[OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline
Frederik Ramm
frederik at remote.org
Tue Oct 13 19:08:11 UTC 2015
Hi,
On 10/13/2015 06:12 PM, Tom Lee wrote:
> Obviously, not all of those 200M points belong in OSM. But many of them
> do. OpenAddresses does not have the toolchain or community needed to
> improve and maintain that data.
...
> I want to do that work once in OSM, not a hundred times in a hundred
> different closed geo databases.
Suggest to do it once (not a hundred times) and open (not closed) but
without hijacking OSM community for it. Build a community that is as
interested in addresses as you are and have them maintain the database.
My guess is that while the address data set is more valuable to (large,
commercial) users, it will attract less contribution from (private,
unpaid) mappers, and will therefore require more constant paid work than
OSM does.
Anyone trying to get OSM to ingest the existing open address data of
this world and then even maintain and improve it is hoping for a free
ride on the back of mappers who'd rather do other stuff and who in many
areas are already thin enough on the ground. Whoever wants us to add 200
million addresses, should also add to our community the people needed to
do the maintenance on them.
Yes there are addresses in OSM at the moment, but these are *mainly*
created by people where no open data exists, in the same spirit that was
guiding OSM when it started: "They won't give it to us, so we'll make
our own." - frankly, if there was a halfway usable repository of open
addresses that could be merged with OSM for those who want it, and if
open addresses become available for regions where OSM already has
addresses, I'd not be opposed to dropping the addresses from OSM in
those regions.
tl;dr addresses are valuable to have but just because OSM already exists
doesn't mean it is the natural receptacle.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list