Hi, Jean-Guilhem Cailton wrote: > Ok, but please do not forget that in crisis situations (e.g. Haiti), > there could be people dying while the "deliberation" would be taking > place...
This is something to be discussed later, I guess, but my take is that we should separate "crisis stuff" from the rest of OSM, to the point of having separate databases. We'd still use the normal OSM tools but there would be a special API server for a crisis region. There, people could do whatever they please (even more so than in "normal OSM") without interference from others. After the crisis has subsided, temporary structures removed and so on, work could then start on moving selected items from the "crisis map" over into the normal OSM map. If this is not done, I sense a potential for conflicts of all kind. As apparent in the dramatic wording you chose above ("there could be people dying..."), a humanitarian crisis anywhere could put strain on the project as a whole: "What, you want to take the database offline for a weekend to perform the move to API 0.8 that you have planned for half a year? But there could be people dying!" - "What, the database didn't work for a whole night and the admin was in the pub? But there could have been people dying!" - "What, you want to do a world-wide day of post box mapping? But this is going to slow down the API and there could be people dying!", and so on. Being able to provide value in humanitarian crises is a side-effect of a healthy OSM - not a core purpose of OSM. Bye Frederik _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk