On Nov 1, 2018, at 1:53 PM, John Whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are you confusing the availability of Open Data with an import?
No, I am not. > Most imports need plans No, ALL imports need plans. > but just because Open Data is available does not mean the license is > compatible nor that it will be imported. I'm simply getting ahead of a curve and some, uh, let's say "could have gone better" experiences, here. Yet, try as I may to get a wider OSM community in Canada to share their intentions (by publishing the particular status of a city's license status on a wiki, for example) most of what I see is "pure deep freeze." OK, you are Canadian, maybe that was a poor choice of words. I see "very little forward momentum" in clear, wide communication of either intention or actual progress. Sure, I understand (as Alessandro said "sometimes things don't 'hatch right'") yet there is nothing wrong with the occasional step backwards, so long as it is accompanied by a couple (or even three) steps forwards. > My feeling is the wiki page lists open data and indicates if the license is > compatible. If you mean https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/WikiProject_Canada/Building_Canada_2020/building_OD_tables those haven't been TOUCHED (by me, no less) in almost nine months. Is "your feeling" the actual truth? I have no idea. I might suggest you double-check, and have another OSM volunteer double-check YOUR work. This is what I do in our wiki (about the status of data in our map) and yes, you can do so, too. > We do not need a plan for every potential source only those that someone is > planing to import. No, but it does need to be ODbL-compatible and if it even has a whiff of an Import, (as much of this does, but there is so much "stovepiping" of data going on in our "OPEN" project — it's our first name) that I can't really tell. I honestly don't like to sound so belligerent, yet I see the same sort of secretive, "where the heck did this come from" sorts of paths being gone down again. So, I feel compelled to say something. Believe me, I struggle to remain polite here. OSM deserves high-quality data, vetted widely, shareable by more than some bureaucrats in a federal office for their own purposes, with members of the public wittingly or unwittingly are "pulled into a crowdsourcing effort" (or something that seems like one, but actually isn't). PLENTY of people are watching, as we are an OPEN data project, yet I continue to see people who do not act like it. John, you've done a pretty good job of sharing history, future intended directions, hopefulness that the data that eventually make it into OSM can and will be widely used/shared/enjoyed by many, yet what I see is a largely opaque process. OPEN it up! Thank you, SteveA California _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
