[Imports] Dutch addresses and buildings import from BAG

Johan C osmned at gmail.com
Mon May 19 21:43:57 UTC 2014


@ Frederik I'm not quite sure I understand you. The posts you are quoting
are not the last ones about this import. Could you clarify your request?

Another part of my uncertainty about understanding you is that it's not
clear in what role you are requesting this: as an individual import list
member like myself, or is it a clarification you ask on behalf of the DWG?

A third point is that I feel your last sentence to be a sort of threat. You
could know that I always answer to questions, in contrast to several other
community members. Your message would have been clear without the last
sentence. It makes me even more unsure, since it makes me aware that you
are in a powerful role which enables you to both set rules and to enforce
these rules. Instead of a level communication amongst OSM'ers, there is an
unequality now. What was your reason to use that sentence?

Furthermore you should know that I have taken back your request to the
Dutch community. Since around 40 people are involved in importing I find it
important that everyone of them has the chance to speak out. A first
response from the community is that this import, beside a major upgrade in
the quality of buildings and addresses, is also a major quality improvement
because a lot of improvements to streets, streetnames and addresses made by
the importers are done purely manually during and after their imports.
Since it's a habit in the Dutch community to allow members ample time to
respond to topics it will take a few days before a response to your request
is finished. Your answer to my three questions will also be important as
input for that response. I'm looking forward to your answers.


@ DWG members I'm interested in hearing your opinion on this matter

Kind regards, Johan


2014-05-16 11:46 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:

> Hi,
>
> JohanC wrote:
> >> 1. it's nowadays better to put source and source:date on the changeset
> >>    instead of the nodes and ways
> >> 2. the changeset should have the text import and source
> >> 3. it's better not to use ref:bag
> >> 4. it's better not to use bag:function
> >>
> >> I took these matters back to the others in the Dutch community for
> >> reconsideration. In short: we agreed on 2 and 4 for which the Wiki
> import
> >> page has been updated, we disagreed on 1 and 3.
>
> On 12/03/13 09:41, Paul Norman wrote:
> > Just to clarify on this point, the Dutch community does not have a sole
> say
> > on points 1 and 3. If we can't reach a rough consensus on imports at about 1
> > and 3 the import will need to wait until agreement can be found.
>
> I note that this discussion has not been completed, but I can see that a
> large number of BAG buildings are being imported.
>
> Are the mappers doing the import aware of this situation?
>
> Please explain. I'd like to avoid having to revert the whole import.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing list
> Imports at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20140519/b1b8a707/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Imports mailing list