I could set the task up to be seen only by validators+ which I then can sst individual users as validators
On Thu., Jan. 16, 2020, 10:10 p.m. Tim Elrick, <[email protected]> wrote: > I would assume in most cases the imported building footprint will be > more precise than existing data. For me, this would be a reason to > replace already existing objects. However, I think this is a case by > case decision. However, I think it is important to keep tags and history > of buildings already existent in OSM. This is how I would read/interpret > the import guideline stated by Nate: "If you are importing data where > there is already some data in OSM, then *you need to combine this data* > in an appropriate way or suppress the import of features with overlap > with existing data." (emphasis added by me) > > However, that just means, the import, hence, is nothing easy and could > not be achieve quickly, I would assume. One way of making sure that this > is dealt with diligently, would be setting the tasking manager to > 'experienced mappers only'. We would have to ask James, who is in charge > of the Canada Tasking Manager, how to edit/set up the 'experienced > mapper role' in the TM. It might be possible to feed in a list of > mappers manually or to set a threshold of objects/changesets that they > must have entered in OSM. However, maybe only mappers who feel > experienced enough to handle the import would contribute to the TM > project anyway and we let everyone judge on their own and don't restrict > access. > > If we were to separate the new and overlapping buildings, I am also > leaning towards Daniel's assessment. I would be afraid to cause more > issues than by doing it all at once (with a reasonable tile size, of > course). > > In the end, the main point of importing this specific dataset fulfils > two purposes, in my opinion: first, to add missing buildings (if it were > just for this purpose we could also use the much bigger Microsoft > dataset), second, to get the best geospatial representation possible in > our OSM database. That means, we defer from using the Microsoft dataset > and use the much higher quality data from the ODB. This also means that > we should replace already existing buildings (yet keeping tags and > history) wherever the ODB footprint is more precise than the existing one. > > Just my two cents here, > Tim >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
