Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Am 20.09.2012 22:38, schrieb Christian Rogel: So, as we have a DWG a making tremendous efforts for maintaining a good policy for the data (including the boring chase of proprietary ones), it may happen and it will happen more and more that a projected decision exceed the field of the data policy to jump into a political field. I believe one of the issues here is the categorization of the separate account requirement as political, when I suspect most would see it as a purely administrative/technical matter and the textual change as a clarification of existing policy well within the remit of the DWG. I would like to make it very clear that the policy is being applied evenly, there was for example a 50'000 man hole import in Germany (in one city nota bene) a couple of weeks ago that ran in to similar issues and caused a minor ruckus. In no way is the French community being singled out. The sheer volume of the cadastre import is simply making it more likely that there are more French mappers importing data at a such level that they will catch the attention of the DWG. Simon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: I believe one of the issues here is the categorization of the separate account requirement as political, when I suspect most would see it as a purely administrative/technical matter and the textual change as a clarification of existing policy well within the remit of the DWG. Here is the lack of understanding. Since the policy is not defined by technical reasons, nor by consensus, neither by The community (OSM is a sum of communities: local contributors, devs, admins, data consumers, etc), it is fixed by one or part of the communities participating to the project. At the end, it is really perceived as a pure administrative/political matter by (some) other communities. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012/9/19 Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de On 19.09.2012 11:22, Christian Quest wrote: We're voting proposed tag scheme. ... or not. Frequently nowadays a new value or scheme is invented w/o voting. No statement by myself whether I think this is good process or not... So these hard rules are coming from nowhere ? There's no process to set them ? Please read the comment of Richard (in the archive: http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/pipermail/talk/2012-** September/064300.htmlhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-September/064300.html ). Yes, I'm saying that editing the wiki is not clearly publishing and ANNOUNCING a major change. As stated by Richard: the change of the wiki was just a documentation of the best practice used since long term, I would not call this a major change. But to point also on the other issue which started the whole discussion: if someone contacts you because of you behavior (even if it is in a foreign language) you should not completely ignore him. The complete ignorance of any contact (threre have been two or three tries) was the reason for the (short term) block, not the disregard of the guidelines. In fact I *did* answer twice, in March September. I explain my point of view and the special case of Cadastre import. I do not receive any answer after my response, excepte a blocked account a few days ago. Nothing to do with foreign language in my personnal case. Best ragards, Michael. Regards, -- Marc Sibert m...@sibert.fr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On jeudi 20 septembre 2012, Marc SIBERT wrote: The complete ignorance of any contact (threre have been two or three tries) was the reason for the (short term) block, not the disregard of the guidelines. In fact I *did* answer twice, in March September. I explain my point of view and the special case of Cadastre import. I do not receive any answer after my response, excepte a blocked account a few days ago. Nothing to do with foreign language in my personnal case. Ouch ! I do trust what Marc says, and I guess he has proof to back this up. What we have then ? We don't have any discussion at all, and Marc isn't at fault here. we have a group of admin using their blocking power after sending semi automated email without bothering to understand the contributor's answers and not refering to the local community he belongs to. It is clear that this was an enforcement of guidelines best practices transformed into laws, no need to try to find the reason elsewhere. We can get back to the topic of governance and discussion about those laws and who decide them, and how. -- sly qui suis-je : http://sly.letuffe.org email perso : sylvain chez letuffe un point org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: We can get back to the topic of governance and discussion about those laws and who decide them, and how. Or just get back to fixing the process in the first place? SO we have less chance of misinterpreting the 'guidelines'? -- 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 20 sept. 2012 à 13:22, Lester Caine a écrit : sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: We can get back to the topic of governance and discussion about those laws and who decide them, and how. Or just get back to fixing the process in the first place? SO we have less chance of misinterpreting the 'guidelines'? Yes, it is all about governance and not only a technical issue, although many pound for reducing the debate to it. OSM is going more and more political (not in the sense of ordinary politics, of course). Some decisions elaborated on technical have to be reviewed and weighed by the only political body we have, namely the Board. There is no way having a Board which says it is always sticking to our brilliant technical team, whatever they decide. We know they are all overworked, so it is not for being reproachful to anybody. The Board can put a loose lead on minor matters, but not on decisions that affect potentially every contributor and having put mandatory a separated count, as having blocked whithout an inquiry about the fact fall in this category. And these were a matter of official announcement. Some unforeseen reactions will happen more and more, but they will have to be treated politically. If the Board refuse to manage ours affairs this way, it will be overtaken more and more, as the community grows and as more and data will be liberated. It can take the risk to be cornered and make dangerous or exaggerated decisions. Furthermore, local communities will express desires and propositions. The Board must go further and have deep reflections about le political governance of the OSMF I repeat that it will be a major concern in the future Annual General Meetings and elsewhere. For illustrating the import issues, not only public geodata were integrated (meaning letting correct data in their places) under the authority of the Brest District (Communauté urbaine. 240 000 inh.) for itds territory, but a whole area of 1500 km2, mainly OSM vacant, was added, municipality after municipality, by the GIS of the previous body. I am pounding on my own local administration for having the same integration for completing and correcting a buildings import from the Cadastre having been cast unexpectedly by a Dutch citizen. A bunch of us, in the French community, were working hard for merge thousands parts of the buildings. I was happy to see my work enriched, but I do not seek for learning how to import, as the GIS is very good. I concentrate my efforts on footways, cycleways, green spots, transports... This Dutch made a good thing : he created a special count. this was 2 years ago. ;-). In France, more and more public GIS are considering having their geodata open, and cast into OSM for many public-friendly applications that could not be handled from their database directly. They are interested in working with the general public for signalling incidents and local issues and with local mappers for survey and proposing. Christian Rogel OSMF member ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
I believe there is some misunderstanding of the relationship between OSM and OSMF. Am 20.09.2012 16:36, schrieb Christian Rogel: Le 20 sept. 2012 à 13:22, Lester Caine a écrit : sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: We can get back to the topic of governance and discussion about those laws and who decide them, and how. Or just get back to fixing the process in the first place? SO we have less chance of misinterpreting the 'guidelines'? Yes, it is all about governance and not only a technical issue, although many pound for reducing the debate to it. OSM is going more and more political (not in the sense of ordinary politics, of course). Some decisions elaborated on technical have to be reviewed and weighed by the only political body we have, namely the Board. There is no way having a Board which says it is always sticking to our brilliant technical team, whatever they decide. While a more top down organisation of OSM a la Wikipedia or other organisations is imaginable, there has never been a community consensus that such a step would be desirable (if anything it is exactly the opposite). So while the OSMF provides the formal structure for the working groups, most policy decisions are not made or even vetted by the OSMF board, but are simply decided by the people interested in the issues at hand and (particularly in the case of the DWG) the people that do the work. Not to mention the far larger number of policies (tagging and others) that are not in the remit of any specific working group and are decided by the OSM community at large. OSM WG membership is fairly open, but the basic premise is that you join to help with the work at hand and influence policy by that, not by using a WG as a political grandstand. It is imaginable that if a WG stepped very far outside its remit the OSMF board might intervene, but I don't know of any such situation and the case in hand is clearly not such a situation either. The import guidelines don't restrict the imported content outside the legal requirements that it be compatible with our distribution terms and simply adds a couple of rules on how to achieve community consensus and how to technically implement the import, the later are essentially practical measures to make the core DWG job manageable. If at all, as I've pointed out before, the administrative and technical requirements are too lax, this is at least what the experience during the licence change would indicate. In the long term we may need more formal ways to produce rules and guidelines for OSM as a whole, however this is not something that will be easy and will likely be a process of the same order of magnitude as the licence change. [Discussion of more and more OGD becoming available ommited] Yes, the development in the area of Open Data poses a serious challenge to OSM. I suspect that the attitude of large parts of the community is that OGD is a good thing, however I'm also fairly sure that there is no community consensus that OSM should aspire to import everything that is available just because it is there. In the end we want to produce an editable, community sourced map of the world, not simply a copy of data that is available (and remains available) elsewhere. I'm sure that the OpenData issue will be a very hot topic over the next months and years, but it really belongs in a separate thread and not in a discussion over administrative and technical procedures. Simon PS: just in case it is not clear, I'm not representing the position of the OSMF board in this discussion, just that of a mapper that had to chase down a number of rogue imports over the last months. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Simon Poole wrote: Yes, the development in the area of Open Data poses a serious challenge to OSM. I suspect that the attitude of large parts of the community is that OGD is a good thing, however I'm also fairly sure that there is no community consensus that OSM should aspire to import everything that is available just because it is there. In the end we want to produce an editable, community sourced map of the world, not simply a copy of data that is available (and remains available) elsewhere. In support of importing data that is available, the cadastre dataset is probably a good 'benchmark' where fine detail such as building are available, but this lacks the additional information such as street names and numbers, which is exactly where OSM can step in and enhance the data? But I view the situation as one were OSM will provide a level playing field where a vast basket of OGD data in multiple formats will be merged into a coherent whole? And perhaps some of that data will only be accessible on secondary servers as overlays? -- 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 20 sept. 2012 à 18:59, Simon Poole a écrit : . While a more top down organisation of OSM a la Wikipedia or other organisations is imaginable, there has never been a community consensus that such a step would be desirable (if anything it is exactly the opposite). So while the OSMF provides the formal structure for the working groups, most policy decisions are not made or even vetted by the OSMF board, but are simply decided by the people interested in the issues at hand and (particularly in the case of the DWG) the people that do the work. Not to mention the far larger number of policies (tagging and others) that are not in the remit of any specific working group and are decided by the OSM community at large. Yes, the OSMF has not be established as a topdown organization, but it has to fulfill its commitments for maintaining the servers and the free data inside. Art. 4 of the Memorandum of Association : In support of the objects, but not otherwise, the Company shall have power to do all things incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects or any of them. That includes responsibility for attaining the objects. So, as we have a DWG a making tremendous efforts for maintaining a good policy for the data (including the boring chase of proprietary ones), it may happen and it will happen more and more that a projected decision exceed the field of the data policy to jump into a political field. In those rare cases, the Board of Directors has to be put in the loop, before going further. We have a good example with the recommendation of a special account muted without announcement and explanation to an obligation. One more time, no personal reproach here. But from that example, the Board must think of the growing difficulties to handle and be prepared for that. It will be no use saying DWG is appertaining to the community as it is no more and no less than an efficient working group fueled by the contributors propositions. Responsibility is up to the Board when speaking of rules applicable maybe to every contributor or for managing a tool or a resource specific to a part of the World. Christian Rogel OSMF Member ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2012/9/19 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net 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/cquesthttp://openstreetmap.fr/u/christian-quest ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012/9/19 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org 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/cquesthttp://openstreetmap.fr/u/christian-quest ___ 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 9:37 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org 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
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
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
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
2012/9/18 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org: 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
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
2012/9/19 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org: 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
2012/9/19 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: 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
Le 19/09/2012 16:23, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : 2012/9/19 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: 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 Vincent Pottier vpott...@gmail.com: 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
On 19.09.2012 09:05, guig...@free.fr wrote: Perhaps, because the user doesn't understand English please use google translate or any other translating tool available on the web or use a printed dictionary or ... Best regards, Michael. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 19.09.2012 12:04, Richard Fairhurst wrote: As a few people have already said [...] cheers Richard applause for this comment! And to clarify it already now: there is no irony behind this statement. Best regards, Michael. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
th == Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu writes: ecm account block. But historical information such as the number of ecm blocks imposed per week are missing AFAICT (allows people to ecm monitor for admin abuse). th It should be pretty obvious from browsing the block list: th th http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks th th the first page of 20 entries normally covers at least a few weeks. Thanks, this is quite adequate for the purpose I had in mind. -- Eric Marsden ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 19.09.2012 11:22, Christian Quest wrote: We're voting proposed tag scheme. ... or not. Frequently nowadays a new value or scheme is invented w/o voting. No statement by myself whether I think this is good process or not... So these hard rules are coming from nowhere ? There's no process to set them ? Please read the comment of Richard (in the archive: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-September/064300.html). Yes, I'm saying that editing the wiki is not clearly publishing and ANNOUNCING a major change. As stated by Richard: the change of the wiki was just a documentation of the best practice used since long term, I would not call this a major change. But to point also on the other issue which started the whole discussion: if someone contacts you because of you behavior (even if it is in a foreign language) you should not completely ignore him. The complete ignorance of any contact (threre have been two or three tries) was the reason for the (short term) block, not the disregard of the guidelines. Best ragards, Michael. ___ 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 11:08 AM, Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr wrote: I'd like to have some answers because after searching the wiki, the OSMF web site and the imports@ mailing-list archives, I could not find any (public) discussion about the newly required dedicated account. Hi, I also had someone hold that against me on the german list, I guess it is a new requirement that was thought up in the recent past, you can check the wiki history to see when it was introduced. I was not aware about it until someone said that it was being held against me. fairness in making accusations is not something that is strong in this community, it seems that people can just make accusations at will and if it is not part of the party line then that person gets moderated and otherwise applauded. It would be nice to have some type of public voting and governance system, I am reviewing some of them for another project, I cannot recommend any right now, but liquidfeedback.org seems interesting. I supposed that my comments will get me banned from the list, so if that happens, good bye. mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012/9/18 Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr: My questions are: - Who decided this change (recommendation - requirement) ? - What has been the process that lead to this major change ? not sure about this, but I definitely support the decision, because it was a real problem in the past when imports could not easily be distinguished from individual and original contributions. - Do we need a separate account for each dataset imported ? IMHO at least, but in the case of datasets with different licenses in different countries (e.g. CORINE) it should be even a separate account for every country. - What is the benefit when hundreds/thousands of contributors are upload subsets of a larger dataset after manual review/improvement of the original data ? sort out license issues easier. cheers, Martin ___ 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 12:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: not sure about this, but I definitely support the decision, because it was a real problem in the past when imports could not easily be distinguished from individual and original contributions. Excepted that in the mentionned case, the French cadastre building footprints import is localized (scale is a municipality, a town or a village) and the features are limited to buldings and possibly waterways. All imported elements are also sourced and uploads are limited to one or few changesets. So the problem to distinguish individual and original contribution does not exist here. The problem is that the guideline is writing for mass imports which is not always the case for all imports. Here in France, we also import administrative boundaries from the same source. It is done carefully and manually since years now. The task is so huge (36. municipality boundaries at the end) that we crowdsource it. We also have a tool to monitor such data (osmose). We cannot ask each contributor to create a special account each time he is importing something into OSM which is not coming from Bing or its GPS. And if creating a new user account would be that easy, but it requires a special, different email account each time for each new account (excepted for those who are old enough in OSM and created tens of accounts before this restriction was in place). Only this point is creating a barrier to import any thing in general into OSM (which is, I suspect, the real target of the DWG at the end). What I would like to know here is if the DWG is allowed to block one contributor just because he is not following one of the requirements writen on the wiki guidelines, a requirement which was just an option few months ago. The DWG is claiming that the import guideline is writen by the community. But how many people have been involved in the discussion deciding to change the wiki and make a separate account a must instead of a recommendation ? And where was it discussed ? If 5 people decided to make it an obligation, can 5 other people decide to change the wiki back to an option ? I agree with the concept of seperate accounts but only for large imports done by a single person in a short time. All the opposite of the small French cadastre imports done by the crowd since years on limited areas. The guideline contains other recommendations which are also requested to our importers (like integrate with the existing data). We also wrote our own guideline to avoid bad, unprepared, blind imports. Unfortunatelly, we also have some black sheeps not following it. In this case, the French community is big and mature enough to contact the persons, repair and revert them or even ask the DWG to block one person until he reads our messages. But this was not the case for the mentionned person. For all of these reasons, I would like to modify the import guidelines and make the separate account back to a recommendation which is not alsways necessary, especially in case of limited imports, in size and/or features. