<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Mar 19, 2020, 17:54 by joi@betra.is:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>However I believe including them is beneficial for OSM and its users and so have been doing updates as I can. However it is not an easy process for large areas, having to chop the huge Vatnajökulsþjóðgarður (over 15% of Iceland) up due to max nodes is not an easy feat - and now I have to update it due to expanded boundaries and quite honestly it is a daunting task (it will be easier to delete it and re-import it in a very time consuming manner).<br></div><div><br></div><div>So - why are authoritative data sets an unwelcome addition? I have many data sets that I need to disseminate but only some are useful for OSM (in my view). Also keeping them in sync can get harder as the key-cleanup crew was roaming around recently.<br></div></blockquote><div>In some cases importing official datasets is helpful.<br></div><div><br></div><div>But (at least to me) "dissemination of authoritative data sets" sounds like<br></div><div>"overwriting OSM data with external dataset" or "importing just because it is official".<br></div><div><br></div><div>Just yesterday I was explaining to one of mappers that it is OK to map roads <br></div><div>that are not existing according to the official data.<br></div><div><br></div> </body>
</html>