3 ms·

In summary: Because OSM requires work and care to be put into the data submission plan, which isn’t worth it. A project like OSM would be bombarded with spam a

In summary: Because OSM requires work and care to be put into the data submission plan, which isn’t worth it. A project like OSM would be bombarded with spam and junk submissions if it didn’t have these barriers to submission. Understandable.

WhyNotHugo 3mo ago
This is partially because they import into their own system, and then export->import into OSM. At that point, they're considered an integration which imports data. If their apps instead submitted directly to OSM (letting submission trickle back down), then the flow would fit into "user submission". Book Corners simply becomes an app though which the user performed the submission, rather than an intermediary exporting data.
- pietervdvn 3mo ago
  Such as what I make: https://mapcomplete.org/bookcases.html https://mapcomplete.org/bookcases.html?
maxerickson 3mo ago
It's not really considered an import if a person is looking at all of the changes. They would just need a clear license from their users. (an import is when there isn't complete review...)
greyb 3mo ago
>A project like OSM would be bombarded with spam and junk submissions if it didn’t have these barriers to submission. I'm not sure about this. The barriers to submissions are honestly more likely to cause object and amenity level data to become out of date. Google is able to have such an up to date place database because it relies on a large quantity of crowdsourced submissions, and employs consensus to figure out the truth.
- SchemaLoad 3mo ago
  Having out of date public book boxes isn't really that big of a deal, at least compared to the massive amounts of broken entries, duplicates, and incorrectly licensed data that would end up from free and unrestricted bulk imports. As it is today you can largely expect OSM POI data to be incomplete or out of date unless you have someone particularly keen on keeping your local area up to date. OSM is best used as a background map layer for your own custom applications, like embedded maps in apps showing your own data overlayed. Rather than an alternative to the google maps app.
  - rixed 3mo ago
    I wouldn't use gmap as a benchmark for up to date POIs, at least in some European countries. And I'm not talking about inaccurate opening times; but about places that closed during Covid but are still on the map.
- Doctor_Fegg 3mo ago
  Google employs _engineers_ to figure out the truth. If an import pipeline is causing problems, a higher-up can just say “stop doing that or we’ll stop your pay cheque”. OSM doesn’t have that option. If it didn’t have these guardrails in place, a million CS students will see some open-looking data (or not even that, maybe something scraped) and throw it into OSM with a cursory Python script, resulting in an almighty mess. We need the process because we don’t have Google’s leverage of “we pay you”.
  - londons_explore 3mo ago
    Another approach is to simply accept low quality data into the database, yet have some kind of filtering during the viewing stage. Eg. Draw me a map, but include only data points tagged with 'osm-license-verified-and-spam-filtered'. That way users of the data get to decide their own tradeoff between legal risks, data freshness, spam, etc.
  - darren_ 3mo ago
    > Google employs _engineers_ to figure out the truth. and people say hacker news has no sense of humour
Dylan16807 3mo ago
That's not how I would summarize it. OSM is only giving them two options: apply to be treated as an automated sync source, or don't submit at all. They're willing to put in work and care but not to handle all the other complex barriers.
- marisen 3mo ago
  There's another path that the author hasn't considered, which is making users contribute directly to OSM. To contribute a bookcase, ask them to create an OSM account, log in with OAuth, and send the edit straight to OSM. Book corners becomes just a custom view and editor over OSM data, instead of being its own database. Users are now responsible for the data they submit (OSM already has tools to deal with vandalism etc...).
  - Dylan16807 3mo ago
    Throwing out half the assistance the site is able to give and giving up control over the process is... technically an option...
SOLAR_FIELDS 3mo ago
I get this perspective. But I also find the standards to be onerous. They were honestly fine until this one: > Contact the relevant local communities affected by the contributions Do I literally have to do new local community outreach every little town one of my bookcases shows up in? Ridiculous if so
- Doctor_Fegg 3mo ago
  Generally this means “national” and the sub-board on the OSM discussion forum.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 3mo ago
    Okay, that’s slightly more reasonable it means if I’m going to be rolling stuff back into OSM in a new country I should at least have a quick chat and ensure what I’m doing abides by that country’s regulations etc like South Korea has some notorious law around data residency
    - ponorin 3mo ago
      > South Korea has some notorious law around data residency if you're talking about the export restrictions of map data, that only applies to official, government-managed geodata. OSM explicitly doesn't rely on any other maps, so the law doesn't apply.
- Aurornis 3mo ago
  Refers to OSM communities, not the literal physical local communities offline. If every contribution required community outreach, we wouldn’t see any contributions.
- seb1204 3mo ago
  No, and this is the issue I have with his write up. Yes all points listed are correct. But do they apply in the same rigor and depth for all imports, likely no. There is a difference between a tiger import or local government address data for thousands of buildings VS a few thousand street libraries. The community review process should/would consider this. I would also guess that it took some time to investigate all of the requirements and write it down. Might as well have written an import plan and discussed it :-)

WhyNotHugo 3mo ago

This is partially because they import into their own system, and then export->import into OSM. At that point, they're considered an integration which imports data. If their apps instead submitted directly to OSM (letting submission trickle back down), then the flow would fit into "user submission". Book Corners simply becomes an app though which the user performed the submission, rather than an intermediary exporting data.

pietervdvn 3mo ago
Such as what I make: https://mapcomplete.org/bookcases.html https://mapcomplete.org/bookcases.html?

maxerickson 3mo ago

It's not really considered an import if a person is looking at all of the changes. They would just need a clear license from their users. (an import is when there isn't complete review...)

greyb 3mo ago

>A project like OSM would be bombarded with spam and junk submissions if it didn’t have these barriers to submission. I'm not sure about this. The barriers to submissions are honestly more likely to cause object and amenity level data to become out of date. Google is able to have such an up to date place database because it relies on a large quantity of crowdsourced submissions, and employs consensus to figure out the truth.

SchemaLoad 3mo ago
Having out of date public book boxes isn't really that big of a deal, at least compared to the massive amounts of broken entries, duplicates, and incorrectly licensed data that would end up from free and unrestricted bulk imports. As it is today you can largely expect OSM POI data to be incomplete or out of date unless you have someone particularly keen on keeping your local area up to date. OSM is best used as a background map layer for your own custom applications, like embedded maps in apps showing your own data overlayed. Rather than an alternative to the google maps app.
- rixed 3mo ago
  I wouldn't use gmap as a benchmark for up to date POIs, at least in some European countries. And I'm not talking about inaccurate opening times; but about places that closed during Covid but are still on the map.
Doctor_Fegg 3mo ago
Google employs _engineers_ to figure out the truth. If an import pipeline is causing problems, a higher-up can just say “stop doing that or we’ll stop your pay cheque”. OSM doesn’t have that option. If it didn’t have these guardrails in place, a million CS students will see some open-looking data (or not even that, maybe something scraped) and throw it into OSM with a cursory Python script, resulting in an almighty mess. We need the process because we don’t have Google’s leverage of “we pay you”.
- londons_explore 3mo ago
  Another approach is to simply accept low quality data into the database, yet have some kind of filtering during the viewing stage. Eg. Draw me a map, but include only data points tagged with 'osm-license-verified-and-spam-filtered'. That way users of the data get to decide their own tradeoff between legal risks, data freshness, spam, etc.
- darren_ 3mo ago
  > Google employs _engineers_ to figure out the truth. and people say hacker news has no sense of humour

Dylan16807 3mo ago

That's not how I would summarize it. OSM is only giving them two options: apply to be treated as an automated sync source, or don't submit at all. They're willing to put in work and care but not to handle all the other complex barriers.

marisen 3mo ago
There's another path that the author hasn't considered, which is making users contribute directly to OSM. To contribute a bookcase, ask them to create an OSM account, log in with OAuth, and send the edit straight to OSM. Book corners becomes just a custom view and editor over OSM data, instead of being its own database. Users are now responsible for the data they submit (OSM already has tools to deal with vandalism etc...).
- Dylan16807 3mo ago
  Throwing out half the assistance the site is able to give and giving up control over the process is... technically an option...

SOLAR_FIELDS 3mo ago

I get this perspective. But I also find the standards to be onerous. They were honestly fine until this one: > Contact the relevant local communities affected by the contributions Do I literally have to do new local community outreach every little town one of my bookcases shows up in? Ridiculous if so

Doctor_Fegg 3mo ago
Generally this means “national” and the sub-board on the OSM discussion forum.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3mo ago
  Okay, that’s slightly more reasonable it means if I’m going to be rolling stuff back into OSM in a new country I should at least have a quick chat and ensure what I’m doing abides by that country’s regulations etc like South Korea has some notorious law around data residency
  - ponorin 3mo ago
    > South Korea has some notorious law around data residency if you're talking about the export restrictions of map data, that only applies to official, government-managed geodata. OSM explicitly doesn't rely on any other maps, so the law doesn't apply.
Aurornis 3mo ago
Refers to OSM communities, not the literal physical local communities offline. If every contribution required community outreach, we wouldn’t see any contributions.
seb1204 3mo ago
No, and this is the issue I have with his write up. Yes all points listed are correct. But do they apply in the same rigor and depth for all imports, likely no. There is a difference between a tiger import or local government address data for thousands of buildings VS a few thousand street libraries. The community review process should/would consider this. I would also guess that it took some time to investigate all of the requirements and write it down. Might as well have written an import plan and discussed it :-)