[OSM-talk] Proposal for import guidelines

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

I like this proposal - from my very personal point of view it safeguards
all the conflicting interests and reaffirms essential inflexible
principles while cutting some slack to users who perform small local
imports :

The "bot=yes" tag identifies the import as such, to help moderators
focus on that class of potentially widely damaging changes.

"bot_url=<link to a page describing the automated edit" provides all the
necessary context about the import, including quality and methodology
issues specific to the source of data.

The "bot_source_licence" tag clarifies the license status of the source
at that point in time.

The specific conditions (imports of more than a given number of nodes,
continuously running scripts, edits affecting more than one country) for
changesets for which a separate account is necessary are clear and
non-equivocal, reaffirming the current requirement for a separate
account while letting the users of occasional small-scale imports at a
local level perform them with their personal account.

The need to keep these conditions open-ended is a weakness that lets
detractors claim that they are arbitrary, but I'm guessing that this is
necessary to prevent users gaming the rules with stupid technical
loopholes... Not quite transparent but practical.

This proposal hits all the goals I have seen stated so far... Or are
there others that are not satisfied by this proposal ?

On the French list, some contributors are complaining that the
changeset-level tagging makes the separate account requirement entirely
obsolete. Technically, I believe they are right... But I hope they'll
see that this proposal could be a fair meeting ground for an opportunity
to improve the import process with better metadata and make it more
flexible where necessary while not messing too much with the current
international consensus.






On 09/25/2012 07:11 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> A propos of the recent contretemps about Cadastre imports and separate
> accounts (excessive use of French in this sentence is unintentional),
> I'd like to propose the following modification to the import/bulk edit
> guidelines:
>
> ==
>
> An 'automated edit' is one where the editing is not carried out by
> manual drawing actions. This includes (but is not limited to):
>
> - imports of external data
> - search-and-replace tag changes
> - automated geometry fixup
> - reverting edits
>
> and applies equally to scripted edits and to those carried out within
> an editor program.
>
> All changesets including automated edits MUST have the following
> additional tags:
>
>     bot=yes
>     bot_url=<link to a page describing the automated edit>
>
> Users are also encouraged to add these tags:
>
>     bot_type=<machine-readable description of the edit type>
>     bot_source_licence=<machine-readable licence name>
>
> For example, bot_type=import, bot_source_licence=public_domain; or
> bot_type=revert.
>
> The tags should be added to the changeset, not the individual objects.
> Authors of software facilitating such edits (e.g. editor plugins)
> should provide relevant tags as a default.
>
>
> In addition, all automated edits of a high-volume, sustained or
> continuous nature MUST also be carried out from a separate OSM
> account. This includes (but is not limited to):
>
> - large-scale imports (for example, 20,000 nodes or greater)
> - continuously running scripts
> - edits affecting more than one country
>
>
> Like all other mappers, authors of automated edits must monitor the
> OSM inbox for any accounts they use, and be prepared to respond to
> messages and queries about their edits.
>
> We recognise that complying with this rule may seem onerous, but we
> would remind authors of automated edits that "with great power comes
> great responsibility". OpenStreetMap's value, and differentiation from
> other data providers, comes from the local knowledge, skill and
> enthusiasm of its community, rather than from simply agglomerating
> data available elsewhere. These guidelines are designed to retain
> visibility of automated edits and thereby safeguard our most precious
> resource.
>
> ==
>
> (end of proposed text)
>
> I hope you can see the intentions behind this proposal, but in essence:
>
> - requiring particular tags makes visibility easier, so that DWG et al
> have a better view of automated edits;
> - it also helps to spread awareness of automated edits through the
> community, since these edits can be easily visualised by client
> software - thereby bringing "many eyeballs" to the edits;
> - encouraging a machine-readable licence tag helps to avoid the issues
> identifying changesets that were encountered in the redaction.
>
> A brief clarification on this message: This is a personal posting. I
> have already proposed to the OSMF board that the three similar sets of
> guidelines on the wiki (imports, automated edits, mechanical edits) be
> combined into one, and that the result is endorsed as an OSMF policy.
> If this suggestion is received reasonably positively, then I'll bring
> it forward for incorporation into such a policy.
>
> I would welcome your comments. :)
>
> (and - whisper it - not too much bike-shedding please? pretty please?)