Talk:WikiProject Canada/Building Canada 2020
As a USA-based OSM volunteer for most of its history, and with multiple projects ("WikiProject" is often used) like many-version landuse imports, national bicycle and rail networks and professional project management experience (Apple, Adobe, others) I ask that OSM be shown the utmost deference here. OSM is to be the repository of the data and as such will effectively own the data collectively under our ODbL. We must own the process, as well.
That said, all the talk of "stakeholders...et al" is fine, as long as the direction of this WikiProject stems directly from OSM itself. I realize the "hexagon of ovals" diagramming interested and participating communities appears to be a "round table," where "all are welcome." That is true, as long as this remains a WikiProject that hews to important tenets of OSM, such as achieving consensus.
So, (I say wearing a project management hat, as we are in the earlier stages of this project, and indeed project management), I ask to see a full-throated OSM community of people who assert some (better, most) of these project management tasks. Please, articulate them, and better. Better than simply identifying the clear goal of "all Canada buildings in OSM by 2020." That "checkered flag milestone" must be accompanied by many other milestones along the way. This project will have a long beginning: it is a month long now, it may be two to four months to fully plan. This project will have a long middle: two years seems doable, depending on loads and resources.
Please identify those loads (data, how much of them, where from, how to accommodate a multiplicity of data flows in further-along stages while also accommodating the "birth" of other data sources in their nascent stages, how to know when/if "all" data are available and/or vetted and/or queued and/or entered...) as well as resources. Resources are who, how, where, using what tools and methods of communication. I see only the sketchiest of these, along with the vision. Please, now is the time to engage substantial planning resources, including and especially project management resources, as this project better fleshes out the "big middle" it will take before an import plan and actual importation of data into OSM begin.
I offer these words not to discourage that this is a LARGE project in its EARLIER stages with lofty goals, but to say that the goals are achievable only with very deep commitment by and with the OSM community, AND with substantial planning, resource requirements, wide community consensus and seriously experienced project management skills. Please do not skimp on any of those, especially with establishing OSM community who exemplify consensus, as well as the experiences of OSM "project managers" (that isn't an official title or moniker, simply a role) familiar with large, national-level projects. Most sincerely, Stevea (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- First would get cities to start releasing data and participating which seems more like a waiting game more then anything. Once we identify participating cities we can have the regular discussions associated with imports. For rural areas we might as well trace them by hand this is where universities could participate in organized mapothons. I've traced my fair share of buildings and dont mind helping train new mappers. I do agree scruss was premature on declaring this on the imports list when the local discussion was still taking place.James2432 (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Excellent; just the sort of response I like to see. Very small pilot projects that will be known to get refined/improved might be a next vision as an earlier milestone to achieve. This must be coupled with a QA plan so that not only can quality be assured, but one can show HOW the data are high quality and HOW they are assured! For example, choose building data from a neighborhood of a district of a city with a generous/unambiguously ODbL-compliant license (hm, what if those data do not even have a license, but are instead in the public domain?!) and imagine what tools you'll use to crowdsource the parcelling out of the chunks, how you'll communicate data flow, who/how QA happens, and what it takes to declare "this tiny piece is done." And, use this to feed an import plan. Then, research the whole country's data, getting heads around how much these are and how they sensibly "break up" (rural by universities, urban at Mapping Parties in cities...those are the good ideas on the right track). At a certain point (two to six months from now?) rather formally file an Import Plan: you'll know you are ready to do so when the resources seem both "initially lined up" and "revving their jets to go!" Get consensus and buy-in from the community and, well, GO! Don't forget to course-correct along the way, learning from any mistakes, uh, I mean "learning opportunities due to sloppiness." And communicate progress clearly! Stevea (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- No sweat; don't sweat the small stuff. (It's all small stuff). Seriously, this project seems off and running on pretty good feet to me, and I've seen a few of them. Good luck to its future! Stevea (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
To be clear: I would be delighted to see a Canadian-based OSM volunteer who steps up (with project management skills, or at least wants to test and develop them) saying "Here we go, my name is (whatever) and I'm OK with perhaps temporarily taking a leadership position here to help coordinate the myriad project management tasks SteveA alludes to. I might have to step aside and let a group or team or committee go ahead here in 2018 and beyond, but I'd like to sketch out a way to get to an Import Plan." This is doable. Stevea (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)