about this type of import process.


STOP ! I do not read you after this sentence (I will do it after writing this
answer).


Now that you have read the rest of the message what is your answer?
I have nothing to do with DWG but I support their action simply because this 
needs to be sorted properly, and as far as *I* am concerned it hasn't been.


What is missing is LINKING to the existing imported data rather than 
unilaterally deciding it can be destroyed ... did you discuss destroying it with 
anybody?



This is not an opinion : I select specificaly the old buildings (untouched since 
the first import in 2010) using JOSM search tool, then importing a new set of data, 
then undouble and check using the validator ! I spent more than 2 (two) days of 
work in order to produce that work ! I'm not a newbe discovering JOSM & OSM. Of 
course, like everyone I could have done errors, but I do (more than) my best. And 
again nobody complains about vandalism or destroying data : that's not the point !
And another 'request' is that changes are committed every 30 minutes or so, not 
after 2 days work. The CORRECT procedure would have been to take a block of 
buildings at a time. If you have to delete the existing data then at least it's 
more easily linked to the new smaller import.


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


2012-09-18 Toby Murray toby.murray at gmail.com
>>     - Openness/transparency. OSMF working groups are notoriously opaque,
>>       though some have improved over the last year by posting open
>>       minutes of meetings (which requires significant effort and which I
>>       applaud). Some of the technical measures implemented by OSMF
>>       are well designed in this regard; for example, it is possible for
>>       everyone to see the message posted by an admin justifying an
>>       account block. But historical information such as the number of
>>       blocks imposed per week are missing AFAICT (allows people to
>>       monitor for admin abuse).

> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks


Toby you have a nice list to start talking about governance, about respective 
role of local community.  


I would like the Quebec province in Canada to be better organized, to know the 
mappers in the province and have the possibility to contact them other then 
from the Talk-ca list, to know those that have problematic changesetes, to know 
those that are being blocked.

Would this User Blocks list help me? Surely not. Any suggestion on how to 
better organize, to have mappers progress and have the feeling they are in an 
organization where their work counts? 


Do you suggest me that we should only let the DWG group ban some mappers and 
let the others do anything without an organization trying to imporve the map?

Pierre 



>
> De : Toby Murray 
>À : talk@openstreetmap.org 
>Envoyé le : Mardi 18 septembre 2012 17h28
>Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance
> 
>On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Eric Marsden  wrote:
>>     - Openness/transparency. OSMF working groups are notoriously opaque,
>>       though some have improved over the last year by posting open
>>       minutes of meetings (which requires significant effort and which I
>>       applaud). Some of the technical measures implemented by OSMF
>>       are well designed in this regard; for example, it is possible for
>>       everyone to see the message posted by an admin justifying an
>>       account block. But historical information such as the number of
>>       blocks imposed per week are missing AFAICT (allows people to
>>       monitor for admin abuse).
>
>http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks
>
>Toby
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Le 18/09/2012 23:24, Lester Caine a écrit :

Marc Sibert wrote:
Again, I'm not a vandal : I do not detroy any work (and nobody 
complains about
that), I just "update" data (replace), that is not the point why my 
account was

blocked !

So, what have you done in my case ?


It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is 
one of the major complaints about this type of import process. 


STOP ! I do not read you after this sentence (I will do it after writing 
this answer).


The point is MY import ! Please answer the precise point ! Please, do 
not digrate and generalize.


Why do someone block my account : please I need a real answer ? Are you 
saying your radar ring an alarm and you block me without cheking ? As a 
robot ? Without using your brain ?


This is not an opinion : I select specificaly the old buildings 
(untouched since the first import in 2010) using JOSM search tool, then 
importing a new set of data, then undouble and check using the validator 
! I spent more than 2 (two) days of work in order to produce that work ! 
I'm not a newbe discovering JOSM & OSM. Of course, like everyone I could 
have done errors, but I do (more than) my best. And again nobody 
complains about vandalism or destroying data : that's not the point !


Regards,

--
Marc Sibert
mailto:m...@sibert.fr


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Vincent Pottier


Le 18/09/2012 21:13, Simon Poole a écrit :

Am 18.09.2012 18:54, schrieb Béland Pierre:


Is it possible to discuss about governance wich is the subject of 
this thread?


The reason I even touched on this subject is that each time the 
cadastre imports turn up it is somehow claimed that they are different 
from other imports and should be held to different standards, when in 
fact they aren't.

I simply don't agree.
Integration of building from the French cadastre is different that the 
work we made, for example, with Corine Land Cover data, with BMO data...


http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2012-May/043349.html
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-fr/2012-May/043885.html

(sorry, in French. If there is some body to translate...)

But maybe my ominion is without importance.

AFAIK we do not have the same issue with canvec.

Simon
Sorry also to see that to subject of the thread can't be understood by 
some people.


Is that so impossible to say : "OK, we have understood the question of 
the governance, and we will speak about the next time at the OSMF and we 
will keep you informed" ?


Amazing !
--
Vincent aka FrViPofm

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Frederik Ramm


Marc,

On 18.09.2012 21:53, Marc Sibert wrote:

I thing the point is not why my account was blocked, but why someone
have the right to block an account and whatfor ?


I think that we need import guidelines, and we need people who can block 
those who don't follow the guidelines, otherwise having guidelines 
doesn't make sense.


Many reasons have been given in support of the "separate account" rule 
in the guidelines already. But let me add one more thing:


Others have said that you are a respected and well known mapper in 
France. If that's true, then I think that you should lead by example. 
Even if you feel that in your particular case you don't need a separate 
account - create one anyway, because others will follow your example, 
and if the message you send to new mappers in France is "don't bother 
about those silly policies" then we'll have people violating *other* 
aspects of the policy - even those you would agree with! - in no time.


Just like a professional pilot with thousands of flying hours' 
experience will still execute all procedures "by the book" instead of 
taking shortcuts that his experience would allow him to, a long-time 
respected mapper should also play by the book and be a good example to 
others.



In fact DWG people just don't like imports and are jalous of the
"opendata" wind in France. Your anoying !


The amount of open geodata in the world is several orders of magnitude 
more than what we have in OSM. Decisions need to be made about which 
parts of that are worth importing; import everything and OSM comes to a 
grinding halt.


DWG does not have an "imports are bad" policy but if it were for me, 
personally, I would require from every importer an analysis about how 
the import does not only make the *map* better, but also makes the 
*community* better. Imports to help the community would be acceptable; 
imports "instead of" community would not.


Today, France has 50% more data in OSM than Germany. I am not jealous of 
that. I would be jealous if France had 50% more mappers and I sincerely 
hope that the French community can find ways to engage more people to 
help. But for all its data glory, the number of people who have made 
more than 100 edits this year in France is about 3000, and the same 
number in Germany is about 6000. This means - very roughly of course - 
that the average French OSMer must keep three times as much data current 
as the average German mapper. And you can't do that with imports forever 
- there comes a time when you'll have to switch to "maintenance mode".


