[Talk-GB] OSMKU Cadastral Parcels as a source

[Edward Bainton]

That's well and good, but there's nothing on the Contributors page to
indicate that it's there to fulfil legal requirements, or that it's not
there as data for mappers.

This would be another example of what I would call "OSM lore" - knowledge
held by long-timers (or in list-serv records) that leaves newer people
(well, me) feeling faintly stupid for being outside the loop, and that after

1) searching for "OSMUK Cadastral Parcels" on the wiki and finding nothing
2) asking here about that feature by that name
3) being told that actually it has a different name
4) going to find that name in the only place it appears on the wiki
5) making a minor edit to the wiki so that at least "OSMUK Cadastral
Parcels" can be found by a search
6) taking the time to read the header paragraphs for the Contributors page
and its Discussion page
7) seeing that another UK long-timer on the Discussion page suggested
splitting the page
8) taking time to consider what else would make this knowledge more
accessible
9) coming here to seek thoughts
10) being told "Please don't" and "Very simple: don't"

I hope I'm not being unduly thin-skinned here, but a sense of being slapped
down by my olders comes up not infrequently for me in OSM-world. Longer
experience does confer greater authority, which I hope I'm suitably
respectful of (and am certainly appreciative of). But simply explaining the
consequences of the proposal, without the imperatives, would be quite
enough for me to conclude for myself that I won't proceed.

I don't think any personal put-down was intended, and I'm flagging this
more for the general problem than this particular example. I just think
it's worth considering whether a "rank-pulling" tone puts up barriers to
entry for newcomers - personally I find it quite a turn-off. (Quite
possibly I've been guilty of it myself: it's a regular feature of
interactions in OSM-world so it would be a surprise if I hadn't.)

End of grump. Thank you all for your feedback regardless. Unless there are
better ways forward that people can suggest, I'll discuss with Licensing
Working Group whether the header paragraphs on the Contributors page could
make all of this clearer.

Happy mapping,

Edward

On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 at 18:17, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

>
> Am 05.04.2021 um 12:39 schrieb Edward Bainton:
>
> ..
>
> What are people's thoughts on that before I propose it on the Talk page?
>
>
> Very simple: don't.
>
> The OSMF is party to numerous agreements that specify how attribution for
> the specific source needs to be performed, the wiki Contributor page is one
> of those methods referenced in some of the agreements.
>
> That it is problematic from a tech and usability pov is not new and I just
> touched on potential solutions to the issue a couple of days back on the
> talk list. It is unluckily one of those things that will only get done
> (just like GDPR compliance) when money is spent on it (which is unlikely to
> happen because of the same reasons it hasn't been done to date).
>
> Simon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210406/2d8908fa/attachment.htm>