[Talk-ca] Ongoing Canadian building import needs to be stopped, possibly reverted

[James]

As Frederik Ramm once said(sorry i'm paraphrasing from memory please don't
shoot me) There has never been a GO-Nogo for imports, you bring it up on
the mailing lists with reasonable delay, is there no objections(in this
case no one was saying anything about it for 2-3 weeks) then email the list
that the import would start.

On Fri., Jan. 18, 2019, 12:59 a.m. Alan Richards <alarobric at gmail.com wrote:

> Along the lines of what Jarek said, sometimes silence just means tacit
> acceptance, or that it's not that controversial. There's quite a bit of
> government data here that is supposedly "open" but unavailable for OSM, so
> I'm very glad Stats Can was able to find a way to collect municipal data
> and publish it under one national license. I was surprised myself it hadn't
> got more attention, but I'm firmly onboard with more imports if done with
> care.
> Manually adding buildings - especially residential neighborhoods, is about
> the most boring task I can think of, yet it does add a lot to the map.
>
> I'll admit I hadn't looked at the data quality myself, but I just did
> review several task squares around BC and they look pretty good. Houses
> were all in the right place, accurate, and generally as much or even more
> detailed than I typically see. Issues seemed to be mostly the larger
> commercial buildings being overly large or missing detail, but in general
> these are the buildings most likely to be already mapped. To a large
> degree, it's up the individual importer to do some quality control, review
> against existing object, satellite, etc. If we have specific issues we can
> and should address them, but if the data is largely good then I see no need
> to abort or revert.
>
> alarobric
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:41 PM Jarek Piórkowski <jarek at piorkowski.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 21:46, OSM Volunteer stevea
>> <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
>> > Thanks, Jarek.  Considering I am a proponent of "perfection must not be
>> the enemy of good" (regarding OSM data entry), I think data which are "darn
>> good, though not perfect" DO deserve to enter into OSM.  Sometimes "darn
>> good" might be 85%, 95% "good," as then we'll get it to 99% and then 100%
>> over time.  But if the focus on "how" isn't sharp enough to get it to 85%
>> (or so) during initial entry, go back and start over to get that number
>> up.  85% sounds arbitrary, I know, but think of it as "a solid B" which
>> might be "passes the class for now" without failing.  And it's good we
>> develop a "meanwhile strategy" to take it to 99% and then 100% in the
>> (near- or at most mid-term) future.  This isn't outrageously difficult,
>> though it does take patience and coordination.  Open communication is a
>> prerequisite.
>>
>> Thank you for this commitment. I wish others shared it. Unfortunately
>> the reality I've been seeing in OSM is that edits which are 90+% good
>> (like this import) are challenged, while edits which are 50+% bad
>> (maps.me submissions, wheelmap/rosemary v0.4.4 going to completely
>> wrong locations for _years_) go unchallenged or are laboriously
>> manually fixed afterward.
>>
>> --Jarek
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20190118/406a2be1/attachment.html>