Re: Bug#609772: ITP: osmpbf -- Java access library for OpenStreetMap PBF file format
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:00:40PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
>
> It means that osmpbf has really *nothing* GIS in it, not even those small
> things needed for an advanced OSM usage/understanding. Apart from the fact that
> it deals with OSM data, that is. ;)
<nitpicking>
So appart from dealing with data describing geographic information?
</nitpicking>
> I understand what you mean.
> To be honest, I don't have a strong opinion on this. Team work might help
> when the "proper" maintainers are inactive, but given the strong involvement of
> Giovanni and me, and that both of us (+ frankie) are those who would ultimately
> do the teamwork on debian-gis too... :)
I definitely trust you + frankie as I know you for a long time as very
active and I have no reason to question your trust in Giovanni and I
have finally neither means nor interest to stop you from working on
pkg-osm. It's just a matter of principle to keep forces together where
it is possible to share some work and do the organising / publishing /
etc. (in short - the boring part of maintaining a team project) which is
to frequently forgotten.
> I usually tend to contact maintainers of already-packaged OSM software, and
> keep track of ITPs on d-d.
Great. As you see I also have an eye on the ITPs to fetch things for the
tasks pages early. (Please ping me in case I might overlook something - or
even edit the stuff yourself.)
> I've also had negative responses (merkaartor), and that's fine too :)
Sure that's fine and if its properly maintained there is no need to
change anything from the perspective of packaging. From the perspective
of strengthening teams (bzed might invite other people as well) it would
be desirable but there is no way to force this.
> OSM is still a rather young and unpopulated (software) field, so I don't still
> see a need to
While as it is software-wise unpopulated (which is another parallel to
Debian Med) I regard it as high dynamicly changing and I for myself
think that OSM would be even quicker be visible in the (non-OS) world
than WikiPedia did. All those people with GPS-enabled SmartPhones will
soonish seek for high quality navigation and information and you are
moving much more frequently around than you are consulting a dictionary
on a day-to-day basis.
> I agree the second is easier. And a note about pkg-osm could be put inside the
> Debian GIS announcement. ;)
As I have read that you wanted to push the DPN article: You know what
to do if you want to extend my proposal. ;-)
> In my original vision of pkg-osm, I intended to make it a "subset" of
> debian-gis (i.e. all packages co-maintained by both teams, and kept in
> debian-gis' repos). A couple of packages would've been out of debian-gis scope
> (see osmpbf), and would've been kept into pkg-osm repo.
That's OK but IMHO extra effort for not much use.
> Probably the biggest misunderstanding is that you consider pkg-osm at the same
> level of debian-gis. I don't, I consider it one of its sons ;)
I think I did not really missunderstood because I know that you
understood the Blends principle. I was just afraid of
a) extra work for you
b) lack of visibility for others
with no visible gain (except keeping things "pure" which IMHO is
no goal in itself).
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: