Hacker News Reader

Comment by SOLAR_FIELDS | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

Refers to OSM communities, not the literal physical local communities offline.

If every contribution required community outreach, we wouldn’t see any contributions.

Generally this means “national” and the sub-board on the OSM discussion forum.

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

> 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.

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 :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com