[OSM-dev] Proposal for OpenMetaMap - proper OSM import solution
osm at inbox.org
Tue Aug 23 00:34:18 BST 2011
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Stefan Keller <sfkeller at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/8/22 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Stefan Keller <sfkeller at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Given there is an organisation like the museum (in the proposal) then
>>> there *is* a community which would take care of whatever is needed to
>>> keep the relationships between the OSM and the external db up-to-date.
>> I don't deny that at all. I'm just saying the right place to keep
>> those relationships is in the external db, and not in OSM. (I
>> explained why, but it seems you didn't understand my explanation.)
> I think I got your explanation and still like to repeat that you can't
> say that so absolutely:
> There are use cases where this would make sense and would make things simpler.
> Like for some uses cases which are covered by the link type MERGE.
> Now - since we agree on the separate OMM db - these use cases should
> be still kept in mind.
I really don't have time to get into the details of those cases. I
trust your judgement on them.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Jaak Laineste <jaak.laineste at gmail.com> wrote:
> My proposals, you know probably better how realistic they are:
> 1. integrate it to the OSM editors. As plugin first, later built-in
> feature to JSOM, P2 etc.
Sounds extremely difficult to do in a way that doesn't slow down
and/or confuse the majority of editors who aren't interested in this
sort of thing. But I'm sure patches are welcome :).
> 2. Have MetaMap server also as part of OSM, as a special dataset.
> Important question for me is what the key people developing key
> editors and managers of servers think about this.
Yes. This is something you'd need to ask the OSMF admins about. Good luck.
> JOSM, Potlatch and
> P2 cover over 92% of "market" now, so we can focus on these, 100% of
> editor coverage is actually not needed (other users just need to fix
> their damage of MetaLinks). We would start with plugins and test
> prototypes with them, but in 6-12 months it should become more
Just in case you don't know, the administration of JOSM, Potlatch, and
P2 is separate from the administration of OSMF and the servers (and
also separate from each other).
For the former JOSM and P2, I assume the answer is "patches welcome"
(*). For Potlatch, I don't think it's likely to include major new
features like this. For OSMF and the servers...no comment.
More information about the dev