Couldn’t agree more. It’s just the how, when, where and who that keeps getting in the way.
1 Like
The “Swiss Army Knife” of that sort of conversion for OSM Data is Osmium and that’s where someone like me would expect to see it eventually. A quick web search finds a documented conversion process for post-osmium data. Maybe a contribution to Osmium that supported Parquet directly would be accepted? A programmatic solution is already described at the link above.
Personally I think that this is the biggest “missing link” with OSM data. If you search the OSM wiki for Parquet you get a lot of information about flooring 
and nothing about Apache Parquet.
A great start would be a page that says what it is and why it is useful.
3 Likes
While it is really OT here: parquet files with OSM data have been around for a long time from a decade old GitHub - adrianulbona/osm-parquetizer: A converter for the OSM PBFs to Parquet files (raw OSM data and as such likely not what people would expect) to last years Geometa Lab at IFS / Cadencemaps · GitLab (OSM data mapped to OMs schema), and not to forget GitHub - GIScience/ohsome-planet: Transform OSM (history) PBF files into GeoParquet. Enrich with OSM changeset metadata and country information.
4 Likes
I have attempted to split this off into OSM data in GeoParquet format
2 Likes
Totally agree as well. I’m definitely not saying that anyone should have done any of these things by now. Just was making a bare answer to “how do we obsolete overture”
The OSMF board has submitted a comment to the OGC regarding this proposal. Thanks to the multiple members of the community who also submitted thoughtful comments. We’ll see what happens.
13 Likes
Some very thoughtful responses there. Thank you for the link to them.
I went and took a look at the items proposed for the standard and agree. What I said here about people using GERS-based Overture data is really separate from their standard, apparently, so I apologize for the irrelevant comments. The justification document honestly doesn’t specify much at all, and I’m really not sure who it’s for. All the comments in support of it are about their data, while the standard explicitly excludes the data to reference a few simple components that should be present in an identifier issuer. So I left a comment indicating I think it needs to be much more specific and that it needs to show the benefits for ID issuers before they consider it further.
1 Like
They’re not irrelevant. In spite of the Github comments that the proposed draft standard “isn’t Overture’s website” the proposed work document states that the Overture site is the draft standard.
Even if it weren’t, it’s clearly one implementor trying to standardize their particular implementation of an idea in advance of wide adoption. That’s an abuse of the standards process.
12 Likes
For those that haven’t been (understandably) following the discussion on github the thing has come to a bit of a head after OGC reps started commenting on the issues raised by the community as the open for public comments phase ran out on the 3rd.
The tl;dr version essentially “but but but the proposed standard is not that what you are commenting on” and then starting to edit the documents that were provided for comments to contain and point to different content.
Incompetence in being evil seems to be a bit of a theme these days.
6 Likes
Perhaps a mini-grant to an adept programmer already active in the OSM space? OSMF has done mini-grants for upgrades of Nominatim and Potlatch, so there is precedent for this.
6 Likes
I’d love to see a post on the OSMF blog for that, so it could be shared (e.g. on HN or wherever GIS people hang around). There was a LinkedIn post already, could adapt that.
3 Likes
Thanks for the idea. I just realized I didn’t link directly to the OSMF comment. 
I’ll talk to the CWG about what we can do to raise awareness about making sure standards serve the public interest.
2 Likes
FWIW I wrote a short diary post on persistent ids SimonPoole's Diary | Persisting your ids … | OpenStreetMap
7 Likes
I don’t get some of the comments in the thread. It doesn’t really matter whether we think what Overture is doing is useful or not; it’s an open market and if Overture feel they can build a customer base then that’s what matters.
Focusing on feeding back comments on the proposal makes more sense to me.
1 Like
Look forward to the next post on linear referencing!
It’s an abuse of the standards process to go into it with the purpose of establishing their implementation as a standard in order to help establish a customer base, and that’s what people are objecting to.
11 Likes
And that’s not what I was commenting on. To be clear: I was commenting on people who were saying that they didn’t see the value of what Overture or doing or “you cannot do it perfectly so don’t bother trying” type comments.