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Toby Murray

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Eric Marsden  wrote:
> - Openness/transparency. OSMF working groups are notoriously opaque,
>   though some have improved over the last year by posting open
>   minutes of meetings (which requires significant effort and which I
>   applaud). Some of the technical measures implemented by OSMF
>   are well designed in this regard; for example, it is possible for
>   everyone to see the message posted by an admin justifying an
>   account block. But historical information such as the number of
>   blocks imposed per week are missing AFAICT (allows people to
>   monitor for admin abuse).

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks

Toby

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Marc Sibert wrote:

Again, I'm not a vandal : I do not detroy any work (and nobody complains about
that), I just "update" data (replace), that is not the point why my account was
blocked !

So, what have you done in my case ?


It is your opinion that you have not destroyed any work, but this is one of the 
major complaints about this type of import process. The EXISTING data has been 
destroyed, and that is historic data that is now lost. When a new import comes 
out will you again destroy this one and upload the new one? If some one has gone 
through and added all the missing address and other details how will you link 
that to the new import? Are you sure that no one has added some extra data which 
has been delete this time?


What is missing with this type of import is any mechanism to link to the past 
history and THAT is my complaint and one of the points of the guide line - you 
have destroyed data - just as you have with other edits you have done where you 
have deleted objects with several years history and replaced them with a new 
object.


What we need in order to PROPERLY import this data is a unique ID for each 
element in the source data that is maintained by the originator of the data, so 
that when an 'update' arrives, the new data can be correctly matched to that 
already contained in the OSM database.


OK I know there are a lot of people who thing that think that the history has no 
place in the database, but in 50 years time it would be nice to back to 2010 and 
see what buildings existed, and what buildings were added by 2012. The 
information WAS in the database last month and isn't now :(


So with regards the 'import guidelines' do you still think you have complied 
with them? In some peoples eyes you probably have, but in others some useful 
historic data has been lost. I'm in the second camp ...


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Le 18/09/2012 22:56, Richard Weait a écrit :

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Marc Sibert  wrote:


I'm still not agree with this policy : I do not ignore "your" messages.

You don't agree?  You created your import account, I think?

LOL ! yes I "need" to continue to contribute (adict ?)

But we all start to discuss.

Regards,

--
Marc Sibert
mailto:m...@sibert.fr


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Jean-Marc Liotier

On 09/18/2012 05:42 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial
> subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase
> the usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines
> without addresses just don't really help with anything)
Building outlines are an essential component of topographical maps,
which have all sorts of uses. Buildings are an essential feature of
flight simulator scenery that does not look dead. Building outlines help
in identifying the position of localities. Even if you believe that OSM
is only about roads, building outlines help in pointing to where ways
may be missing. And I'm sure I have missed many other uses.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:
>
> You don't agree?  You created your import account, I think?
>

After a block !?  Wow, what a victory ! Who is next ?
Marc needed an access to the database because he is uploading surveyed
data collected remotely by another person (a biker).
How can you convince us in this way ?

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Jean-Marc Liotier

On 09/18/2012 08:36 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 18/09/12 at 18:29 +0100, Grant Slater wrote:
>> OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots.
> I don't think calling people "robots" is going to contribute to
> improving the atmosphere.
>
> If the cadastre integration was done with scripts, it would be long
> done, wouldn't it?
>
> Maybe a part of problem is that you seem to assume that you are dealing
> with machines, and not people?
Maybe a demo would be useful, so that non-French people can understand
what sort of work is involved in working on the basis of cadastral data
to produce useful OSM contributions. Indeed it is far from automated.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Richard Weait

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Marc Sibert  wrote:

> I'm still not agree with this policy : I do not ignore "your" messages.

You don't agree?  You created your import account, I think?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Le 18/09/2012 22:17, Lester Caine a écrit :

Marc Sibert wrote:
I thing the point is not why my account was blocked, but why someone 
have the

right to block an account and whatfor ?

"The road is the place between the buildings..."   so I need the 
buildings :

Cadastre data are usefull (fully).

All points of the guideline are wrong : no vandalism, no old work 
destroy, no

copyright enf. : no need to revert the Cadastre data anyday, anytime.
I accept, and respect all conditions with both my accounts : so what the
difference using the first or the second ?


http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13110932
Why was all that old work deleted?
That is a good enough reason for my complaining had it been my own 
work deleted!
If you have new more accurate data it needs to be merged with the 
existing contributions.


The data import was from 2010 and was visualy partial : many building 
were incomplet, so I remove *all* old building ways and replace them by 
the 2012 version of Cadastre (people ar building new houses or modifying 
them time to time). It was easier to remove all and produce a new import 
than testing manualy (I'm not a bot) each building.

I think (hope) I succeed in that update.
In fact DWG people just don't like imports and are jalous of the 
"opendata" wind

in France. Your anoying !

We are protecting other peoples work ...

Again, I'm not a vandal : I do not detroy any work (and nobody complains 
about that), I just "update" data (replace), that is not the point why 
my account was blocked !


So, what have you done in my case ?

Regards,

--
Marc Sibert
mailto:m...@sibert.fr


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> It is a policy that has grown gradually. Just like other things in OSM have
> - you'll not find anything about a vote for highway=motorway on the Wiki
> either.

Perhaps this policy has reached its limits. And honnestly, you should
admit that the import guidelines was set up mainly by people
fundamentally against imports in general. But nobody cares about this
policy until he is directly concerned.

> We always expected people to set up a dedicated account for large imports.
> ../.. The user was only blocked
> after being made aware of the policy and then continuing to ignore it.

It's not ignoring, it's that the group importing this free dataset
does not agree with your policy. You, the anti-imports camp, is
defining the policy alone ! So please, the DWG, stop claiming that you
apply a policy defined by the community. It's a big lie. Say clearly
"we are against import, we try to refrain them and increase the
constraints to limit and possibly forbid imports in the future"
because each time the policy is modified, it's going to more
constraints.

> But if I tell someone not to do something and they simply
> ignore me then I will block them in order to be listened to.

"obey or I block you". Sounds "subservience", isn't it ?

> If the user wants to discuss something with me that's fine but please discuss 
> first,
> import later.

That's why we are coming to this list because it is something beyond
Marc Sibert's individual case. We want that the policy is modified one
step backward and defines the separate user account as a
recommendation, nothing more.

> How would you *like* import guidelines to be decided? Do you have any
> workable concept for that? Because I would really be interested.

That it is discussed in a wide and public audience like here, not
after personal discussions or closed mailing lists and finally a
silent change in the wiki. I'm always happy to read comments from the
"pro-imports" camp (or the "not against it if is done properly")
because sometimes we read the 5 or 8 people complaining against import
(always the same) believing that the whole community agrees because
they don't get any feedbacks. Now, you get some.

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


2012-09-18 Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org

> I am sure there are many users in France doing exactly that - a careful,
 small-scale, high-quality data integration.
 Most of them are probably 
way below the OSMF radar.

> But if the work of one person surpasses
 the million-object mark then is that still a small-scale import?
>  How 
much time does it take to review carefully a million objects? Is it 
possible that a simple "JOSM
>  did not report anything obvious" takes the 
place of the careful review? I am pretty sure that above a
>  certain 
number, a proper quality review is simply not possible, and it is there 
that imports start.