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012/9/18 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: not sure about this, but I definitely support the decision, because it was a real problem in the past when imports could not easily be distinguished from individual and original contributions. Excepted that in the mentionned case, the French cadastre building footprints import is localized (scale is a municipality, a town or a village) and the features are limited to buldings and possibly waterways. All imported elements are also sourced and uploads are limited to one or few changesets. So the problem to distinguish individual and original contribution does not exist here. How does it help for distinguishing imports from original contributions to have many small areas or small feature sets or many small changesets? What might help is a uniform changeset comment or component. We cannot ask each contributor to create a special account each time he is importing something into OSM which is not coming from Bing or its GPS. nobody should be importing from Bing or converted GPS-traces ;-), the distinction we do is: use different accounts for data you create yourself and for data that you take from other sources (i.e. for which you don't have the intellectual property rights). And if creating a new user account would be that easy, but it requires a special, different email account each time for each new account well, not sure where this comes from and if it makes sense: I don't see a real obstacle as email addresses are not a scarse ressource (you get as many as you like for free), but I agree that it seems to be better to allow the same email address for multiple accounts (would make it more probable that someone is monitoring the inbox = more likely you will be able to communicate with the mapper if he can use his usual email address). What I would like to know here is if the DWG is allowed to block one contributor just because he is not following one of the requirements writen on the wiki guidelines, a requirement which was just an option few months ago 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. . The DWG is claiming that the import guideline is writen by the community. But how many people have been involved in the discussion deciding to change the wiki and make a separate account a must instead of a recommendation ? 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. I agree with the concept of seperate accounts but only for large imports done by a single person in a short time. All the opposite of the small French cadastre imports done by the crowd since years on limited areas. I agree that it seems not necessary in the case where the data comes with no obligations (PD/CC0) and the mappers check manually every single object they import. For all of these reasons, I would like to modify the import guidelines and make the separate account back to a recommendation which is not alsways necessary, especially in case of limited imports, in size and/or features. -1 if there are other obligations (like attribution) associated with the originals data license. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 9/18/2012 7:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: well, not sure where this comes from and if it makes sense: I don't see a real obstacle as email addresses are not a scarse ressource (you get as many as you like for free), but I agree that it seems to be better to allow the same email address for multiple accounts (would make it more probable that someone is monitoring the inbox = more likely you will be able to communicate with the mapper if he can use his usual email address). This is a very real problem - it is not helpful if the email account is unmonitored, or even allowed to be deleted due to inactivity. However there is a relatively easy solution: If your primary account is not gmail.com, get a single gmail account. Each import account would add a unique identifier to the email address with the + sign for example - http://evernotefolios.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/multiple-email-addresses-with-one-gmail-account/ ___ 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 1:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: How does it help for distinguishing imports from original contributions to have many small areas or small feature sets or many small changesets? What might help is a uniform changeset comment or component. What's the reason to distinguish individual contributions from external data if it is not for copyright infridgements and/or possible reverts ? In both cases, the user account is not an issue in our case. nobody should be importing from Bing or converted GPS-traces ;-), the distinction we do is: use different accounts for data you create yourself and for data that you take from other sources (i.e. for which you don't have the intellectual property rights). But what we call cadastre import normally includes manual work where existing data are integrated (e.g. the building names, places of worship, townhall, etc). So it is rarely a pure import but more an integration. well, not sure where this comes from and if it makes sense: I don't see a real obstacle as email addresses are not a scarse ressource (you get as many as you like for free), but I agree that it seems to be better to allow the same email address for multiple accounts I guess the reason was an anti-spam and fake-accounts measure. 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. valid ? I did not know that a wiki page, editable by anyone, is defining how and what the DWG (and indirectly the foundation) allows or forbid for imports once the legal points are clear. 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. And how many have spoken for it and where ? -1 if there are other obligations (like attribution) associated with the originals data license. In our case, the attribution is attached to each element. Because planet dumps or extracts do not contain attributions attached in user accounts or changesets comments. Asking a separate account does not help here. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
