<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div class="" style=""><span class="" style="">> </span><span style="font-family: monospace; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;" class="">That is at the core of my frustration with the NYC import, and now the </span><span style="font-family: monospace; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">DC import.</span></div><div class="" style=""></div><div class="" style=""> </div><div class="" style="">I'm part of the DC import process. I've discussed this with DC gov. I think the DC community should be able to discuss this themselves, and that will happen best without frustration from the outside.</div><div class="" style=""><br></div><div class="" style="">-Mikel</div><div class="" style=""><br></div><div class="" style="">* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron</div> <div
class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;" class=""> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;" class=""> <div dir="ltr" class="" style=""> <font size="2" face="Arial" class="" style=""> On Friday, June 6, 2014 6:30 AM, Serge Wroclawski <emacsen@gmail.com> wrote:<br class="" style=""> </font> </div> <blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 5px;" class=""> <br class="" style=""><br class="" style=""> <div class="" style="">On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Alex Barth <<a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:alex@mapbox.com" href="mailto:alex@mapbox.com" class="" style="">alex@mapbox.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none"
class="" style="">> What hits _me_ the wrong way is how you present an import we are working<br clear="none" class="" style="">> hard on doing right in a pretty unbalanced light. This "we" includes you as<br clear="none" class="" style="">> you've invested a ton of time into this project too which I'm thankful for.<br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style="">I did put a lot (not a ton, but a lot) of work into the NYC import<br clear="none" class="" style="">><br clear="none" class="" style="">> I'd like to see a completely different attitude in interaction on this list.<br clear="none" class="" style="">> How can we make this work?<br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style="">The issue I have with the approach that has been taken by MapBox is twofold:<br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style="">1. Responsiveness<br clear="none" class="" style="">2. Cleanup<br
clear="none" class="" style="">3. Honesty<br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style="">The issue of responsiveness is straightforward. When a community<br clear="none" class="" style="">member finds a problem with how something is mapped and we go through<br clear="none" class="" style="">the speicifc steps outlined in the import process, and the individual<br clear="none" class="" style="">community members creating the problem are notified, I think there's a<br clear="none" class="" style="">reasonable expectation that they'll stop. Maybe they'd respond to OSM<br clear="none" class="" style="">messages, or respond to notes that they created, or respond to github.<br clear="none" class="" style="">My experience is consistently that with your mapper staff that they<br clear="none" class="" style="">simply don't respond to any of these. The only thing they've responded<br clear="none" class="" style="">to is DWG intervention (ie
blocks).<br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style="">That's a really huge hammer to have to bring down, but the alternative<br clear="none" class="" style="">is that there's bad data in OSM.<br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style="">The second issue is cleanup, which ties very much into the first one.<br clear="none" class="" style="">There would be no big problem with waiting days and needing to contact<br clear="none" class="" style="">three or four people before getting a response, if the data didn't<br clear="none" class="" style="">stay bad. But instead, we see data that was put in badly and has<br clear="none" class="" style="">stayed bad. It's really a mess, which could have been fixed if the<br clear="none" class="" style="">attitude had just been to go a bit slower and when someone brings up<br clear="none" class="" style="">an issue, to take it seriously and not ignore it until days later<br
clear="none" class="" style="">(importing with the problem in the meantime).<br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style="">The biggest issue for me, though, is honesty.<br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style="">I feel like you, Alex, are playing a game with the community. The game<br clear="none" class="" style="">is that you don't lie, but you skillfully omit. Reading the DC<br clear="none" class="" style="">proposal was therefore an exercise of "What is he not saying?", and<br clear="none" class="" style="">that's not in the spirit of collaboration.<br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style="">Consider this... I still haven't seen an affirmative statement that<br clear="none" class="" style="">you're going to use paid mappers, yet the subtext is that this is what<br clear="none" class="" style="">will happen. If you're going to use paid remote
mappers, just say so.<br clear="none" class="" style="">Just say "This is our plan." and let the community provide honest<br clear="none" class="" style="">feedback in response. I don't have a problem with paid remote mappers,<br clear="none" class="" style="">but I do have a problem when I feel that someone is trying to pull the<br clear="none" class="" style="">wool over my eyes.<br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style="">The import process is supposed to be about collaboration and<br clear="none" class="" style="">consensus, and when important details that the community cares about<br clear="none" class="" style="">are omitted, it gives the appearance of a negotiation, rather than a<br clear="none" class="" style="">collaboration.<br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style="">That is at the core of my frustration with the NYC import, and now the<br clear="none" class="" style="">DC import.<div class=""
id="yqtfd79486" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style="">- Serge<br clear="none" class="" style=""><br clear="none" class="" style="">_______________________________________________<br clear="none" class="" style="">Imports mailing list<br clear="none" class="" style=""><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:Imports@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:Imports@openstreetmap.org" class="" style="">Imports@openstreetmap.org</a><br clear="none" class="" style=""><a shape="rect" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports" target="_blank" class="" style="">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports</a><br clear="none" class="" style=""></div><br class="" style=""><br class="" style=""></div> </blockquote> </div> </div> </div> </div></body></html>