[Imports] Nepal VDC's boundaries import
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Mon May 18 20:03:02 UTC 2015
On Monday 18 May 2015, Rafael Avila Coya wrote:
> I honestly think that you are missing my point. I just say that this
> restriction we are putting ourselves in dealing with this
> compatibility/incompatibility of the CC-by 3.0 license, with the
> requirement of getting an special permission, is controversial, and
> not shared by all people. It's unclear why we have to do this.
Because the OSM community does not want to impose restrictions of other
licenses like CC-BY on users of OSM data. Imports are therefore only
accepted if the ODbL is the only license that applies to the data and
this is not the case for CC-BY 3.0 data unless the right owner(s) give
explicit permission to relicense under ODbL.
> > This all looks very obscure - I already mentioned before, see:
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2014-November/003
> > that proprietary IDs where mappers have no way to verify the
> > validity of the ID have no place in OSM.
> That's your opinion.
No, it's not, it is one of the core principles of OSM, see
I don't question the usefulness of these codes (although i would have
used a more transparent, robust and universal addressing system but
that is not the issue here), they just do not belong in OSM if there is
no way for a mapper to verify the code.
On a general note i would like to remind you that the purpose of these
import discussions is to verify if the import plans are sound and
identify and fix possible issues with these plans with the help of the
OSM community. It does not really matter if concerns or objections
raised during that process are personal opinions or not, they should be
discussed based on their merit, not based on who brought them up. I
can't help but notice in case of import proposals from humanitarian
projects here there are usually only small and cosmetic changes (like
renaming tags, amending import instructions) being made to the import
plans after they are put up for discussion here. Even if in individual
cases this might actually be appropriate in general this is not only
annoying to those trying to help with suggestions here, it also
undermines the whole import discussion process.
And while i am into general remarks - since you have been organizing
quite a lot of imports i would expect your import documentation to be a
bit better during progress and after the import especially. This is
not a requirement of course but it is a nice gesture towards future
mappers to leave the import page on the wiki in a state that makes it
easy fo a mapper to see what the import is about, if, when and how the
import actually took place, who participated in it and if there was
hand work involved in the process some basic statistics on how this
turned out. I checked a few wiki pages from past imports you announced
here and on most it is not even clear from the wiki page if the import
actually took place.
More information about the Imports