[Imports] Spanish mountain ranges import.

[Sergio Quintero]

Your general observations about verifiability are for sure very
interesting, but unfortunately have nothing to do with our import, as
anybody who reads the actual proposal will understand.

If you take the time necessary to get informed about the import, the
process, the nature of the data, the source, and so on, and have something
to say about that, I will be more than happy to answer any questions.
Please don't hesitate contacting me if you need any kind of clarification.

Thanks.


El dom, 7 feb 2021 a las 18:48, Christoph Hormann (<osm at imagico.de>)
escribió:

> On Sunday 07 February 2021, Sergio Quintero wrote:
> >
> >  Ok, so you say that my import proposal is non-verifiable in OSM
> > terms and shouldn't be allowed, right?
>
> No, there is no requirement for imports to be allowed by anyone in OSM,
> only the requirement to discuss.
>
> We can only provide advice and suggestions, we cannot in any
> way 'forbid' or 'disallow' an import that has consensus support from
> the local community.  I am deeply convinced that in cases a sustained
> disagreement of this form exists that means either the local community
> is right (which is always possible) or that they need to make the
> mistake and learn from it.
>
> > But at the same time, you
> > aren't offering any argument to sustent your position other that "I
> > seem to have a very fundamental misunderstanding about the concept of
> > verifiability in OSM", while on the other hand, you admit in other
> > email that you didn't even bother in reading my proposal, am I right?
>
> I said i have not looked at the data, i have not said i did not read
> your import proposal.
>
> My impression that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about
> the concept of verifiability in OSM is primarily based on you writing:
>
> "[...] it's in all respects and definitely official data, and therefore,
> the names of the Sierras that appear in our DB are unquestionably and
> by definition, their actual and real names."
>
> My comment is not a statement of fact, therefore i cannot really support
> it with arguments, i can only tell you how i got the impression (as i
> did).
>
> Somewhat off-topic here - but i would like to point to what i have
> stated in previous discussion w.r.t. the following comment:
>
> > [...] But rejecting the use of official
> > maps as a valid method of veryfiyng our data equals to say that the
> > Spanish National Geographic Institute, all the regional Geographic
> > Institutes and all the maps, books and all sources of information we
> > have been using in Spain for at least the last 50 years is wrong. And
> > nobody think so, isn't it?
>
> "Verifiability is also not to be confused with Verificationism, which
> rejects non-verifiable statements as not meaningful. OpenStreetMap does
> not pass judgement on the value of non-verifiable data by excluding it
> from its scope. It just says this kind of data the project cannot
> include in its database because it cannot be maintained under the
> project’s paradigm. The viability of OpenStreetMap as a project depends
> on it limiting its scope to verifiable statements."
>
> For context:
>
>
> http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/
>
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> https://www.imagico.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210208/146b8506/attachment.htm>