[OSM-talk] [Imports] Import guidelines proposal update

[Lester Caine]

Béland Pierre wrote:
> 2012-09-20 Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk>
>
>  > Comment fields are not documented as well as they should be and the 'problem'
> that instigated this thread is to my view of what's
>  > on line a very good example of why there WAS a problem. Correctly flagging
> information is essential and we do perhaps need
>  > a little more 'automatic' actions. I can see that the French data is perhaps
> not suited to a 'single import' which is then the problem,
>  > since multiple imports already processed in some way are just as much a
> problem? Lets try and make the 'initial' import as clean
>  > as possible even if that has to be to a staging area from which packets can
> be taken and manually processed. Identification can
>  > then be married back to the raw data in a location where anybody can see it?
>
> Do you mean that documenting well the comment field would be a satisfactory
> solution?

In the short term it would help ... if you check the particular commit that 
caused all this uproar then a few extra words COULD have prevented a problem? I 
accept now there was a discussion on the French list but how many local lists do 
we have now? I can't see any reference to 'cadastre import' with reference to 
that activity but even then I would contest that wiping the original data was 
still wrong - even if a local group 'approved' it - but I'm not from the camp 
that prefer 'only current data' ;) Bulk deletes will always attract attention as 
they should and even if in this case the commit was 'Mistake with merging 
cadastre import - deleting to allow new data to load' I would expect SOMEONE to 
be checking that it was right! As others have said, I find the actions taken by 
DWG totally acceptable as there is no obvious attribution to 'cadastre import' 
... which is all that was asked for previously? Alright insisting on a 'new 
account' may be wrong, but identifying the 'import source' somewhere is not 
unreasonable? We do have the problem of the 'language' used to inform other 
users and some English translations on some of the cadastre import stuff would 
help?

I will add that I am very much opposed to any suggestion that the database 
should be 'carved up' and managed by different local groups. The DWG is not 
ideal, and as far as I am aware would welcome some additional help from 
wherever. But that is the ideal level to oversee the whole picture and in the 
end arbitrate when groups disagree amongst themselves. How many 'border 
disputes' will we have if we go down that path?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk