Improvement proposal

[yfgy4fjxlgby]

So you won’t discuss this topic outside this topic, which is read by only a handful of people, none of them really involved in the development of the server and editors (but are aware what is going in in OSM for several years), but you insist that your dream is implemented ?

Yes.

Please read more about OSM, on data migration and planning such projects in general, try to find other people to back up your proposal and that are capable to implement it, and if you come to a different conclusion than the other people here, you could start your project. But I sincerely doubt you will be successful.

OK. Where should I read it? Do you have some must-read pack of documentation for everyone who wants to be involved in OSM development?

Also where are the relevant git repos? As I understand, I need this one. Do you have other means of developer communication than irc and mailing lists? Why don’t you use GitHub/GitLab for that, they are very convinient, especially gitlab (you can selfhost them)?

you only gave a script which I doubt will work

The script was not intended to work in production but was an illustration of the concept that migration is not difficult at all.

IMHO you only have some vague idea of want you want to achieve, you came up with a simple example of 1 type of product, rejected all examples that do not fit you idea and complain people do not want to follow you. Isn’t that weird ?

in fact the everything the people in here were saying is “it is not the purpose of OSM, do a separate project, don’t bloat OSM with it”, “we afraid we will not be able to get enough accurate data and not able to verify them” and “too much data to store”. My responses are “it worth to “bloat” osm with such data”, “any additional data above what we have now is better, but to have them OSM is needed to be refactored a bit” and “1 Gib is nothing in 2017”.

[woodpeck (Frederik Ramm)]

@yfgy4fjxlgby

So you won’t discuss this topic outside this topic, which is read by only a handful of people, none of them really involved in the development of the server and editors (but are aware what is going in in OSM for several years), but you insist that your dream is implemented ?

Yes.

You are a troll. Go away.

[yfgy4fjxlgby]

You are a troll.

I am ;). But in fact I’m serious with the proposal and the following discussion, it was not trolling.

[alester]

@yfgy4fjxlgby

You are a troll.

I am ;). But in fact I’m serious with the proposal and the following discussion, it was not trolling.

So, to summarize, your proposal is to drastically change the underlying principles of the OSM project in such a way that it will require a complete rewrite of all existing tools and software, increasing the size of the database by an order of magnitude, and want other people to do all of the work for you?

In case you haven’t been able to tell by now, there seems to be universal opposition to your proposal. Feel free to start your own project using such a model, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen as part of the OSM project.

[mboeringa]

This is the typical uninformed “Big Data/Cloud” advocate lunacy of thinking that the only solution to any IT problem is to ditch all existing infrastructure, throw a +10k node cluster with NoSQL database at it, store the entire universe in it, and then wait for the answer to how life evolved on earth to spontaneously come out of it…

It is like using an elephant to squash a mouse… No IT solution is perfect, but I think I prefer OSM’s smart and spinning single rack “cat” answer to the “mouse” problem: https://twitter.com/OSM_Tech

[yfgy4fjxlgby]

So, to summarize, your proposal is to drastically change the underlying principles of the OSM project

Yes

in such a way that it will require a complete rewrite

Not complete. Some parts only need rewrite.

of all existing tools and software

Yes and no. Yes because rewrite is really needed to get all the advantages of new data schema needed. No because it is not requred: the new data can be converted back to old data format with some loss of information.

, increasing the size of the database by an order of magnitude

It’s wrong. Converting existing data to the new format shouldn’t increase (it can even decrease reducing amount of space wasted on storage duplicated field names and data!) that that much. It may be increased when new data is added to all the pois, but I think this won’t happen soon enough to cause troubles.

, and want other people to do all of the work for you?

No. I’m ready to participate in that, but not right now, on own schedule and without any liabilities.

throw a +10k node cluster with NoSQL database

I have already said that this data structure can be mapped upon sql, JSON is just a comfortable way to think about this data structure. But since your data is really schema-less, you should consider using databases developed to store such kind of data.