Frederic, many national chapters are doing a great job and we have to count on 
them to organize the mapping community and let it progress.The governance 
question we should adress is respective responsabilities of local chapters and 
the DWG group.  And obviously, it is quite difficult to have the OSMF groups 
accept adressing this problem.

 
Pierre 



>
> De : Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
>À : talk@openstreetmap.org 
>Envoyé le : Mardi 18 septembre 2012 15h38
>Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance
> 
>Hi,
>
>On 18.09.2012 20:34, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> So you are blocking one user because other users working on similar
>> stuff (cadastre integration) did not work correctly?
>
>The user was not blocked because others did not work correctly.
>
>He was blocked - for 24 hours - because he did not adhere to the import 
>policy, was asked to comply, and chose to ignore that.
>
>> Can you point to such issues caused by the user that was actually
>> blocked?
>
>Doing this would only deviate into a discussion about whether or not certain 
>data is "good".
>
>I continuously read the argument that cadastre imports were not imports per se 
>because it is a careful, small-scale, manual integration and not an import.
>
>I am sure there are many users in France doing exactly that - a careful, 
>small-scale, high-quality data integration. Most of them are probably way 
>below the OSMF radar.
>
>But if the work of one person surpasses the million-object mark then is that 
>still a small-scale import? How much time does it take to review carefully a 
>million objects? Is it possible that a simple "JOSM did not report anything 
>obvious" takes the place of the careful review? I am pretty sure that above a 
>certain number, a proper quality review is simply not possible, and it is 
>there that imports start.
>
>Bye
>Frederik
>
>-- Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Marc Sibert wrote:

I thing the point is not why my account was blocked, but why someone have the
right to block an account and whatfor ?

"The road is the place between the buildings..."   so I need the buildings :
Cadastre data are usefull (fully).

All points of the guideline are wrong : no vandalism, no old work destroy, no
copyright enf. : no need to revert the Cadastre data anyday, anytime.
I accept, and respect all conditions with both my accounts : so what the
difference using the first or the second ?


http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13110932
Why was all that old work deleted?
That is a good enough reason for my complaining had it been my own work deleted!
If you have new more accurate data it needs to be merged with the existing 
contributions.



In fact DWG people just don't like imports and are jalous of the "opendata" wind
in France. Your anoying !

We are protecting other peoples work ...

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Le 18/09/2012 21:38, Frederik Ramm a écrit :

Hi,


...


But if the work of one person surpasses the million-object mark then 
is that still a small-scale import? How much time does it take to 
review carefully a million objects? Is it possible that a simple "JOSM 
did not report anything obvious" takes the place of the careful 
review? I am pretty sure that above a certain number, a proper quality 
review is simply not possible, and it is there that imports start.
How *many* years do I need to produce "million-object" ? This is 
definitely not one homogenous import : a town, one month, 3 towns 
another, 2 month later another : using one account for *many* uploads 
during *many* years has sens ? Or should I create a new account for each 
upload, for some easy reverts ?


I'm still not agree with this policy : I do not ignore "your" messages.



Bye
Frederik



Regards,

--
Marc Sibert
mailto:m...@sibert.fr


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Frederik Ramm wrote:

But if the work of one person surpasses the million-object mark then is that
still a small-scale import? How much time does it take to review carefully a
million objects? Is it possible that a simple "JOSM did not report anything
obvious" takes the place of the careful review? I am pretty sure that above a
certain number, a proper quality review is simply not possible, and it is there
that imports start.


I KNOW from my own editing that once I have more than a few hundred nodes then I 
need to commit that change and start a new one. So perhaps what is needed here 
is some mechanism in the editors to keep the maximum commit down to a certain 
size? Any 'local import' would be restricted to what is a manageable size once 
committed? The time warnings should restrict things, but a 'size' limit so that 
one has to commit once that limit is reached?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Eric Marsden

> "fr" == Frederik Ramm  writes:

  fr> I welcome a discussion about rules - which ones we need, who makes
  fr> them, who executes them. It is clear that we need *some* rules,
  fr> but until now there's no formal community process to create or
  fr> amend such rules.
  fr> 
  fr> I'm happy to hear any suggestions that people might have. How can
  fr> the will of the community be caputured and distilled into a rule -
  fr> and where should we work without any rules? In what areas do we
  fr> have to have rules that govern all of OSM, and in what areas can
  fr> we afford to defer to local communities?

  Thank you for addressing this issue in a constructive manner.

  Rather than (or before) discussing rules, it seems to me that it would
  be useful to start by establishing some basic principles which could
  guide OSMF activities. Below are a few principles which are widely
  accepted as foundations for good governance of community-based
  endeavours.


- Openness/transparency. OSMF working groups are notoriously opaque,
  though some have improved over the last year by posting open
  minutes of meetings (which requires significant effort and which I
  applaud). Some of the technical measures implemented by OSMF
  are well designed in this regard; for example, it is possible for
  everyone to see the message posted by an admin justifying an
  account block. But historical information such as the number of
  blocks imposed per week are missing AFAICT (allows people to
  monitor for admin abuse). 
  

- Subsidiarity. OSMF and its working groups should only perform
  those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more
  immediate or local level. Discussions with contributors who seem
  to need assistance should be delegated to the local community
  (OSMF should endeavor to establish a network of formal
  correspondants per country/region, and use country-wide osm
  mailing lists otherwise). OSMF could assist local communities by
  giving them access to tools designed to detect vandalism or large
  numbers of errors.
  
  
- Consultation and dialogue. OSMF and its working groups should
  always seek input from contributors and other interested parties
  before making decisions.
 
  
- Proportionality. Any sanctions imposed by OSMF representatives
  (such as account blocks) should be proportional to the damage
  incurred or intended. [This is one principle which OSMF seems to
  respect.]

  
- Accountability. OSMF representatives who are given special
  privileges (such as the ability to block contributor accounts)
  must be accountable for their actions. 
  

- Respect for contributors' privacy. This seems easy to understand,
  and I am happy with OSMF's performance in this area. 


-- 
Eric Marsden


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Le 18/09/2012 19:29, Grant Slater a écrit :

On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel
 wrote:

Blocking a very respected contributor without prior discussion is a major fail 
in the governance of the OSMF.

The user was messaged on 3 separate occasions between 22 March 2012
and 14 September 2012, asking for him to use a dedicated import
account. Finally a short upload block was placed on his account.(which
ended 3 days ago)

The initial message on the 22 March 2012 and follow-ups pointed to the
guidelines ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines )
which include that imports should be done from a dedicated account.

DWG != OSMF.

OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots.

Regards
  Grant

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Hi,

"What make you thing I am a bot?" -- Eliza 
 :-)


I thing the point is not why my account was blocked, but why someone 
have the right to block an account and whatfor ?


"The road is the place between the buildings..."   so I need the 
buildings : Cadastre data are usefull (fully).


All points of the guideline are wrong : no vandalism, no old work 
destroy, no copyright enf. : no need to revert the Cadastre data anyday, 
anytime.
I accept, and respect all conditions with both my accounts : so what the 
difference using the first or the second ?


In fact DWG people just don't like imports and are jalous of the 
"opendata" wind in France. Your anoying !


