See The Pottery Club for context
Imagine
a small town with a very active club of cardboard box makers. The club members make and supply cardboard boxes for the town's people and the people are mostly happy with that. There are some other box suppliers, but their boxes are not recyclable and are actually closed, so you can't put your Garmin GPS in one of those boxes. You need an open box to do that and the Cardboard Box Club makes such boxes.
This club forms a small community of box makers, most of them are crafts people who make the boxes as a hobby. Each of these boxes is a little different, some boxes have round corners or strange sizes or aren't exactly cubic, because they are hand-made. Now the people in the town can cope with imperfect boxes but they would prefer standard sized boxes with no variations, so they can efficiently store things in them. In fact most of the community are people who had a need for good cardboard boxes, but couldn't find ones that would satisfy their needs anywhere, so they decided to do something about it and joined the club.
Now not all boxes in the world are hand-made. There are industrial machines (more automated or less automated) that can make perfect boxes in large quantities and some people in the club know about them. Many of the club members were disillusioned when they first learnt about the useful machines that made the boxes of the same size as they had been making personally, and had been regretting the time they put into doing it manually when they could be perfecting the craft of operating such a machine. They know that the users of their boxes would have been happier too.
Of course not all of the machines are perfect, some (like the model called PANTHER) are more sloppy than human box makers, but still very fast.
However there is a couple of members in the club who make every effort to discourage the usage of the box-making machines and instead prefer doing it manually and that everyone else also does it manually. One of their arguments is that operating the machines isn't as engaging as doing it manually and the club's community would fall apart. There is however a community of box making machine operators that is good friends with the club, sometimes even the makers of these machines come to the club meetings to socialise.
Despite this anti-automatic-box-making minority, some people are already using machines to make their boxes, and the users of the boxes seem happy. Some of the clubbers even made robots that wander around the club room and fix some of the imperfections of the boxes made by the beginner box makers.
There is however one of the anti-automatic-box-making clubbers who went as far as saying that all of the Australian machine-made cardboard boxes should be burnt or recycled, even taking them away from people who have already stored some of their Garmin GPSes in those boxes, and subsequently re-made manually. He is generally of the opinion that manual box making should be the only way to make boxes in the club, and if the cardboard's period of bio-degradation is shorter, then all the better because the club will have more boxes to make. He also encourages some of the members to leave the club and start their own so that the clubs can compete against one another, and the losing club's boxes all go to waste.
Needless to say this is very far from what the town's people would like (and most members). They just want good boxes and don't want anyone's efforts wasted on things other than perfecting the boxes.
Discussion
Comment from Richard on 7 September 2010 at 11:58
I would point the Honourable Gentleman towards this article, recently featured on Slashdot of all places, which shows that - in a world dominated by industrial manufacturers - top quality, hand-made products are still prized.
We already have free data in very large parts of the world (TIGER, OS OpenData, the Canadian, Australian and NZ stuff... and seemingly more every year). Countless websites offer "good enough" machine-made maps - Google Maps, for one. If OSM isn't top quality, OSM is nothing.
Comment from davespod on 7 September 2010 at 12:35
I have followed the import vs. no import debate with interest, and have never been hard-line in either direction. I am grateful for both of these parables as they give me a much better understanding of where some of those pushing these positions come from.
Although I have what might be called a professional job, it is unrelated to geography. In the geo field, therefore, I regard myself as an unskilled individual. So, I am interested in where the others in the project see me fitting in.
One parable seems to suggest a good way of spending my spare time is to try my hand at a craft hitherto only attempted by trained professionals. Although the results may be a little inconsistent, I will be creating something unique. Hopefully others will benefit from my work, though some may decide that my work is not of a consistently high enough precision, and choose to stick to using the work of professionals. Although I will be unpaid for my efforts, I will undoubtedly benefit as I slowly gain skills I did not have before, and have fun, too.
The other parable seems to suggest that a good way to spend my spare time is to become a machine operator in a cardboard box factory for no money.
Seriously though, I think the choice of analogy does say a lot about the differing philosophical positions (well, almost) on what the project is all about. So, thanks to Andy and Andrzej.
Comment from balrog-kun on 7 September 2010 at 20:36
Richard: I totally agree OSM needs to be top quality, this is exactly why OSM needs to take advantage of high quality sources like the national cadastral datasets that get released, like MassGIS and like Mono County buildings and San Luis Obispo County buildings, and build on top of what's been done by others. Rather than try to redo it just for the fun of it (if it was fun doing something someone else has done already and done it better).
Comment from Richard on 8 September 2010 at 09:22
Where there is a dataset that supplies something that can't be practically mapped by on-the-ground survey, yes, I don't see a problem with a careful import. Generally building imports will fall into this category: there's not a whole heap of difference between importing good-quality building data and tracing it from aerial imagery.
But where imports replace on-the-ground survey, that's where the problem lies. The import surveyor will likely not have looked for the data that OSM mappers would be gathering (for example, Ordnance Survey OpenData for the UK, though excellent, doesn't include footpaths or cycleways). But because the area now looks "complete", and because it's more fun to survey virgin territory than resurvey someone else's work, the imported area will neither get the same quality of data nor attract the same community of OSM contributors.
Example: USA. Other example: the city of Worcester, UK. I and a few other contributors were slowly working on surveying this, bit by bit, to a reasonably high standard. Now some idiot has come along and traced it all from Ordnance Survey StreetView (effectively what you might call a "manual import").
The result is a carbon copy of StreetView with a load of missing streetnames, no footpaths, no amenities, and so on (osm.org/go/euwvVf2K--). How does that help anyone? The long-term quality of the OSM map has suffered for a tiny bit of short-term gain. Nothing good has been created: if people wanted StreetView, they could have just downloaded the original (under better licensing terms than OSM, too!).
Comment from balrog-kun on 8 September 2010 at 13:37
It depends a lot on the circumstances and what you're used to. Overall I believe it's a myth about surveying a virgin territory being more fun (yes, I've tried it). I've heard lots of people saying they're put off by there being completely no data, I've heard prolific mappers on talk-us saying that they wouldn't have bothered with OSM if the TIGER data wasn't there, and I have a close friend who loves to go out and map amenities writing down their addresses and phone numbers, including little shops, and locating them in OSM by looking at the streets that are already mapped. She doesn't like riding around with a GPS and mapping missing streets.
Now you're saying that you and other mappers in Worcester were put off by there being inaccurate data instead of there being nothing. I'm not sure exactly why you'd be put off -- I know it sucks when you're doing a good job on something (perhaps by putting a lot of effort in it) and someone else comes along and does it carelessly, but in this case they haven't done any damage, they just haven't been very helpful. So in my eyes OSM hasn't suffered, the only reason it could have suffered is if you and the other contributors get pissed because that person didn't put as much effort as you did, and you stopped mapping or moved to a different place.
I don't agree with USA being a negative example either, quite the opposite, OSM there is really useful as a map, and quite complete in the cities I visited including amenities and stuff that doesn't come from TIGER. And despite that it was fun to map these cities anyway.
And this is considering that TIGER was of extremely poor quality. Most other datasets that come from administrative sources are of much better accuracy than what you can currently obtain with a GPS, take the kind of street data that was released for Girona (I agree it was unfortunate that it replaced the existing streets network in OSM, but on the other hand it would be a missed opportunity to prefer this GPS-based potentially out-of-date information over really up-to-date and centimetre accuracy data). Perhaps in a couple of years we will have much better technology and our crowdsourced data will have similar accuracy, and then it will take a couple more years until everything that has been mapped based on GPS gets corrected. So really let's build on top of what's available to get even better results.