I repeat myself:  less buzzword-compliance, please.  More embracing of 
tried-and-true OSM tenets and culture, like front-loaded planning, ongoing, 
wide-area project management on something with nationwide scope as this, wiki 
writing/updating both intent and ongoing status, making available short video 
clip "flight plans" (OSM curriculum specific to entering building data) to 
explain process to various audiences in Canada....  You have Ottawa as a "good 
acorn," clone what was learned there into the wiki (better than now) and target 
other cities and audiences to harmonize with slow-yet-steady OSM-style growth.  
That is how this turns into "mighty oaks."

I met Clifford in Seattle two summers ago, he presented some excellent OSM 
community-building strategies at SOTM-US, I had a contract with Telenav for a 
while, I know maps.me, and I watched Philly Fresh Food turn into rather 
impressive results, as it was well-planned and was ready to receive beneficial 
and unexpected synergies.  (That didn't happen because somebody said "synergy," 
by the way).  I've been around the OSM block and I'm obviously passionate about 
it yielding awesome results.  But only when some awesome happens up-front.  
Otherwise (and I've both seen it and cleaned it up), it gets messy, and fast.

Yes, gathering "how" intelligence from existing projects is smart.  Yes, 
learning that concerns like liability and a PERCEIVED "lack of control" in an 
open, public, crowdsourced database like OSM can pose problems, but only if you 
push through these perceptions with an understanding of previous pitfalls, and 
the commensurate good planning and active management which can and do avoid 
these.  With both, you can address not only these (perceived) issues, "you" 
(and who is that?) can "drive" the project virtually anyplace desired, provided 
it sticks to OSM's good tenets and keeps the finish line in sight while hewing 
to good bounds to get there.  This project does better at that now, I think it 
will continue to do so.  It seriously needs a flight crew, steering committee, 
whatever you wish to call it.  While those specific individual human beings 
might be in a government bureaucracy (or, they might not), they MUST (I repeat, 
MUST) be steeped in culture and methods of OSM.  Knowledge of ArcGIS or other 
GIS/cartography experience is fine, knowledge of other sorts of crowdsourcing 
can help, yet the way that things are well-built and work in OSM is unique to 
OSM.  Embrace that, and fly.  Don't, or put too much emphasis on "the way we've 
always done things here" and you create more difficulties.

It is getting better.  (As my tone hews closer to honey than vinegar, it will 
get better).  Again, I've said it and said it and said it.  So please:  do it.  
The good intentions to do so are clearly there, that is a terrific place to be 
to continue onto the next steps.

Talk-ca mailing list

Reply via email to