Regards,

--
Marc Sibert
mailto:m...@sibert.fr

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Frederik Ramm


Hi,

On 18.09.2012 18:04, Christian Quest wrote:

Still no answer to my main original questions:
- who decided the import guidelines ?


It is a policy that has grown gradually. Just like other things in OSM 
have - you'll not find anything about a vote for highway=motorway on the 
Wiki either.



- who decided to make the dedicated account mandatory ?


We always expected people to set up a dedicated account for large 
imports and just adapted the wording to make that clearer.


In another post, you have complained about the fact that the information 
is not straightforward, or not easy to find. However, I wish to repeat 
that nobody went to the offending user saying "you didn't read the 
policy, so we have blocked you and we'll revert your edits". The user 
was only blocked after being made aware of the policy and then 
continuing to ignore it. So this is not an issue of an user having 
difficulties in finding the applicable policy.


As a DWG member, I don't expect subservience and I don't run around with 
guns blazing. But if I tell someone not to do something and they simply 
ignore me then I will block them in order to be listened to. If the user 
wants to discuss something with me that's fine but please discuss first, 
import later.


How would you *like* import guidelines to be decided? Do you have any 
workable concept for that? Because I would really be interested.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Pieren wrote:

OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots.

The uploads we are talking are normally done with JOSM after the
integration with the existing data and validation. If it is performed
with a script, then it's a bad import done by one of the "black
sheeps" mentionned earlier. We also agree to block such bad imports.


Pieren
I think that one of the problems here is that if a large block of data is 
uploaded in one 'commit' it is difficult to know if it IS a manually edit, or 
something that has been created automatically off-line, and is being slipped in 
to bypass the bot rules. If a commit is too big then it is as bad as a bulk 
upload from one of the bots, or 'import'. Perhaps all that is needed here is 
that the chunks of data that are being integrated are kept down to a size that 
makes managing the history a little more manageable? Personally however I can 
see a commit that wipes out an entire town and then reloads it with new data 
would be somewhat irritating, and I think that this is what has been happening 
with the French data? Maintaining the history of the development of the data in 
an area, while being totally ignored by some users, is as important as simply 
creating a current map. *I* like to see when a change is made to information on 
the ground, so loosing that link to previous instances of an object is a 
problem. This is ONE of my gripes with imports of OS data loosing the 'history' 
of the previous development of an area but is totally ignored as a valid reason 
for not 'blanked wiping' an area to allow new data to be uploaded! Merging new 
imports with existing data is difficult, so tends not to happen, delete and 
reload is the quick fix but is destroying often valuable data :(


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Frederik Ramm


Hi,

On 18.09.2012 20:34, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

So you are blocking one user because other users working on similar
stuff (cadastre integration) did not work correctly?


The user was not blocked because others did not work correctly.

He was blocked - for 24 hours - because he did not adhere to the import 
policy, was asked to comply, and chose to ignore that.



Can you point to such issues caused by the user that was actually
blocked?


Doing this would only deviate into a discussion about whether or not 
certain data is "good".


I continuously read the argument that cadastre imports were not imports 
per se because it is a careful, small-scale, manual integration and not 
an import.


I am sure there are many users in France doing exactly that - a careful, 
small-scale, high-quality data integration. Most of them are probably 
way below the OSMF radar.


But if the work of one person surpasses the million-object mark then is 
that still a small-scale import? How much time does it take to review 
carefully a million objects? Is it possible that a simple "JOSM did not 
report anything obvious" takes the place of the careful review? I am 
pretty sure that above a certain number, a proper quality review is 
simply not possible, and it is there that imports start.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Simon Poole


Am 18.09.2012 18:54, schrieb Béland Pierre:


Is it possible to discuss about governance wich is the subject of this 
thread?


The reason I even touched on this subject is that each time the cadastre 
imports turn up it is somehow claimed that they are different from other 
imports and should be held to different standards, when in fact they 
aren't. AFAIK we do not have the same issue with canvec.


Simon
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Eric Marsden

> "pb" == Pierre Béland  writes:

  pb> Simon, this discussion was started to discuss about governance. We
  pb> only see examples of problematic imports. But the question we
  pb> should look at is how we can better tune or multinational /
  pb> multicultural organization to adress these problems.  The
  pb> respective roles of local communities and the DWG group have to be
  pb> defined. We should also give tools to the local communities to
  pb> monitor mapping, contact mappers, be able to exchange.  And we
  pb> should not only think of national groups. You sometime have groups
  pb> at regional or municipal levels.

  This issue of governance, the subsidiarity principle, and the manner
  in which OSMF working groups can help local mapping communities to
  improve the map is indeed the fundamental issue. DWG members
  (excepting Frederik) seem to be purposefully ignoring the issue.
  Please stop doing that. 
  
-- 
Eric Marsden


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen


>> Pierre And about governance,  if this community cannot manage his 
>> contributors, who
>> can?  We continually have new mappers, some working more or less 
>> intensively. We
>> should adapt or organization to this Wikipedia like structure and try to 
>> better
>> structure local communities.
> I
 certainly agree with the statement, but would strongly lobby against 
the 'wikipedia' approach to solving the problem.
> New mappers NEED to be 
directed to proper guidance on how to provide new data, and I have 
proposed in the past that 

> new data is ring fenced until a more 
established mapper can review it, much like we have in hg and git code 
management.
> At the very least a 'Do you wish to save this to the main 
database' warning would be appropriate at times until a new account
> has 
established some 'kama' in the data submitted? Importing data from third party 
sources should be something that does require
> 'kama' in 
understanding what one is doing and oversight by others should be added 
before some automatic processes are applied to the main database.

> Some better involvement of local groups would be useful here I think?

Lester we both agree that a Wikipedia approach is not satisfactory.  In France, 
and I think in UK and Germany too, there are strong local chapters. The 
discussions on Talk-fr list and the tools such as Osmosis and Cadastre imports, 
the various projects of this community all show how this community is take this 
job seriously.
To develop dynamic local communities, that monitor and correct data, contact 
contributors, meet more frequently, we have to empower these communities.  This 
would move away from a Wikipedia  model. The DWG group acting as a watch dog is 
not enough to build a better map.


Pierre 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

>Messages were sent on September 14th and 13th about the need to use a
>dedicated account. A previous note was sent in March reminding them in
the
>context of a note about a broken upload of 50k nodes.

And he didn't listen to Big Big Brother who warned him twice...
Is this a crowd sourced OPEN project, or a group of
sheep contributing  to the instructions/commands of OSMF ?


-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 18 september 2012 20:25
Aan: 'Christian Quest'; 'Frederik Ramm'
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

> From: Christian Quest [mailto:cqu...@openstreetmap.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:11 AM
> To: Frederik Ramm
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance
> 
> 2012/9/18 Frederik Ramm :
> >
> > Just to clarify this one point: The user had been contacted by DWG
> > beforehand because he had imported several millions of objects under
> > his account, and asked to continue his work in accordance with the
> > import guidelines, using a separate import account. He ignored that
> > request and was only blocked *after* that.
> >
> 
> No, this user has originally been contacted because he deleted a large
> amount of buildings in one town and was suspected of vandalism. It has
> been confirmed very quickly that it was not vadalism, but an simple
> update of data in the town.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the previous communications with the
user,
but you seem to be misinformed about the nature them.

