There sure is a huge amount of imported data in OSM, but I don't see what's frustrating about distinguishing between useful and not-useful data imports. What we've been discussing here is what sort of data should be imported and if it's useful.
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Jeff Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > I am very sympathetic to what I sense to be Jason's (and Michael's and > others') frustrations. It's quite clear there are a *very* large number of > imports that have contributed to the body of data that is OSM (Incomplete > list here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Import). > > Hopefully, this frustration hasn't gone to waste. : ) I think this thread > has generated some thoughtful commentary (see: Ian's statements below & a > great email off-thread that Serge sent me) that I hope will be integrated > into DWG-sanctioned guidelines for imports. For those not on imports@, > I've sent a separate note to the DWG asking for clarification on where to > look for their guidelines. > > - Jeff > > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Ian Dees <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Your original question was "what should the exact criteria be for >> including an 'open space' parcel in OSM?" and I think your answer is >> that there shouldn't be exact criteria. As frustrating as it is sometimes, >> there aren't exact criteria for anything in OSM. >> >> Having said that: you should map things that are verifiable by another >> mapper on the ground (parks, schools, hospitals, named open spaces) and you >> should not import generic parcel data. You agreed with that in your second >> sentence, but there were plenty of messages in this thread talking about it >> :). >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
