Je fais suivre ici quelques messages qui font suite à ce fil de
discussion, mais pour lesquels la liste de diffusion n'a pas été mise en
copie (vraisemblablement exprès, mais j'estime que le contenu concerne
tous les contributeurs français).
Eric
--- Begin Message ---
Le 16/09/2012 22:10, Richard Weait a écrit :
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Eric Marsden <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
DWG member Paul Norman has implemented a 24 hour account block on
contributor Marc Sibert, citing as justification the import guideline
concerning use of a dedicated account. Marc Sibert is a very active
member of the French OSM community, and there is overwhelming agreement
in the French Openstreetmap community that this aspect of the import
guidelines is not appropriate for semi-automated imports from the French
cadastre.
I don't think that French cadastre importers are being as careful as
you think that they are being.
Let's look at this changeset from today. The user has been previously
notified that a separate account is required for imports. They appear
not to have followed this guidance as this changeset has 46000 nodes
and 3000 ways.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13130816
I looked at the first four buildings imported, and found the are from
the attached image.
Problems.
- missing roundabout shown in imagery
- bad shape of water
- bad width of water
- disconnected water either side of a road.
I do not consider this a good example of responsible use of an
external source. It appears to be a simple "dump" of data from
cadastre, with only minimal connection for the road. I don't see how
the user would connect the cadastre road to the existing road by user
ratzilla, without adding the roundabout though. That seems really
odd.
Given my very superficial examination of the one changeset, I'm left
with an expectation that the rest of the changeset is also of low
quality.
I'm inclined to send another notification to the user along with a
temporary block. it would request:
- separate account
- better reconciliation of available sources before import
- smaller edit areas
I have not done this yet, and will for now send only the message, not
the block, as a gesture of good faith.
Would you please:
- contact the mapper and advise them to use a separate account for
imports. Yes. Cadastre used this way is an import.
- instruct them in how to do a better job. Probably by using a
smaller area and much more care.
I think that you can do a better job of helping this mapper than I
can. If they continue to ignore you, I'll be happy to get their
attention with a block.
Best regards,
Richard
Hi,
Again, my account was blocked because I was not following the
"Guidelines" not because of vandalism. Here, you are changing the
subject to quality, that's not the point.
Should I loose my time to find errors at roundabout in UK or anywhere
else in the world : the proof is only that anyone corrects what he's
interested in (buildings not roads, etc.)
Again, my point of view, is that "local imports" doesn't need a special
account : what for ? revert ? You can do it with my regular account !
a+
Marc
--
Marc Sibert
mailto:[email protected]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Eric Marsden <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> DWG member Paul Norman has implemented a 24 hour account block on
> contributor Marc Sibert, citing as justification the import guideline
> concerning use of a dedicated account. Marc Sibert is a very active
> member of the French OSM community, and there is overwhelming agreement
> in the French Openstreetmap community that this aspect of the import
> guidelines is not appropriate for semi-automated imports from the French
> cadastre.
I don't think that French cadastre importers are being as careful as
you think that they are being.
Let's look at this changeset from today. The user has been previously
notified that a separate account is required for imports. They appear
not to have followed this guidance as this changeset has 46000 nodes
and 3000 ways.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13130816
I looked at the first four buildings imported, and found the are from
the attached image.
Problems.
- missing roundabout shown in imagery
- bad shape of water
- bad width of water
- disconnected water either side of a road.
I do not consider this a good example of responsible use of an
external source. It appears to be a simple "dump" of data from
cadastre, with only minimal connection for the road. I don't see how
the user would connect the cadastre road to the existing road by user
ratzilla, without adding the roundabout though. That seems really
odd.
Given my very superficial examination of the one changeset, I'm left
with an expectation that the rest of the changeset is also of low
quality.
I'm inclined to send another notification to the user along with a
temporary block. it would request:
- separate account
- better reconciliation of available sources before import
- smaller edit areas
I have not done this yet, and will for now send only the message, not
the block, as a gesture of good faith.
Would you please:
- contact the mapper and advise them to use a separate account for
imports. Yes. Cadastre used this way is an import.
- instruct them in how to do a better job. Probably by using a
smaller area and much more care.
I think that you can do a better job of helping this mapper than I
can. If they continue to ignore you, I'll be happy to get their
attention with a block.
Best regards,
Richard
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Marc,
On 09/17/2012 01:12 AM, Marc Sibert wrote:
Again, my account was blocked because I was not following the
"Guidelines" not because of vandalism. Here, you are changing the
subject to quality, that's not the point.
Yes it is.
Eric and others have argued that the usual "separate account" rule
should not be applied to cadastre imports because they were "not really
imports", but, apart from a small number of "black sheep" perhaps,
carefully reviewed, high-quality, small-scale uploads.
That's the background of Richard Weait's message - he has demonstrated
that these cadastre imports have the exact same problems that most
uploads have, and that the notion that they are carefully reviewed and
of high quality does not hold.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 16/09/2012 22:10, Richard Weait wrote:
I don't think that French cadastre importers are being as careful as
you think that they are being.
Let's look at this changeset from today. The user has been previously
notified that a separate account is required for imports. They appear
not to have followed this guidance as this changeset has 46000 nodes
and 3000 ways.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13130816
I looked at the first four buildings imported, and found the are from
the attached image.
Problems.
- missing roundabout shown in imagery
- bad shape of water
- bad width of water
- disconnected water either side of a road.
I do not consider this a good example of responsible use of an
external source. It appears to be a simple "dump" of data from
cadastre, with only minimal connection for the road. I don't see how
the user would connect the cadastre road to the existing road by user
ratzilla, without adding the roundabout though. That seems really
odd.
Thank you for raising your concerns regarding mapping quality with local
correspondants, instead of blocking contributors.
This changeset is not an example of poor integration of cadastre data,
and would not cause particular concern to French contributors. Indeed,
* the data is perfectly clean in the JOSM validator (there are a few
imperfect building geometries which the validator is unfortunately
unable to detect)
* streets have been added at the same time as building data, and
correctly reconciled with existing data
* your concern regarding a roundabout seems trivial to me: it was
probably built recently. Please note that obtaining a perfect map is
an incremental process.
* your concern regarding riverbank data is understandable: the French
cadastre generally indicates zones which may be regularly affected
by flooding, and are therefore wider than the river's everyday
boundaries. I don't personally integrate this data, but most people
believe that it improves the usefulness of the map, and it's very
difficult to obtain from other sources.
This contribution has improved the map in this quite poor area of
France. I fail to see how it enters within the scope of the DWG mandate
"deal with accusations of copyright
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright> infringement and serious
Disputes <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes> and Vandalism
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism>" (from
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group).
Eric
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Talk-fr mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
