[Talk-GB] OSMKU Cadastral Parcels as a source

Tue Apr 6 15:28:29 UTC 2021

Am 06.04.2021 um 10:57 schrieb 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.

Let's just say that it is pretty darn obvious that it isn't just a 
random wiki page.

And yes, finding information on sources of any kind is a pain. 3rd party 
data management was already a mess a decade ago, and as I pointed out, 
it hasn't got any better since. Fixing the situation wouldn't be rocket 
science (outside of being a -lot- of work in the meantime), but 
politically it is nothing that will win anybody any brownie points so 
allocating the funds that would be necessary to at least get some 
control over the situation is unlikely to happen any time soon. Not to 
mention that at least historically there was active opposition against 
controlling imports in any sane fashion.

Simon

PS: I won't even dwell on the fact that everybody with an active OSM 
account should be aware of the purpose of the page (see the OSM 
contributor terms), that is probably asking a bit much.

>
> 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 
> <mailto: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 list
>>     Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org  <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb  <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-GB mailing list
>     Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210406/5831a46f/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210406/5831a46f/attachment-0001.sig>