Messages were sent on September 14th and 13th about the need to use a
dedicated account. A previous note was sent in March reminding them in
the
context of a note about a broken upload of 50k nodes.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Simon Poole


Am 18.09.2012 18:04, schrieb Christian Quest:
We've drifted from a question about governance to a talk about 
usefulness of some kind of data in OSM which is something completely 
relative and personal.


As I pointed out, "usefulness" of the data is outside the scope of this 
discussion.


As far as I know, DWG doesn't exist to deal with usefulness of data 
nor quality of contributions, but copyright infringement, vandalism 
and disputes.
The DWG exists to deal with data of questionable nature, which per 
definition includes any mass addition of data. IMHO this includes 
guaranteeing that data is added in such a fashion that it can be 
reasonable removed if found to be not suitable (which could be for a 
large number of reasons).




Still no answer to my main original questions:
- who decided the import guidelines ?
- who decided to make the dedicated account mandatory ?


As  pointed out previously, the more explicit wording was just a 
clarification of what a reasonable interpretation of the previous text 
would have resulted in.


Wrt the general question of the import guidelines, IMHO this is simply a 
consequence of the underlying goal of producing a freely usable map of 
the world. This requires that we have control over and can vet data from 
third party sources.


Naturally there are a number of secondary concerns that are important, 
like not destroying existing personal contributions, having a local 
community that actually wants the data and so on, but in the end 
assuring that the OSM dataset can be distributed with terms solely 
determined by the OSM community must be the overriding concern . The 
only other tenable position that supports the primary goal of OSM would 
be to not allow imports at all.


Simon




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Toby Murray

I have seen enough bad imports (and put significant effort into
cleaning some of them up) that I like the guidelines and wish more
people would follow them. Even if each individual clause may be a
slight inconvenience or not entirely necessary for a particular
import, I think it is worth having and following them because there
seem to be a lot more bad imports than good imports. So while it may
be an inconvenience, it is well worth it to have a solid guideline you
can point bad importers to.

Also, Not all "local" communities are capable of performing their own
quality assurance and monitoring so I think it is ok to have some
global oversight on this issue. This may not apply to France but
having a dedicated import account still helps the overall process that
the DWG goes through.

I think Mike of all people should see the value in a dedicated
account. My understanding is that he could not agree to the new CT
because he imported data that was not ODbL compliant using his
personal account and then couldn't easily distinguish between his own
edits and the imported data. This led to more license bot damage in
Kosovo than would otherwise have been required.

Toby

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Lucas Nussbaum

On 18/09/12 at 17:42 +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> (yes I have
> heard all the stories about everything being manually checked etc,
> if you believe that, I have a couple of bridges that I would like to
> sell to you).

So you are blocking one user because other users working on similar
stuff (cadastre integration) did not work correctly?

Can you point to such issues caused by the user that was actually
blocked?

Lucas

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Lucas Nussbaum

On 18/09/12 at 18:29 +0100, Grant Slater wrote:
> OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots.

I don't think calling people "robots" is going to contribute to
improving the atmosphere.

If the cadastre integration was done with scripts, it would be long
done, wouldn't it?

Maybe a part of problem is that you seem to assume that you are dealing
with machines, and not people?

Lucas

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Paul Norman

> From: Christian Quest [mailto:cqu...@openstreetmap.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:11 AM
> To: Frederik Ramm
> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance
> 
> 2012/9/18 Frederik Ramm :
> >
> > Just to clarify this one point: The user had been contacted by DWG
> > beforehand because he had imported several millions of objects under
> > his account, and asked to continue his work in accordance with the
> > import guidelines, using a separate import account. He ignored that
> > request and was only blocked *after* that.
> >
> 
> No, this user has originally been contacted because he deleted a large
> amount of buildings in one town and was suspected of vandalism. It has
> been confirmed very quickly that it was not vadalism, but an simple
> update of data in the town.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the previous communications with the user,
but you seem to be misinformed about the nature them.

Messages were sent on September 14th and 13th about the need to use a
dedicated account. A previous note was sent in March reminding them in the
context of a note about a broken upload of 50k nodes.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen

Just guess who controls the servers and domain name ?

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Pieren [mailto:pier...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 18 september 2012 19:56
Aan: OSM
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Grant Slater
 wrote:
> On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel

> The initial message on the 22 March 2012 and follow-ups pointed to the
> guidelines ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines )
> which include that imports should be done from a dedicated account.

Okay, he was contacted. I think another one was previously blocked
after an upload. And this threat was discussed on our list. But nobody
accepted this requirement of the guidelines (a separate account) since
we don't see any reason justifying it in this case (crowdsourced
import, sourced, limited, merged, reversible, etc...). It's a question
of principle, we cannot accept that all contributors uploading
bulidings have this hammer on the head. Because today, it is done
after 1 million uploaded objects, tomorrow it will be for a big town
and later for 3 small villages and finally all imports will be blocked
if it's not a separate account.

> DWG != OSMF.

The DWG is authorized to block accounts by the OSMF.

> OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots.

The uploads we are talking are normally done with JOSM after the
integration with the existing data and validation. If it is performed
with a script, then it's a bad import done by one of the "black
sheeps" mentionned earlier. We also agree to block such bad imports.

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Grant Slater
 wrote:
> On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel

> The initial message on the 22 March 2012 and follow-ups pointed to the
> guidelines ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines )
> which include that imports should be done from a dedicated account.

Okay, he was contacted. I think another one was previously blocked
after an upload. And this threat was discussed on our list. But nobody
accepted this requirement of the guidelines (a separate account) since
we don't see any reason justifying it in this case (crowdsourced
import, sourced, limited, merged, reversible, etc...). It's a question
of principle, we cannot accept that all contributors uploading
bulidings have this hammer on the head. Because today, it is done
after 1 million uploaded objects, tomorrow it will be for a big town
and later for 3 small villages and finally all imports will be blocked
if it's not a separate account.

> DWG != OSMF.

The DWG is authorized to block accounts by the OSMF.

> OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots.

The uploads we are talking are normally done with JOSM after the
integration with the existing data and validation. If it is performed
with a script, then it's a bad import done by one of the "black
sheeps" mentionned earlier. We also agree to block such bad imports.

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread guillaume


Hi,

I'm in the same case of Vincent Pottier

except I has blocked without disscusion, by a very autoritative "admin"


my fault : I've not create a decated account for importing localized area .

But I've read the french wiki !
But I've read the import guideline ( it's not a massive import) !
But I've also talked to the french community before (and after)!


The chance :
 - I understand English ! (a little)
 - I don't stop mapping because OSM is an very important projet to my eyes.
 - I take time to alert you.


How react an non speeking English contributor who was blocked by an 
"administror" with an English message ?
He stop contribuing !!!
This is the goal of autoritative non loaclized blocking ?


Is the OSM communoty too small to have local administrator ?

