[Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Import Progress

[Chris Hill]

The problem with this is there are import guidelines which have been 
completely ignored. Was there an email and discussion in the Imports 
mailing list? Was there a wiki page to record and share the process? How 
were the tags chosen? What steps were taken to check the accuracy of the 
data supplied? Why was the import data not merged with existing data 
(that was just deleted). Why was the data imported with a regular user 
id not one created for the import process? The imported data doesn't 
align with the existing data - what's going to be done about that?

These are just the points I can see, before a broader discussion has 
started.

Why do you believe that this is only a matter for the West Midland group 
to discuss? This sets a precedent for any other area to use. If this had 
been done properly this could have become the go to example of how to 
use local authority data, as it is it is a great example of how not to 
do it.

I am disillusioned that the newly formed OSMUK has a director that just 
ignores the good practice set up across the world. Are the aims of OSMUK 
to just hack off the rest of the UK mappers?

The problem is, I don't expect that anything will change. There may be 
some bluster, some indignant emails hurled around but these imports 
won't be reverted as they should be and the precedent will remain. What 
a mess.

-- 
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 19/03/2017 14:03, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This was discussed at our monthly meeting, it was then shared to the 
> appropriate local list [1] and a post about quality to Mappa Mercia 
> blog [2].
>
> Brian has also been meeting with the data suppliers on a regular basis 
> (at times spending an hour a week with them) helping to develop a 
> strategy. Expert advise was also sought on the tree data.
>
> So we have a data process that is supported by the local community, 
> shared publicly and covers a very small region. Our community is also 
> well established (10 years) and experienced to make these decisions.
>
> My view is that appropriate steps have been taken. Anything more would 
> have been disproportionate any suggests a desire to have OSM centrally 
> run (which as we know is unrealistic).
>
> Best,
> Rob
>
>
> [1] 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-westmidlands/2017-March/002127.html 
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-westmidlands/2017-March/002127.html>
> [2] 
> http://www.mappa-mercia.org/2017/03/massive-release-of-highways-asset-data-in-birmingham.html
>
>
> On 19 Mar 2017 1:14 p.m., "ajt1047 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com>" <ajt1047 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 19/03/2017 12:52, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>         On 18 March 2017 at 18:52, Brian Prangle <bprangle at gmail.com
>         <mailto:bprangle at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             I'm off for a break and I'm leaving a couple of key
>             imports partially
>             complete so I thought it best to give you an update of
>             where I'm at:
>
>         I'm told that Brian has been blocked for these edits This is
>         outrageous.
>
>
>     No, he was sent this message:
>
>     https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1271
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1271>
>
>     because it appeared that the link between changeset discussions
>     and his email inbox was broken.
>
>         There is clearly consensus for them in the local mapping
>         community, and a well-defined and transparent plan for the
>         process has
>         been published.
>
>
>     That was one of the questions asked in changeset discussions - can
>     you please link to where the "well-defined and transparent plan"
>     for the "trees" import was published, and where discussion took place?
>
>         A well-respected member of the community should not be treated
>         this way.
>
>
>     No-one doubts that Brian is well-respected member of the OSM
>     community - few if any have put in as much effort as him over the
>     years.  Unfortunately even well-respected community members can
>     have email filters go rogue on them - it's not the first time that
>     it's happened and I'm sure it won't be the last  :)
>
>     Best Regards,
>
>     Andy
>
>     (cc:ing talk@ because I know there's been discussion, including on
>     IRC, outside the West Mids about the trees import and as similar
>     sort of council work is being outsourced elsewhere, it's useful to
>     discuss it more widely).
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
>     Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org
>     <mailto:Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20170319/bad7a144/attachment-0001.html>