[Local-chapters] Editable Servers

[Jaak Laineste]

Hi,

  I totally agree that there should be single and unified OpenStreetmap
database. However, my concerns:

a)      Banning official Chapters to create editable OSM clones does not
have practical point, as long as any unofficial chapter, private person etc
can do the same, with exactly the same consequences. Maybe extra restriction
like this even motivates chapters just to stay unoffical.

b)      I am aware that distributed database architecture, with multiple
edit points, is technically challenging. But in some point it may be really
neccessary, in API 0.7.

 

I have built distributed clusters in high-avaliable and scalable systems
using Oracle DB clusters, and even while Oracle has made as simple as
possible, it is thing what is usually given to really top level and
expensive DB admins. PostgreSQL itself does not have similar active-active
cluster solutions AFAIK, but maybe it could be solved in appication level.
Maybe technical solution would be quite simple, classical (permanent)
lock-based: local chapter can "permanently lock" or reserve particular
country area: this area is editable by local server, and not by global one.
Or maybe more complex object/microarea short time locking or merging
solution is possible. This is another topic.

 

Where this would be useful? In many countries there are still different
pricing for in-country and international Internet traffic. I have even seen
(cheap) broadband packages wich have only local traffic included. It sounds
kind of weird from end-user perspective, but from the local ISP point of
view it makes perfect sense: their cost for international
connections/traffic is much higher than for local one. So they provide
"local Internet" service with cheap price, and the price point is important
in poorer countries. Not talking about certain "poor" countries with red
firewalls. Now Local Chapter wants to enable local Internet users to
contribute to OSM. End-user friendly approach would be to have local
editable server. We, the engineers, just need to make the server-server
synchornization working, without creating unneccessary fragmentation. It is
not simple at all, but it is just a technical task which can be done if
there is political decision in place.

 

Jaak

 

It's in the best interest of the project that we have one dataset that can
be officially called the OpenStreetMap dataset. Defragmentation is going to
hurt in the long run. We will get into all kinds of problems, link
synchronization.

 

Let's say the idontcarewhereistan chapter is running it's own (seperate)
instance of (a part) of the database. The local community is editing this
map and the edits will be synchronized with the main database periodically.
In the meantime the main database is also open for edits. Someone who has
been on holiday in idontcarewhereistan has edited the main database. We know
have several problems:

- Which version is the correct OSM version?

- How are we going to handle the migration issues?

- ....

 

If a chapters needs a database to process datasets in order to insert them
correctly in the OSM database, I see no problem there.

 

If there are currently technical limitations, let's hear them, so we can try
to solve them. Could be valuable input for API 0.7

 

BTW: we're not talking about running an own database to provide all kinds of
services (like tile-servers, making shape-files, etc, etc). That's totally
fine. It's about have a single source of truth of what the OSM map is. 

 

Cheers,

Henk

 

2010/3/21 Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com>

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Jaak Laineste <jaak at nutiteq.com> wrote:

> Good point. It's the same with ODbL section 4.7a and section 3 of the new
> contributor terms. OSMF cannot put any restrictions on how anyone uses the
> data under the terms of the license.

 Right. I actually cannot see how you can set any extra restrictions to
local chapters on things what anyone else can do anyway. If I as LC am not
allowed do something, then I can always do it as a private person, or a
company. So if there is ban on editable servers, then the rule should be in
general terms of use, or not there at all.


Of course, anyone is allowed to clone the database and make it editable in
respect of the license. But he cannot say it's the OpenStreetMap database. I
think it is a good point to say somehwere that local chapters can use the
name "OpenStreetMap" but cannot claim that "they are" an OpenStreetMap
dataset when it is a forked project. Probably the wording can be improved.

Pieren



_______________________________________________
Local-chapters mailing list
Local-chapters at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/local-chapters

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/local-chapters/attachments/20100322/8a29261b/attachment.html>