[Imports] "readonly" tag for imported data (ask "simple" editors to not modify)?

[Michael Leibowitz]

On 04/25/2011 10:33 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Michael Leibowitz
> <michael.leibowitz at intel.com>  wrote:
>
>> So, it's OK to trace over an administrative boundary displayed in PL2 and
>> have that as part of OSM, but inserting it via API is not OK?  Is that
>> correct?  What's the rationale?
> 1. This is all predicated on the data being of high quality,
> appropriate for OSM, timely, etc.

There appears to be a higher bar here than for edits in general.  
Tracing from overhead imagery is considered fine, even if sometime it's 
not of high quality or timely.  That said, nobody should refute the 
desire for timely, high quality data in OSM.

> 2. If there's existing data, a human is better at doing
> reconciliation, ie merging what we already have with what's there now.

So, for the administrative boundary case, it's better to manually align 
the presumed to be incorrect (recall the scenario is import from an 
authoritative source) previous boundary?  Why not programmatically do 
the merge?  Why must it be manual?  Surely it can be undone like any 
other edit if goes awry.

> 3. We want this data maintained by people, so I'd rather have a human
> oversee the work, even if that's a little extra work. I'd be in favor
> of computer assisted work, but that's not what the types of inserts
> you're proposing are.

I'm just arguing against the constant maligning of imports.  I want to 
do an import in the future, but I also want to be good citizen and be 
familiar with the approaches and results.  What I'm observing more often 
than not is a general perception that imports shouldn't be part of OSM.

Cheers