Il manque tous les liens et la carte des membres, mentionnés dans le texte.

Isn’t Tasmania quite sensitive to the continental drift ? I mean, as compared to the worldwide WGS84 which does not account for local drifts, whereas official geodesic data and survey is aligned to physical positions on the ground and trinagulation, using its own local coordinate system, whose offset with GPS will constantly vary over time. This drift can be several centimeters each year on average over large areas (more than about 100km-wide), but may be larger in some local areas, especially on “fluid” soils, or because of major geological events (sometimes dramatically after landslides). To have our OSM data taking account of this, we wouldneed to qualify all coordinates with the refernece geodesic system with which it was mapped, and with a reference date. In OSM these coordinates should “normally” be converted to WGS84 coordinates at the time of mapping, because we cannot use multiple coordinate ssytems, but according to the current offset of the reference geodesic system with the GPS/WGS84 system; however the sources used for this mapping often do not indicate the reference date used, even if they indicate their reference geodesic system; this makes automatic correction impossible, and over time data imported in OSM from different sources with different geodesic systems and different dates will become disaligned in a very dispersed way. I do not see how to solve this solution easily, especially when after the fact, some people start doing their own “manual cleanup” of disalignments, by choosing arbitrarily one of the available imageries (which also have used different MNT data for their orthocorrection, computed at diferent dates, these being also not tracked correctly in existing photographic sources). That’s why we cannot easily get metric precision (over a significant period valid for several yearts), even if the orthophotographic or other imported data sources show details up to several centimeters. It’s then up to OSM mappers to find local compromizes, knowing that everything will drift over time, but at least they should make the data coherent locally, so that distances, proportions and angles are locally correct and match the reality observed on the ground and in all sources and surveys.

RGPD: privacy tatemrnt missing for this survey hosted on an unknown site.

Il semble y avoir des désaccords sur les numéros de référence (par exemple Osmose signale une “D106E”, idem le cadastre, mais les deux ont tord car sur le terrain c’est en fait “D 106E1”. Omose signale alors une erreur de “décalage” alors que ce n’est pas du tout un problème de géométrie (vérifiée très précisément sur BD Ortho et parfaitement au milieu de la route visible sans jamais sortir de la largeur de chaussée ni même de plus de quelques centimètres car on voit précisément les points centraux) mais de désaccord sur le numéro de référence.

Se peut-il que le cadastre ait tronqué les numéros de référence en admettant une seule lettre après un numéro de base, et aucun indice numérique après ?

Si Osmose ne trouve pas une ref mais trouve une route précisément bien positionnée, le message devrait être différent pour indiquer une différence de numéro de ref (et parfois, souvent même, c’est le cadastre qui a tord et n’est pas à jour avec les indications sur le terrain!)

L’absence ou la présence d’un indice ne semble pas être un facteur limitant (je ne parle pas d’un écart entre ref=”D 108” et ref=”D 106” (qui devrait être corrigé en old_ref=*) mais bien d’une différence entre ref=”D 108” et ref=”D 108E” (toujours faux à mon avis) ou ref=”D 108E1” (la lettre doit être souvent suivie d’un indice sauf quand cette lettre est A ou B, mais la lettre E désigne un “écart”, une petite branche locale de la route principale et ces écarts ont leur indice propre).

And note that massive automated tagging of highways made by Amazon is completely in contradiction with OSM policies. Those automated edits should have been blocked and reverted (not all driveways are private, notably those connecting commercial areas, hotels, campings, tourism parks, hospitals, or other services that are open with some restrictions to the general public at opening hours or for limited goals such as temporary paid residence and delivery).

But almost all barriers in OSM are between highways with different access rules; tagging the barriers themselves does not add any value, given that you cannot go further on the restricted roads already tagged with access rules.

My comment was about the statement made above that 95% of barriers (and most probably even more!) are not tagged, but in fact they don’t even need it ! And almost all barriers that have been tagged with access rules could have been left without such tagging.

