[Imports] Nepal VDC's boundaries import

[Christoph Hormann]

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
> >564.html
> >
> > 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

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability

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.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/