[Imports] Making the current guidelines/code of conduct about imports/automated|mechanical edits clearer and merged

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/12/25 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> On 12/24/2012 03:58 PM, Jeff Meyer wrote:
>> Again, it seems there needs to be a clearer definition of "import," as
>> not all imports are automated.
> I think it depends on the attitude of the person doing it.
> If the mapper says "today I'll map South Sometown and I'll use some of the
> Somecounty GIS data in the process" then it's not an import.
> If the mapper says "today I'm going to take the Somecounty GIS data for
> South Sometown and load it into OSM" then it is.


IMHO it is an import if you take other people's data and put it into
OSM, i.e. data that you didn't survey or generate, data you process
"en bloc", and also in your first example it would be a (partial)
import. Just like in the first case also in your second example the
person loading the data will probably have to select stuff from the
"Somecounty GIS data" and will have to see what is already in OSM so
there will not really be a difference in the procedure of getting
stuff in. Putting it this way it is very easy to determine whether you
are pursuing an import or not.


> It is a fundamental difference in operating - in the first situation you
> have people looking for "under-mapped" places and fix them up using all
> available means; in the second you have people looking at available,
> not-yet-imported data and get them into OSM in some way.


agreed

cheers,
Martin