(no title)
sbma44 | 10 years ago
There's also the question of the license. Without opening a can of worms about the usefulness of sharealike provisions in general, I think it's safe to say that making a geocoding result trigger sharealike implications in a database is clearly problematic (consider geocoding a database of customer addresses, then being obliged to share the rest of the table!). Unfortunately OSM hasn't yet reached agreement on a geocoding guidance. Consequently a couple dozen of us working on OpenAddresses have gotten the project to over 200 million addresses in less than 2 years. OSM is now a decade old, has millions of registered mappers, and contains less than 60 million addresses.
I don't mean to be all doom and gloom, though. I would love to improve OSM as a home for address data. And I urge those of you who care about this incredibly important resource to join me -- hop on the talk and legal-talk lists and help make the case for a geocoding guidance that makes sense.
rmc|10 years ago
"New initiatives" are fine. "new bulk data imports" are a different thing. There are many social and technical problems with importing data. De-duplicating data is hard.
OSM, unlike OpenAddresses, wants to have one licence for all the data, rather than lots of little licences for each different region. OSM also (tries) to have one hierachial, address data format for the whole world, rather than a collection of different formats for each region.
> OSM is now a decade old, has millions of registered mappers, and contains less than 60 million addresses.
OSM is more than just addresses.