So don’t spend much time to update tons of barriers where the real need is to tag the highways (or areas). I bet that such need is needed only in very rare cases (e.g. as trafic calming measures and only when there are other unrestricted accesses to these areas, so this only concerns accesses to quite large areas such as quarters, large hospitals, harbours, airports), or motorways with toll for general access (other accesses being closed by barriers with restrictions for service/emergency and only if there’s no specific restricted service highway to join them)

So the comment saying that 95% of gates are not tagged is just indicating that they DO NOT even need to be tagged at all, as the access restrictions applicable to connected highways are clearly enough in 95% of cases (the same!)

As well some large gates (and other kinds of barriers) could be draw as areas (notably those passing under a building or under a large fortified wall, or with special equipment on the ground over a large surface, including possibly an elevating bridge left under water or above ground when the gate is closed, or plots raising from the ground that will be brought down to open the access only for some authorized vehicles with remote controls, or multiple parallel barriers)

So limiting to the case of tagging nodes with access is a stupide idea !

In fact the access restriction ALWAYS apply to a larger area starting at these nodes. So it’s much better to tag access restrictions ONLY to the connected highways (or to surfaces containing them) !

The example at top of this page is clearly a case where such addition of access tags for gates is completely unnecessary ! (and this is demonstrated on the map that shows the gray-dotted lines on the highways, that were correctly tagged.

The “access=*” tags on HIGHWAYS connected to the gate are ENOUGH.

And remember that gates are not necessarily only nodes, they can be ways as well, cutting through the highways (with an intersection node which should be positioned as a valid intersection, but that does not necessarily needs to be tagged as a gate, if the way drawn for the gate passing through that intersection node is already tagged as a gate).

note that 6 months is not exceptionnaly old in imagery sources; most of them are only refreshed once in about every 3-10 years. They may be yearly updates, but only to integrate the coverage of some subareas. Some of them are refreshed more often because there are collectivities paying for them (and I’m not speakingabout satellite imagery, whose resolution is quite poor, but really about aerial imagery, made from planes, or very high resolution imagery made with drones that cannot cover a very large area and generally cover an area not larger than a typical village or small town). this requires people, time of work from them on the field, or paying the cost or plane flights and the personal driving them and maintaining them. This require time to process the images, qualify those that are usable (e.g. dismiss cases where images are blurred by clouds or sun flares on the objectives, or data losses and incorrect encodings, or cases where images are highly deformed by the elevation and there’s still no consistant data on the elevation at a sufficient resolution, or because the precise location of the images were lost with reception errors from GPS mesurements during the capture). Imagery is not free (as a beer), there’s necessarily someone paying for them (even if it’s a non-profit NGO which also has limtied resources and depends on donations and free participation of volunteers).

For a newer infrastucture that is still not on the imagery, you can still estimate its location by comparing with local snapshots you take on the field or that your find in services like Mapillary. This is generally enough to make a draft but quite good estimation with low margin of errors for the positioning. you can still draw that in OSM and place a “fixme” tag indicating that the estimation may be reviewed later for better precision if needed, you can easily measure the margin of imprecision from the existing imagery.

The only case where this is problematic is after a major castrophic event that radically changes the field (like cyclone, volcanic eruptions, large fires, and landslides) so that it will never be the same again. But for these events, there are NGOs helping and taking imagery captures rapidly, plus the participation of aerial imagery organization to provide a recent source of data in those most affected areas, because they are needed to manage the emergency and plan the recovery with lot of local participants and many volunteers from around the world.

So 6 months is not old. We are much better interested in getting higher resolution images that allow feeling the gaps generally easily, with the additional local knowledge (and in your case, a train line is a large object which has a very smooth geometry, it’s quite easy to be very precise by locating precisely only very few points. You’ll need the imagery only for details (e.g. the exact position of side tracks and crossings from one track to another, or some local equipement along the line, like the position of poles suppring the electric feed or the exact position of a bridge (but note that bridgers for trains take months to be built and consolidated: in 6 months, you may already see the work in progress or the bridges already there, even if there’s still no rail on it and the line is still not fully connnected to the rest of the network.

Than ks Warin61. At least someone that sees that this is a serious problem for sustainable development of OSM. Otherwise we would have to severely limit our objectives and many OSM projects would have to be abandonned, and possibly lot of data would have to be simply erased because becoming obsolete and unmaintainable in many development countries.

There’s already been several signs of this before, including with the partial retreat of Mapbox (building its own proprietary infrastructure on top the OSM base layer) and other providers stopping to grant us access to their sources.

It’s the whole credibility of OSM that becomes in danger (and a new possibility for Google or major commercial providers for once again increasing its presence, its prices, and its right to limit/filter data as they want).

We need a common CDN for sharing all granted imageries. And implement a repository of sources that can scale better for the many new goals we have developed.

Otherwise OSM will no longer be open to any contributors but will only be usable by import bots maintained by a few, still using opendata, but without review and we’ll become under influence of only governmental efforts (or lack of).

Of course caching helps. Notably for the issue above which was clearly related to a large Mapathon event in Indonesia, and not related to misuses by individual users (unless demonstrated, but Maxar does not detail the cause publicly, and may be already discussing about the iccue privately with OSM application maintainers or the OSM Foundation to avoid disclosing personal data publicly).

OAuth may eventually help against a few OSM users but this can already be tracked by OSM subscriptions and accounts, as msot of this usage seems related to active edits, that OSM servers may already track back to the same IP sources as those detected by Maxar of their imagery server (we cannot compare these usage logs, both are protected for good privacy reasons).

Maintaining an imagery source normally jsut requires creating a good caching proxy (or several ones). And OSM itself has its own tiles usage policy for the same purpose on its own tile servers, meant to be used by contributors and not by third party sites that should create their own cache for their web services (they are not all required to create map rendering servers).

Clearly this is noit a question of copyright, licence or authentication and prior authorization, but about usage policy. What the above discussion demonstrates is that Maxar provided good imagery sources for us, and they did not anticipate the success. Instead of blockiong everything, they should have implented some quota checks and reasonnable delays for delivering updated images, and should have asked the community for help to mirror their content on additional proxies.

This is a serious issue that we we should consider because we really need these imagery sources to work with, and such event may be something breaking any tentative applications for granting us more imagery data. We should come with a solution based on a generic CDN that could mirror all the imagery we want to use. And many OSM participating organizations can help for that or can provide additional means to create it, by motivating their own users to donate or help maintaining such CDN. For now only the base OSM rendered tiles map has a CDN. This should continue for other imageries. And we could say to providers that we can mirror this to help reduce the storage/bandwidth.

As well the usage policy can be enforced a bit more in OSM editors (iD or JOSM mainly) using better caching strategies, but many users don’t necessarily contribute with a device with high storage capabilities (notably for mobile devices which are the most widely used in developing countries for which Maxar currently provides some of the best imagery data).

So the huge spike seen by Maxar was in Indonesia, this may be related to a recent large mapathon that occured there (see the recent OSM Newsletters that speaks about it, but not the fact it blocked Maxar now for all OSM contributors).

OSM Indonesia should really try to negotiate a safer hosting solution for the imagery, or should ask for help from the community to find this.

It’s true that Digital Globe imagery is extremely useful for many developing countries and most HOT projects.

I think that multiple OSM-related organizations could discuss about implementing a large CDN for caching and delivering imagery tiles (Maxar could also participate itself to a part of the CDN on its own caching servers, and the OSM Foundation or HOT could work on coordinating them, using dynamic DNS to distribute and monitor the work load of participating servers). Other participants that have servers/storage/bandwidth capacities could help (e.g. the Wikimedia Foundation, OSM Germany, OSM France, and their own sponsors).

May be this is related to a recent Mapathon (announced after fact) in South East Asia. If this is the cause, such events should have been prepared by making sure the imageries proposed were cached.

I suggest that large mapthon events instruct their participants to use a local caching proxy for their web configuration, rather than a direct Internet access.

Small mapathons may not need that, but large mapathons organized online should negaciate their imagery source with a dedicated proxy (at least for the time of the main event, such instruction may be removed later to use usual imagery).

If this is caused by some HOT project, HOT project admins should corectly configure their projet and monitor the activity on the HOT tasks before removing the specifically proxied imagery source.

Probably if Maxar can’t support the increase of usage on its own servers a caching server hosted by OSM-supporting sponsors will act to relay the usage while enforcing a low usage on the Maxar’s resources.

I hope that this will not avoid the access to Maxar’s resources for specific areas in emergency (e.g. for HOT projects for a limited time, until these resources are cached by OSM for longer term usage, e.g. when improving or correcting some areas or checking at the history, which can occur for years but in spreaded areas but at much lower frequency).

We should alreayd have an infrastructure allowing to host multiple caches for backup/recovery and permanence of the service, while limiting the direct interaction between tens of thousands of users over very large areas at all scales (notably for images in high resolution, which can easily escape the capacity of caches). The cache servers we need for OSM need to have large caching capacity and long refresh time, and should be compliant with “modern” HTTP/1.1 requests (“If-modified-since:” headers or similar) that can save a lot of bandwidth, and possibly should support modern compression algorithm and modern transport layers (e.g. HTTP2, i.e. the Google’s prototol), including streaming and queued requests on the same shared socket, while also preserving the necessary metadata (notably those for copyright and attribution, and notices for the usage policy).

If there were abusive uses recently, may be this can be traced to specific clients not complying to the rules or having implementation bugs. If not, we could trace back to the users refusing to endorse the tile usage policy, or could come from users using small devices with insufficient local storage, or users trying to use some advanced tools (not normal browsers) like Wget to perform automated queries bypassing all caches with a high frequency of requests: systermatically refusing to honor the caching date limits should be considered an abuse (note: users may want to clear their caches occasionnally.

Studying the serverside logs to identify the sources of these “abusive” requests should be interesting. If there are bugs in some of our applications for some situations (e.g. for users conencted via some proxies), users should be informed and there should be a way to notify them that their local proxy does not comply the rules, and that they should select a more appropriate proxy or compliant VPN if possible.

This may be a problem for users in some countries that cannot escape the mandatory proxy set to them by their ISP and government: for these users, we should have a solution to propose to them, by proposing them to apply for an account on a compliant proxy we can support (such usage should ne nominative, and should have its own policy : for personal use only, and only for use in an OSM editor, not for use in any web site or dedicated mobile application

(e.g. for a merchant site: merchants should have to implement their own caches for their own users, and ensure their storage has a cumfortable size and long enough conservation respecting the caching time limits for at least 85% of requests or better; and they should have monitoring statistics for the efficiency of their cache, i.e. hits/misses vs. requests and some history of these statistics to detect possible caveats and ensure correct and rapid adaptation of their own policies, or allowing their operators to consider increasing their storage and possibly update/fix their proxy softwares, firewalls, routings and so on.).

I hope that Maxar’s decision was not based on very temporary spikes that may have been caused by some recent updates in client softwares or changes in protocols (e.g. a major update in some popular web browser like Chrome, Firefox or Safari causing this temporary caveat for many users over a short time, or a major update of the OS enforcing the reinstallation of the browser and clearing of its local cache; normally major OS updates are scheduled in the world over a period of a few days so that not too many people will upgrade to the same time, causing major usage spikes also on OS-provider’s sites, and there should be a large tolerance for updates needed so that not all updates need to be made to continue a service, even if it’s not the best tuned for future uses, and users should have a resonnably long delay to upgrade, except for very serious security issues that should be fixed by strictly minimal changes on updated systems)

