<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 09/06/2011 15:47, SteveC wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:474358AA-70D2-4996-8600-359F316C8E5F@asklater.com"
type="cite">
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="">On Jun 9, 2011, at
7:42, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:SK53_osm@yahoo.co.uk">SK53_osm@yahoo.co.uk</a>>
wrote:</span><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> Generally, I am still opposed to a bot. There is a
substantial body of evidence that automated imports damage the
ability to recruit and nuture new mappers. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Could you cite the evidence? Is it just hand waving about AND
or something more specific?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Generally Google (or perhaps Bing) is your friend, but::<br>
<br>
Latvia, ex.Jaak Lainste <a
href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056786.html">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056786.html</a><br>
Austria ex Felix Hartmann <a
href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056801.html">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056801.html</a><br>
<br>
I may be thinking of Derick Rethan's example when I mentioned AND.<br>
<br>
For completeness I should cite Chile, where they have a good
experience:<br>
<br>
Chile ex Julio Costa <a
href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056770.html">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056770.html</a><br>
<br>
There are other disasters like the <a
href="http://osm.org/go/0BOhfIg4F-">French Cadastre</a> or the <a
href="http://osm.org/go/0SpJwUg74-">Danish</a> address import
where data was imported but no-one ever put the roads in. The Danes
seem to be quite happy and seem to have rectified quite a bit of the
data recently thanks to Bing imagery; I certainly wasnt when
buildings I'd added in Briancon were just zapped for an import, nor
did the number of import clean-ups I did on the cadastre because
there were huge number of duplicates overwhelm me with joy.<br>
<br>
I used to be sceptical about the anti-import lobby (e.g., <a
href="http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/archives/2009/11/10/the-pottery-club/">The
Pottery Club</a>), seeing it as the 'old-hands' resenting things
not been done the hard way; and like others here I believed if I
traced roads in then people would come along and stick the names on.
They didn't names only appeared when either a) I surveyed them, or
b) I added them from OSSV data. So I now no longer buy into "the
build and they will come" theory: it rarely works in other domains
which is why firms spend money on advertising and marketing.<br>
<br>
One last thing: I believe the onus is on import advocates to
demonstrate how the import will deliver value & strengthen OSM.
<br>
<br>
Imports will never get the <a
href="http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/05/along-fosse-way-mapping-new-road.html">A46
changes</a> mapped within a day or so of them happening: and this
is the real story to sell OSM rather than "We're almost as good as
the free data set from the Ordnance Survey". Also imports, and even
mapping parties by non-locals will never get the data good enough to
be able to just focus on what has changed. It's really frustrating
going round a place which looks well mapped and ending up adding 20
new streets because the obvious cues aren't there. I doubt if anyone
else has done anything like <a
href="http://www.refnum.com/projects/osm/edinburgh/">Dair Grant</a>'s
Edinburgh survey.<br>
<br>
J<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>