[Imports] [Imports-us] Best practices for address imports

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Tue Dec 3 07:01:52 UTC 2013


On 12/03/13 04:08, Greg Troxel wrote:
> What Frederik is expressing is, I think:
> people wanting to put things in OSM so they can get a map with
> those things on them is not healthy.
> I agree with this phrasing in a strict sense.
> But people wanting to add buildings in order to make the map better
> for a broad class of users is somthing else, and I think that's
> good.  So the key question for adding things: Are they added to
> solve a particular need for the adder?  Or are they being added in
> an attempt to make the map database better for the broad public?

Keep in mind that this is not (only) tied to what's being added but
also how. For example, someone who just wants the county's building
outlines on the map might (technology permitting) simply make
themseles a map that leaves out OSM buildings and replaces them with
county buildings wholesale - done in five minutes, no conflation, no
discussion about address points, nothing. Whereas adding the same data
to OSM in a sustainable way would be tons more effort.

Also worth noting that judging whether or not the data to be added
makes the "database better for the broad public" is not something that
the broad public will be able to do because they don't understand how
the project works. The broad public are likely to say "why, a database
with more data is certainly better than a database with less data
innit?" - you'd have to let the OSM community be the judge of what
they want to take on.


Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

More information about the Imports mailing list