4 ms·
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 SOLAR_FIELDS 2mo 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 2mo agoGenerally this means “national” and the sub-board on the OSM discussion forum.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 2mo agoOkay, 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 2mo 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 2mo agoRefers to OSM communities, not the literal physical local communities offline. If every contribution required community outreach, we wouldn’t see any contributions.
- seb1204 2mo agoNo, 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 :-)