Hi, I welcome a discussion about rules - which ones we need, who makes them, who executes them. It is clear that we need *some* rules, but until now there's no formal community process to create or amend such rules. I'm happy to hear any suggestions that people might have. How can the will of the community be caputured and distilled into a rule - and where should we work without any rules? In what areas do we have to have rules that govern all of OSM, and in what areas can we afford to defer to local communities? On 18.09.2012 11:08, Christian Quest wrote: This is a major governance problem for me, some guidelines are updated by someone on a wiki page (Nov 15th 2011 by Richard Fairhurst), something that was a recommendation becomes mandatory and then some contributor get blocked based on this wiki page edit that comes from nowhere. 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. DWG does not usually block people without talking to them first, unless they are in the process of breaking things. 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. My questions are: - Who decided this change (recommendation - requirement) ? - What has been the process that lead to this major change ? I don't think it is a major change, but anyway I think it would be wrong to make a big fuss out of hurt pride and focus on that one single requirement. Anyone who is unhappy with the current import guidelines is invited to propose and discuss a change; and anyone who is unhappy with how such guidelines are adopted and executes is invited to propose and discuss a change there as well. DWG has also been looking for someone from France to join its ranks in order to better liaise with the French community in case of problems like this but we haven't had any applications. 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
2012/9/18 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 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. Really ? According to [1]: The *Data Working Group* (d...@osmfoundation.org) is authorised by the Foundation to deal with accusations of copyrighthttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright infringement and serious Disputes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes and Vandalism http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism. As I understand this, the French cadastre integration is not concerned by any of the DWG attributions. It is not its role to check how good or bad the integration of external data has been made, when no one complains about it, when the map has been improved by this integration, and when the local community is perfectly OK with it. What happened on 15th september looks like an abuse of authority to me, as this largely exceeds the limits of the mandate given to the DWG. I expect a clarification from the OSMF board on this point. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On 18/09/2012 13:42, Vincent Privat wrote: What happened on 15th september looks like an abuse of authority to me, as this largely exceeds the limits of the mandate given to the DWG. I expect a clarification from the OSMF board on this point. OK, if we're playing WikiLawyer pissing games, the statement about DWG's power says authorised, not limited to. Part of DWG's remit is to deal with disputes, and this is very clearly a dispute over data. Ergo... -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
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
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: On 18/09/2012 13:42, Vincent Privat wrote: OK, if we're playing WikiLawyer pissing games, the statement about DWG's power says authorised, not limited to. Part of DWG's remit is to deal with disputes, and this is very clearly a dispute over data. Ergo... The DWG is mandated by the foundation ([1]), no ? And here ([2]), it says The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international not-for-profit organization supporting, but not controlling, the OpenStreetMap Project. The dispute is not between contributors but between the French community and the DWG... Pieren [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group The Data Working Group (d...@osmfoundation.org) is authorised by the Foundation to deal with accusations of copyright infringement and serious Disputes and Vandalism. Minor incidents of vandalism should be dealt with by the local community using counter-vandalism tools and processes. [2] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page ___ 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 2:57 PM, Vincent Pottier vpott...@gmail.com wrote: 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 ? But look, you found the notice didn't you? Yes, said Arthur, yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'. http://www.planetclaire.org/quotes/hitchhikers/ -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Saving wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
The changes to the guidelines should be seen in the light of the original text being very OSMish, trying to leave some wiggle room and trying not to come over as an absolute law, but I believe the intention was always that seperate accounts would be the norm. In reality a large number of importers ignored (not only) the provision in question and resorted to mincing words to justify it (Mike being a good example of this). The clarification should be seen as a step to avoid that. 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. Simon -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.___ 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 2:40 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org 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. This user is very active and well known in the French community and nobody came to us complaining about the quality of his imports. and asked to continue his work in accordance with the import guidelines, using a separate import account. : I don't think it is a major change, but anyway I think it would be wrong to Once the change is invoked to be the single reason justifying a user account block, it is a major change. 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 ? Pieren ___ 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 3:38 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch 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, perhaps because the DWG is contacting them in a foreign language. A local DWG representative speaking the same language would surely help here. I'm sure the DWG will receive soon new applicants for the position. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
2012/9/18 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: 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. DWG does not usually block people without talking to them first, unless they are in the process of breaking things. 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. A very large part of these upload have been done BEFORE the dedicated account requirement that appeared like magic (until someone can explain the process of its appearance) on the wiki. My questions are: - Who decided this change (recommendation - requirement) ? - What has been the process that lead to this major change ? I don't think it is a major change, but anyway I think it would be wrong to make a big fuss out of hurt pride and focus on that one single requirement. Anyone who is unhappy with the current import guidelines is invited to propose and discuss a change; and anyone who is unhappy with how such guidelines are adopted and executes is invited to propose and discuss a change there as well. Can you explain how these guidelines have been adopted ? I searched and found nothing and that is my main question here, not all questions related to imports/decidated account which is another topic. DWG has also been looking for someone from France to join its ranks in order to better liaise with the French community in case of problems like this but we haven't had any applications. Really ? I've been in contact with pnorman about this and proposed myself to take care of problems happening in France. Sending a message only in english is a problem for many contributors who do not understand english so well or not all. Diplomacy which is really necessary in this area is very difficult when not writing in your mother language. I confirm you have one application, mine. -- 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
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
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk 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 ? Pieren ___ 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
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 les...@lsces.co.uk À : OSM talk@openstreetmap.org 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
Am 18.09.2012 15:55, schrieb Pieren: On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch 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
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 si...@poole.ch 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/cquesthttp://openstreetmap.fr/u/christian-quest ___ 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 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch 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
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Pierre Béland infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr 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
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch 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 Lester Caine lester at lsces.co.uk 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 si...@poole.ch 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=45.003lon=-72.233zoom=9layers=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
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
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
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
On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel christian.ro...@club-internet.fr 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
DWG != OSMF. ??? Éric ___ 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 openstreet...@firefishy.com 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines OSMF/DWG governance
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 openstreet...@firefishy.com 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
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 frede...@remote.org: 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
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
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
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
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
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 frede...@remote.org: 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
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
pb == Pierre Béland infosbelas-...@yahoo.fr 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
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
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
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
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
Le 18/09/2012 19:29, Grant Slater a écrit : On 18 September 2012 18:13, Christian Rogel christian.ro...@club-internet.fr 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 http://nlp-addiction.com/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
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
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
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
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
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org 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
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 4:17 PM, Marc Sibert m...@sibert.fr 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
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
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com 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
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
Le 18/09/2012 22:56, Richard Weait a écrit : On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Marc Sibert m...@sibert.fr 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
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
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Eric Marsden eric.mars...@free.fr 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, 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
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
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 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 toby.mur...@gmail.com 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 eric.mars...@free.fr 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
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
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
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