Local administrator :

1 - They can speek the same langage has the contributor
2 - They know particularity negociated rules ( like import of the french  
cadastre)
3 - They are lessarrogant

My 2 cents

Guillaume D.
***  
*

Le 18/09/2012 13:51, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :



/I'd put it like this: someone who didn't respect the import guidelines

//  valid for  almost one year was temporarily blocked. What's the
/>/  problem? That's what the DWG is for.
/>/
/

/  how many have spoken up against it? I'd expect from every mapper who

/>/  wants to import something to read the current import guidelines and to
/>/  act accordingly.
/>/
/"current" ? Is it a joke ?

I've started integrating buildings from the French cadastre more thant
one year ago. I had read the guidelines long before, when a second
account was a recommandation. And talking with the French community, I
agreed with the fact that it did not applyed in this case... so I
starded uploading buildings...

I've never heard any announce about changes, nor discussions about
possible changes, nor... in the guidelines. And I'm not so skillfull in
English to go often on this page and re-read it if not necessary. And I
think I'm not the only one on the Earth.

So I am integrating buildings from Cadastre for years... Long before the
guidelines were changed... Maybe I should be bloked...

Now that I (and not only me) know that the guidelines are subjects of
arbitrary changes without a wide announce, I would read this page each
time before i'm importing a postbox from opendata ?

Tell me it's a joke !
--
FrViPofm

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Eric SIBERT


DWG != OSMF.


???


Éric

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Grant Slater

On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel
 wrote:
> Blocking a very respected contributor without prior discussion is a major 
> fail in the governance of the OSMF.

The user was messaged on 3 separate occasions between 22 March 2012
and 14 September 2012, asking for him to use a dedicated import
account. Finally a short upload block was placed on his account.(which
ended 3 days ago)

The initial message on the 22 March 2012 and follow-ups pointed to the
guidelines ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines )
which include that imports should be done from a dedicated account.

DWG != OSMF.

OSM is not unique, wikipedia too require a dedicated account for bots.

Regards
 Grant

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

Pierre Béland wrote:

 > Pierre - I'm not arguing against imports. Only unmanaged ones and ones we do
not have easy access to the source data.
 > As I understand it you can view the canvec data, but is it available as an
overlay in an editor? That is the part of the jigsaw
 > that I'd like to see handled better, so we can compare data against the
existing map prior to any import, and are ABLE
 > to analyze just what of the data can be imported directly and what needs to
be merged in some way? Certainly a large section
 > of the OS data is only useful as reference material and any import is only
going to obliterate more accurate data, so having it
 > available as an overlay works well.

Lester - The National ressources department is collaborating and produce OSM
files from his topographic data. The community has established guidelines. In
general, contributors edit this file into JOSM, comparing with what already
exists.  It is not an easy job.  But these contributors have made fantastic
efforts.  We see too ofteen dogmatic declarations against imports without any
nuance.
I would certainly argument against a formal 'demand' for a raw import of some of 
the OS layers into OSM and we have the tools to explain why we don't want that 
data. Having worked through large sections of my local area cleaning the 
licensing issues I was remapping things with 'source=OS' which are just stylised 
versions of situation on the ground, I can support that statement. I totally 
understand the 'It is not an easy job' so if you are happy that data available 
IS accurate enough to use directly and have the tools to show that then I have 
no objections.

What we need as an organization is to establish governance practices that are
efficient.  I am jealous of all the tools developped by the France community.
The Talk-fr is very active and they are doing a great job. If you are not
convinced, just look at the map of France.
The areas I have looked at are as 'complete' as those around here. The next step 
in both countries is to more accurately map the finer details. Something which 
is certainly not available from OS mapping so are details such as the exact 
configuration of a road junction with lane detail and pedestrian pathways 
available from third party data in France?

And about governance,  if this community cannot manage his contributors, who
can?  We continually have new mappers, some working more or less intensively. We
should adapt or organization to this Wikipedia like structure and try to better
structure local communities.
I certainly agree with the statement, but would strongly lobby against the 
'wikipedia' approach to solving the problem. New mappers NEED to be directed to 
proper guidance on how to provide new data, and I have proposed in the past that 
new data is ring fenced until a more established mapper can review it, much like 
we have in hg and git code management. At the very least a 'Do you wish to save 
this to the main database' warning would be appropriate at times until a new 
account has established some 'kama' in the data submitted? Importing data from 
third party sources should be something that does require 'kama' in 
understanding what one is doing and oversight by others should be added before 
some automatic processes are applied to the main database.

Some better involvement of local groups would be useful here I think?

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Christian Rogel

Blocking a very respected contributor without prior discussion is a major fail 
in the governance of the OSMF.
I assume that the thing was not really foreseen and a loose lead was put on the 
DWG group.

Everyone understands that the Board is overbooked and it could have be seen 
more easy granting a real trust
to DWG members.

But, it does not work so simple, if the alleged bad practice is fully approved 
by, not only responsible members of the local chapter, 
but by most of the French mailing list active contributors too (with a few 
non-French among them).

It is no use arguing on the behavior of pnorman user, except, maybe, the use of 
English toward a French contributor.
He was sure of what he did, according the rules he knew.

The fail is entirely in :
- Rules published without explanations
- Bringing explanations technically weak (can be easily reverted as the data 
are)

And, most of all
- no response on the governance of the OSMF, when one does not know from where 
and how was taken a potentially
   annoying decision to a whole community using its own sources and tools with 
a high sense of responsibility.

This will be a good subject for the next Annual general Meeting.


Christian Rogel
OSMF member since 2011
OSM contributor since 2008
OSM-France co-founder
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Kai Krueger

Hello,

I don't know anything about the particular import that originated this
question, and so I don't know if the following arguments specifically apply,
but I do want to comment on the issue of requiring a separate account for
imports.

IMHO, the issue is about licensing.

The contributor terms that every account has signed states "You hereby grant
to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable
licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any
related right over anything within the Contents". This is basically the
equivalent of PD and indeed would allow OSMF to in future license the OSM
data under a PD-equivalent license (subject to well defined democratic
voting procedure described in clause 3 in the CT)

If this applied to imported data as well, this would have excluded all non
PD imports completely, which a lot of people found unacceptable. My
understand is that therefor in clause 1 of the CT the following was added
"You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to
authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current
licence terms." I.e. you are only required to check licensing compatibility
to the current license (now ODbL) and not to the stricter PD requirement.

My understanding is that this was interpreted as that all original content
of an account falls under the "PD licensing to OSMF", given the '"You"
hereby grant' part, but non-original content (i.e. imports) retain their
original licensing and can be imported  never-the-less as long as it is
compatible with the current license (but might need to be removed in future
should the license ever change again).

So there are now data in the db with different licenses, but currently no
way to distinguish between the two conditions and in the later case what
license they are actually under.

Requiring a separate account for original content for which OSMF has a
PD-equivalent license and imported data for which the license OSMF has is
not PD seems like the minimum prudent thing to do.

I would go further and actually separate these things out in the CT. I.e.
original content accounts (the normal mapper account) signs a different CT
than import accounts. The import account CT then spells out the requirements
for how to correctly do an import more clearly. Particularly that the exact
license agreement of the data under which OSM(F) can use the data now and in
future is correctly documented and recorded, e.g. as reference in case there
are any legal disputes in future.

