As Frederik Ramm once said(sorry i'm paraphrasing from memory please don't shoot me) There has never been a GO-Nogo for imports, you bring it up on the mailing lists with reasonable delay, is there no objections(in this case no one was saying anything about it for 2-3 weeks) then email the list that the import would start.
On Fri., Jan. 18, 2019, 12:59 a.m. Alan Richards <[email protected] wrote: > 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 publish it under one national license. I was surprised myself it hadn't > got more attention, but I'm firmly onboard with more imports if done with > care. > Manually adding buildings - especially residential neighborhoods, is about > the most boring task I can think of, yet it does add a lot to the map. > > I'll admit I hadn't looked at the data quality myself, but I just did > review several task squares around BC and they look pretty good. Houses > were all in the right place, accurate, and generally as much or even more > detailed than I typically see. Issues seemed to be mostly the larger > commercial buildings being overly large or missing detail, but in general > these are the buildings most likely to be already mapped. To a large > degree, it's up the individual importer to do some quality control, review > against existing object, satellite, etc. If we have specific issues we can > and should address them, but if the data is largely good then I see no need > to abort or revert. > > alarobric > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:41 PM Jarek Piórkowski <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 21:46, OSM Volunteer stevea >> <[email protected]> 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" might be 85%, 95% "good," as then we'll get it to 99% and then 100% >> over time. But if the focus on "how" isn't sharp enough to get it to 85% >> (or so) during initial entry, go back and start over to get that number >> up. 85% sounds arbitrary, I know, but think of it as "a solid B" which >> might be "passes the class for now" without failing. And it's good we >> develop a "meanwhile strategy" to take it to 99% and then 100% in the >> (near- or at most mid-term) future. This isn't outrageously difficult, >> though it does take patience and coordination. Open communication is a >> prerequisite. >> >> Thank you for this commitment. I wish others shared it. Unfortunately >> the reality I've been seeing in OSM is that edits which are 90+% good >> (like this import) are challenged, while edits which are 50+% bad >> (maps.me submissions, wheelmap/rosemary v0.4.4 going to completely >> wrong locations for _years_) go unchallenged or are laboriously >> manually fixed afterward. >> >> --Jarek >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-ca mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
