Along the lines of what Jarek said, sometimes silence just means tacit
acceptance, or that it's not that controversial. There's quite a bit of
government data here that is supposedly "open" but unavailable for OSM, so
I'm very glad Stats Can was able to find a way to collect municipal data
and
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 21:46, OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
> Thanks, Jarek. Considering I am a proponent of "perfection must not be the
> enemy of good" (regarding OSM data entry), I think data which are "darn good,
> though not perfect" DO deserve to enter into OSM. Sometimes "darn good"
>
On Jan 17, 2019, at 6:27 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> When no one is responding, sometimes it is because they are fine with
> the message as-is. I read it. I was fine with it. This isn't an
> Australian election.
I'm not sure about the allusion to Australian elections, so I'll let that pass
On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 21:04, OSM Volunteer stevea
wrote:
>> The import was discussed on talk-ca and in my opinion there was a consensus
>> of opinion it should go ahead. The data comes from the municipalities of
>> which there are some 37,000 separate ones in Canada. The idea of a single
>>
The thread link is:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2019-January/005878.html
SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
This is redirected (by request of its author) from a thread on the (talk-)
imports mailing list at .
On Jan 17, 2019, at 4:55 PM, John Whelan wrote:
> The import was discussed on talk-ca and in my opinion there was a consensus
> of opinion it should go ahead. The data comes from the
6 matches
Mail list logo