The DWG would then have a clear mandate to block imports that don't adhere
to the then well specified "import guidelines"

Overall compared to all the effort that has to go into a prudent import,
creating a new account is minimal effort. So this requirement is hardly
unreasonable.

Kai







--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Import-guidelines-OSMF-DWG-governance-tp5725810p5725945.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:

> The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial
> subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase the
> usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines without
> addresses just don't really help with anything) and distracts beginner
> mappers from actually mapping (1st time mappers are recommend to immediately
> start importing insted of going outside). Further more, like essentially all
> imports, the external dataset is not about to go away, so there is no reason
> to prioritize this import over adding useful stuff.

Simon, I dont know if you think that Canada Canvec data is controversial. Just 
look at the map at the border of Canada / US.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.003&lon=-72.233&zoom=9&layers=M

Up north you see the effect of canvec imports.  I know this area and these 
imports seems to me of high quality. What do you think of mapping details in 
the Vermont state, just south of the border?

Is it possible to discuss about governance wich is the subject of this thread?

 Pierre 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Lester Caine 
> Pierre - I'm not arguing against imports. Only unmanaged ones and ones 
we do not have easy access to the source data.
> As I understand it you 
can view the canvec data, but is it available as an overlay in an 
editor? That is the part of the jigsaw
> that I'd like to see handled 
better, so we can compare data against the existing map prior to any 
import, and are ABLE
> to analyze just what of the data can be imported 
directly and what needs to be merged in some way? Certainly a large 
section
> of the OS data is only useful as reference material and any 
import is only going to obliterate more accurate data, so having it
> available as an overlay works well.

Lester - The National ressources department is collaborating and produce OSM 
files from his topographic data. The community has established guidelines. In 
general, contributors edit this file into JOSM, comparing with what already 
exists.  It is not an easy job.  But these contributors have made fantastic 
efforts.  We see too ofteen dogmatic declarations against imports without any 
nuance.

What we need as an organization is to establish governance practices that are 
efficient.  I am jealous of all the tools developped by the France community. 
The Talk-fr is very active and they are doing a great job. If you are not 
convinced, just look at the map of France. 


And about governance,  if this community cannot manage his contributors, who 
can?  We continually have new mappers, some working more or less intensively. 
We should adapt or organization to this Wikipedia like structure and try to 
better structure local communities.
 
Pierre ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:

> The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial
> subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase the
> usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines without
> addresses just don't really help with anything) and distracts beginner
> mappers from actually mapping (1st time mappers are recommend to immediately
> start importing insted of going outside). Further more, like essentially all
> imports, the external dataset is not about to go away, so there is no reason
> to prioritize this import over adding useful stuff.

I'm sure you had a look on all major cities and towns in France.
Having buildings and addresses is "useful". And adding the second are
much easier when the first are already present.
In urban areas with all buildings and addresses, OSM is complete
enough for new contributors to add POI's accurately without the need
of aerial imagery or GPS devices. OSM becomes independant when it is
reaching this level of details (and we are not speaking about kerbs
which are also available in some places and that are "usefull" for
e.g. wheelchair mappers).
If you have to demonstrate OSM capacities, do you prefer Paris, Texas,
US (http://osm.org/go/TvVR~Qa3--) or Paris, France
(http://osm.org/go/0BOd0n5Q--) ?
"prioritizing" is another point. It's a long time now that OSM is not
only about streets. We are contacted for instance by people who wants
to use OSM buildings data to study photocell installations or urban
dispersion. For them, the road network is not their "priority" in
geodata.

> However it would seem to be a very reasonable, light-weight, requirement
> that the imported data be separated from personal contributions, just as we
> require from other imports (yes I have heard all the stories about
> everything being manually checked etc, if you believe that, I have a couple
> of bridges that I would like to sell to you).

But it is separated by the "source" tag.

> PS: and I didn't even complained about the 3GB of cadastre source tags that
> we distribute with every planet
A bit off-topic since it is a requirement from the data source
independtly of using a separate account or not, but surely a problem
growing in time. We are also unhappy with this and would be greatful
if it could be solved.

Pieren

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Richard Weait

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Pierre Béland  wrote:

> There are more then 500,000 contributors. How many do you think know about
> the DWG group and follow his guidelines?

Those who aren't aware, and are contacted by DWG, generally switch to
an import account when they are asked to do so.  The one account
involved started this little thread was asked to use an import account
three times.  Then they created their import account.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Simon Poole 

> The question of (for example of an operational problem) communication to
 active mappers is a technical problem that we will have to address
> at 
one point in time. Either by assuring that the e-mail address remains 
valid or by other technical means. However that is not the issue in 
question,
> simply the fact that we have a large number of imports that 
are badly documented or not at all, should not have been imported in he 
first place
> (incompatible with CC-bs-SA or/and ODbL) and so on.


> The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial subject. 
> In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase 
the
> usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines 
without addresses just don't really help with anything) and distracts 
beginner
> mappers from actually mapping (1st time mappers are recommend 
to immediately start importing insted of going outside). Further more,
> like essentially all imports, the external dataset is not about to go 
away, so there is no reason to prioritize this import over adding useful stuff.

Simon, this discussion was started to discuss about governance. We only see 
examples of problematic imports. But the question we should look at is how we 
can better tune or multinational / multicultural organization to adress these 
problems.  The respective roles of local communities and the DWG group have to 
be defined. We should also give tools to the local communities to monitor 
mapping, contact mappers, be able to exchange.  And we should not only think of 
national groups. You sometime have groups at regional or municipal levels. 



> BUT the import guidelines do not contain a provision that
 the data imported actually has to be useful and if the French community
 wants to spend (waste?) 

> immense amount of time on this, nobody is going to stop it as long as it 
> doesn't severely impact operations and/or use 
of OSM data.


Lets think more positively about bout national / local communities and give 
them the capacity to do a better job.  Large organization have this tendancy of 
centralizing everything and adopt simple rules. But the experience has showed 
that this does not work.  


There are more then 500,000 contributors. How many do you think know about the 
DWG group and follow his guidelines?

 
Pierre ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance


Pierre Béland wrote:


I have often seen such arguments against imports. In Canada also, there are
contributors talking agains Canvec imports and saying we should have more fun
tracing from GPS.

We have to analyze the problems more seriously and find solutions to them. A
great work is done in Canada importing Canvec data. And like in France, I dont
think that this is creating a lot of problems. Experienced mappers are doing a
great job.


Pierre - I'm not arguing against imports. Only unmanaged ones and ones we do not 
have easy access to the source data. As I understand it you can view the canvec 
data, but is it available as an overlay in an editor? That is the part of the 
jigsaw that I'd like to see handled better, so we can compare data against the 
existing map prior to any import, and are ABLE to analyze just what of the data 
can be imported directly and what needs to be merged in some way? Certainly a 
large section of the OS data is only useful as reference material and any import 
is only going to obliterate more accurate data, so having it available as an 
overlay works well.


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Christian Quest

We've drifted from a question about governance to a talk about usefulness
of some kind of data in OSM which is something completely relative and
personal.

As far as I know, DWG doesn't exist to deal with usefulness of data nor
quality of contributions, but copyright infringement, vandalism and
disputes.

Still no answer to my main original questions:
- who decided the import guidelines ?
- who decided to make the dedicated account mandatory ?

I'm also surprised by "1st time mappers are recommend to immediately start
importing instead of going outside". This is absolutely false. There is no
priority put on importing cadastre building in France as you wrote it.
What a twisted point of view !


2012/9/18 Simon Poole 

> The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial
> subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase the
> usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines without
> addresses just don't really help with anything) and distracts beginner
> mappers from actually mapping (1st time mappers are recommend to
> immediately start importing insted of going outside). Further more, like
> essentially all imports, the external dataset is not about to go away, so
> there is no reason to prioritize this import over adding useful stuff.
>
> BUT the import guidelines do not contain a provision that the data
> imported actually has to be useful and if the French community wants to
> spend (waste?) immense amount of time on this, nobody is going to stop it
> as long as it doesn't severely impact operations and/or use of OSM data.
>
> However it would seem to be a very reasonable, light-weight, requirement
> that the imported data be separated from personal contributions, just as we
> require from other imports (yes I have heard all the stories about
> everything being manually checked etc, if you believe that, I have a couple
> of bridges that I would like to sell to you).
>
> Simon
>
> PS: and I didn't even complained about the 3GB of cadastre source tags
> that we distribute with every planet
>
>
-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France -
http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquest
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Thread Simon Poole


Am 18.09.2012 15:55, schrieb Pieren:

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:


The licence change process in particular turned up a large number of
(problematic and others) imports where the importers washed their hands of
their responsibility and left the clean up work to others.

The imports during the redaction work was a problem, I agree. The
annoucement asking to suspend imports was properly forwarded to the
local mailing list and local website. But some (most of ?)
contributors do not read the mailing lists and the OSM web sites.
That's it. Some even don't read or reply to messages sent to them
through the OSM messaging system,
The question of (for example of an operational problem) communication to 
active mappers is a technical problem that we will have to address at 
one point in time. Either by assuring that the e-mail address remains 
valid or by other technical means. However that is not the issue in 
question, simply the fact that we have a large number of imports that 
are badly documented or not at all, should not have been imported in he 
first place (incompatible with CC-bs-SA or/and ODbL) and so on.


The French cadastre imports are, as you know, a rather controversial 
subject. In my opinion it is a dataset that doesn't actually increase 
the usefulness of the OSM dataset for most users (building outlines 
without addresses just don't really help with anything) and distracts 
beginner mappers from actually mapping (1st time mappers are recommend 
to immediately start importing insted of going outside). Further more, 
like essentially all imports, the external dataset is not about to go 
away, so there is no reason to prioritize this import over adding useful 
stuff.


BUT the import guidelines do not contain a provision that the data 
imported actually has to be useful and if the French community wants to 
spend (waste?) immense amount of time on this, nobody is going to stop 
it as long as it doesn't severely impact operations and/or use of OSM data.


However it would seem to be a very reasonable, light-weight, requirement 
that the imported data be separated from personal contributions, just as 
we require from other imports (yes I have heard all the stories about 
everything being manually checked etc, if you believe that, I have a 
couple of bridges that I would like to sell to you).


Simon

PS: and I didn't even complained about the 3GB of cadastre source tags 
that we distribute with every planet






___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

2012-09-18 Lester Caine


> Having to clean up some of the mess made by imports that were not as 
well sanitised as they should have been, personally I get irritated at 
any 'import' is loaded. 
 
Lester,

I have often seen such arguments agains imports. In Canada also, there are 
contributors talking agains Canvec imports and saying we should have more fun 
tracing from GPS.

We have to analyze the problems more seriously and find solutions to them. A 
great work is done in Canada importing Canvec data. And like in France, I dont 
think that this is creating a lot of problems. Experienced mappers are doing a 
great job.

But we have to be carefull at new mappers, monitoring work done, contact them.  
Has it was seen before, many mappers do not follow the distribution list.  It 
is not easy to follow mapping in an area, know the mappers contributing, and 
eventually contact them.  I suggest it would be more usefull to build tools to 
monitor local mapping and let local mappers monitor the work done in their area.

An international organization like OSM should not make the same mistakes has 
large organizations centralizing everything, adapting rigid rules.



Pierre 



>
> De : Lester Caine 
>À : OSM  
>Envoyé le : Mardi 18 septembre 2012 10h24
>Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance
> 
>Pieren wrote:
>>> DWG does also not usually require people to use a separete import account if
>>> >they are doing small imports (even though the policy does not mention an
>>> >exception for small imports). This, however, was orders of magnitude above
>>> >"small".
>
>> What is the difference between one small import well done by 100 users
>> and 100 small imports well done by 1 user ? Excepted that this crazy
>> man should be congratulated by all of us ?
>
>Having to clean up some of the mess made by imports that were not as well 
>sanitised as they should have been, personally I get irritated at any 'import' 
>is loaded. At least though a small account that results in problem data can be 
>managed. When we have thousands of change sets to work through it becomes a 
>lot more difficult. The current 'import' process is not ideal and we do need 
>some improvements. Ring fencing 'import' processes in their own accounts was 
>one attempt but still not ideal. DWG are doing the best they can in mediating 
>problems and do need a better 'footprint' of international coverage, but if 
>nobody will step up to the plate, then we simply have to accept the job they 
>are currently doing. And I find they are doing a thankless task more than 
>acceptably.
>
>Now if there is a substantial set of data available which we are allowed to 
>import then that data should be available ... as an overlay or some other way 
>... such as the OS data is available as overlays we can trace from. This way 
>we can cross check imported data, and fix things that the original importer 
>got wrong. Importing from third party mass data without an easy path to cross 
>check against the original data is I think the problem here? I believe the 
>original intention was that the 'raw data' would be identified by the separate 
>user account, and then merges from that can easily be identified to the user 
>actually making the changes. That perhaps is not obvious these days?
>
>We need to cooperate and agree the best way of doing things, but we do still 
>have a way to go to get systems that work world wide.
>
>-- Lester Caine - G8HFL
>-
>Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
>L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
>EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
>Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
>Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
>
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance

Pieren wrote:

Now if there is a substantial set of data available which we are allowed to
>import then that data should be available ... as an overlay or some other
>way ... such as the OS data is available as overlays we can trace from.

Seriously, if OS opens the shapefiles of all detailed building
footprints, everybody in UK will continue to trace manually each
building over raster images ?

Well since those details on OS are crap we are better tracing the building from 
the imagery which is the main reason *I* don't want people doing mass 
uncontrolled imports ;) Fixing poor data takes longer than manually adding clean 
stuff.

My point is that in the past mass imports have been from data that we had no 
means of reviewing. If people are 'processing' that data and then importing it 
then it makes things even more difficult. Personally I'd prefer we had a 
properly managed overlay system so this sort of raw data can be imported and 
then processed where we can all review it.

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance