I have read through the editing and import guidelines for OSM. Contributing our data would require a considerable number of hours to do properly. Doing it properly is the only way we're interested in contributing.
What kind of protection can be had for any data we might share?
Note: Receiving "notifications" whenever someone edits data we've contributed, with the option to revert the changes, does not interest us. Taking the time to share the data via the OSM guidelines is already a significant burden and we want a 'fire-and-forget' approach. But if it can't be protected from wrong (if well meaning) edits then we don't see much point in sharing in the first place.
Further clarification: There seem to be places where a portion of our data, or data product, has made it into OSM. We are fine with that (since we are not responsible for what someone might do with our data via OSM) but we have also noted subsequent changes to our data that has decreased it's accuracy. Hence my question. No point in contributing data when we have no time to play data-cop to keep it in good condition.
The question has been closed for the following reason "Excessive trolling" by SimonPoole 30 Mar '16, 11:05
OSM is open, so I'm afraid you can't do that. A look at the CT may tell you more about contributing to OSM. https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
answered 29 Mar '16, 19:01
There's nothing you can do to prevent other people from making changes.
You can of course work with them to make sure they understand that their changes are harmful, but there's no mechanism to lock data, and probably quite a lot of resistance to the idea if you survey the community.
One way to do the fire and forget might be to make the data available under a broadly open license and let someone else do the work to integrate it (or maybe people will just use it as a reference). No ongoing burden there.
First of all, and most importantly, that's great that your agency wants to contribute your data, Thank you! I'm glad to hear that other groups are taking an interest in OSM, and I'm gland your group wants to do it properly.
I'm not very knowledgeable at all about data imports, after a bit of reading I suspect that you know more than me. Despite that, I would like to underline that it's important to consult with the local community before doing any imports.
As others have said there is not a technical mechanism in place to prevent detrimental edits. I don't think this would be possible to implement without preventing edits that are beneficial. OSM continues to improve everyday, and it's important to allow all objects represented in the database to continue to improve. OSM's solution to the problem of detrimental edits is relying on the editors ensure that other editors are improving the map. While well meaning edits may, as you say, be "wrong", on the whole the map improves with every passing day.
I don't quite understand what benefit you'd get if it was somehow possible to "lock" the roads and trails you are suggesting you import. The vast majority of edits are beneficial so preventing edits is only going to be detrimental to the map.
So to answer your question, as long as the import is accepted by the community, then you are welcome to "fire and forget" it, but it is necessary to trust the community to do the right thing with your data. They will.
answered 29 Mar '16, 19:32
There is no such thing as perfect data. People can always improve upon your work (because you never bothered to map some detail, because a new path is added/blocked/resurfaced, etc). Suggesting that trails could remain unchanged for 10 years would be quaint idea in most parts of the world. Precise data is even more vulnerable to this kind of bitrot; not too long ago somebody mapped a golf course with centimeter accuracy, which sounds great until you realize that this accuracy was casually twarthed by vegetation growth and plate tectonics.
Therefore, no data is untouchable in OSM. This is not a weakness, this is how OSM thrives. It does come at the price of occasional temporary deterioration, but the balance stays overwhelmingly positive. The "how to lock some OSM data" question comes back with some regularity, and the answer from the community is pretty much always that it would be a bad idea and isn't supported.
I find it strange that you think that contributing your data to OSM would only be worth it if said data remains untouched by anyone but you. What are you trying to achieve by puting your data in OSM ? One typical reason is to make the data more broadly available, and that goal remains fullfiled even if some heavy-handed contributor moves a trail by a meter. The general public is still better off if trail data is available in OSM, even if some of it got deteriorated. They can still get at your "perfect" data if they know where to find it and don't need the extra context and improvements. Which source they choose depends on their needs.
If you want this import to be a one-time job but will keep improving your version of the dataset, a good solution is to document your import process so that anybody can redo the import/merge process later. OSM has plenty of QA tools, including some which compare OSM data to other sources.
OSM won't sit still for 10 years, or even a day. This can feel daunting, but this is the right thing to do. Embrace the flow :)
answered 30 Mar '16, 00:08
Vincent de P... ♦
Show us the data, it matters more than opinions:
Since OSM is a very good data producer and one of the biggest data consumers, I do not think your time spent on this will be wasted. At least if you think other people than you should use your data.
answered 30 Mar '16, 05:12