I’ve seen the case of disjunct but close patches used in the same multipolygon coming from the progressive improvement of surrounding smaller polygons to detach them from an old larger but less detailed polygon. As the polygon is very large, it’s hard to redraw it completely from scratch without breaking it and creating large holes. And especially with iD, this can happen any time and is hard to see when it occurs. Only JOSM users will notice that these multipolygons can be separated, but it requires reapplying the tags of the multipolygon down to the components. before they can be removed as “outer” members of the multipolygon. If all patches have been separated and there remains no members, then only the now empty multipolygon can be removed. But it will be oftren recreated if one component is still large and still needs improving. So basically only small patches are removed and separated, and large multipolygons remain even if there is still only one member in it, because it this member way will continue to be split again to detail it further.

So I’m not surprised to see that there remains multipolygons with only one member, this is a minor problem and not a real issue, but the sign that further work needs to be done (and is sometime pending) to detail the content, but this is not done immediately because mappers frequently have long list of things to do and intermediate steps are necessary: trying to do everything at once creates a case where “todo lists” tend to explode exponentially, never ending for an initial modification that was intended to be much more local and not with a so huge impact that it had to process recursively all the touching polygons covering a larger and larger area…

” Telling a professional political scientist”: clearly your job is biased and oriented. That’s why I have doubts notably when you write that have contacts mostly with local authorities. Givben your position (and the stated public position of Trump that has erased all efforts in US for real research, and hist public intent of “America first”, I doubt his admisnitration will continue financing your project in your job if it’s not politically oriented, in a country which is surrounded by other major powers, i.e. Russia, Russia and China, but which is culturally linked to Turkey. I don’t criticize your jib: you do the best you can in your position, but your official position certainly causes severe limitations about what you can do and with whom you’ll get local contacts. It an only be turned to be biased in favor of existing local governement, rather than the local community: it is one important view, but not the only one.

So you have contacts also with independant NGOs? Can they run their own projects without prior authorization by Turkemen authorities (and indirectly you with the budget that Trump’s administration allows you to delegate to your mission) ?

And sorry, but your prior publication before starting the wiki was not advertized on the wiki, you did not present your self or explain the mission and the limitations that your official position forces you to adopt.

That’s why I ask the community to take what you provide (even if it’s, maybe, useful) with other views (including from the diaspora leaving now abroad). Turkmenistan is a country with severe political and interethnic problems and taking a position in favor of just the current giovernement may be dangerous to accept de facto in OSM: it will clearly forget much of what Turkmen people expect to see (and will never see because their governement will not provide it).

Now you feel it like an insult. It isi not, just a fact that you must admit: your job is OK but oriented and not sufficient. And OSM still lacks independant involvement in the country, notably by having non governmental NGOs (including international ones) to follow their own targets and preent other views: there’s so muc hto do to map this country, even for the most basic needs that their governmetn does not provide, or does not want to do (and will not allow you to do for them as well) ! And you won’t risk a diplomatic incident by bypassing their direct supervision of what you do (as this could turn the Turkmen government to go with help from Russia, China or Iran, or even Turkey).

It is my opinion that what you do has other commercial targets, such as controling gas and oil exports from Russia or Iran, and it is the only reason why Trump’s administration has accepted to support your current work. I see little things that you have made for now which targets the preservation of environment (not a goal for Trump), or the development for the local population (“America First” for Trump), or local democracy.

So accept that your work is biased (this is your official position). Or explain to the community how your work can continue independantly with personal implication (even if you take the risk of having your current job position cancelled or your project having is working budget cancelled, like what Trump has done repeatedly, he constantly changes his views and has taken various decisions without hearing enyone of his own advertizers, and has irritated even his own strongest supporters and many allies). You’re not in a very cumfortable position, and NGOs are probably more neutral and more stable, and you’d probably work better within one of them if you like this country where you live now and have good personal relations with some of their local communities.

there was NO insulting words above. But it’s a shame that there was no presentation at all before you asked to block someone that was honestly helping you as you have explicitly asked for on that wiki ! You never discuss with anyone, sent two messages, did not reply to my own, and I was blocked while I was doing nothing that day. I had no contact from any one else ! In summary you just started alone, and you had problems I wanted to fix, you did not understand that, and made false assumptions about my intent. It’s a fact I have collaborated with a lot of people and helped many users in the wiki, because I still see that you don’t know how to edit it properly and you are not trained at all about its existing limitations and how it has slowly evolved to be usable by more people (even if there are still problems, many of them were not solved at all by admins when I contacted them since years !). You were new to that project, I was not. You did not consider anything in my history and in fact it’s jsut new that now you want to discuss what you do… but with others. But too late ! My blocking was compeltely unfair for false reasons. And the current documetned Wiki etiquette and procedures was not respected at all.

You state that I have not read and understood what you wrote. Even though I respected what you did, I diud not contradict what you wrote (besinde the fact it was confusing, I wanted to disambiguate them, by looking at other sources).

You contacted me only because I have corrected a template at top of page where you had used incorrectted parameters, and used inconsistant naming conventions, with variuous broekn links and categories.

Even if you think I was wrong, I kept all what you wrote: you had a disagreement about the fact that I had used “region” to designate a city which is not just a city but also a primary division of the country (the other types of primary divisions have another Turkmen name which is confusiong as they are not all primary divisions).

So I had correctly categorized that city BOTH as a city AND a region.

Then I started to split the confusing description table to exhibit how each of your described unit could be structured and subdivided, depedning on their parent type. I did not break your description.

Then you contacted me in emergency while I was trying to help you, and I replied to you.

Instead of replying to me you did not engage eny discussion, and contacted an offline channel secretetely. Then I was blocked by people that ignored the ongoing discussion completely, and who did not even participate to your project, and decided to block me permanently with false reason (no desire to work with community: this is exactly the opposite that I did since long: when I have doubts about confusing things in the wiki, I still don’t modify it, or I discuss them with really lot of people: I’m fully part of the comunity to which I have given serious help since years.

As I have made a lot of things on the wiki to improve its navigation since years (where wiki admins were constantly absent or ignoring the messages that were targeted to them), I had many think you, and still people asking me to help them fix their job: most of the fixes on the wiki were extremely minimal, but made the wiki usable in all languages, structured as the people initially wanted to do it, respecting all the former usages, collecting tons of pages in dead end to allow them to be found and finally maintainned again by their authors or other people discovering them more easily and immediately.

There are lot of problems on the iwki du to lack of maintenance and lack of documentation. But also because people forget to post at least links to their ongoing projects they have documetned elsewhere: it’s really hard to connect people because work is done majoritarily on OSM by autonomous communities doing what they want without taking care of what others do in the same areas or topic: so necessarily, when one touches something done by someone else, there are some levels of frictions: these are solved by documenting each other work, and finding ways to merge them or make them compatible. This is all what I did.

I was blocked unfairly by people that were not involved in your project, and that did not even know you before (you were not even presented on your wiki os OSM page). You were new to this wiki, and made the common errors that all newcomers do initially: I only wanted to help you, and I was absolutely not closed to disussions with you.

I had even taken your remark into account, by switching one city page to use “city” as the primary type, but still keeping “region” as the secondary type by inverting the two categories. I was still reverted agressively. The revert also restored the various minor quirks that were remaining. I had started the work to organize the pages by region (not everything can go to a single category for the whole country).

Beside the other edits that were also reverted agressively was the structuring of your page by logicial topic: it was only reordering sections, not deleting anything.

You criticize the format of the table I tried to do to help map the official divisions to OSM entities and groups. It was still a start to disambiguate things and make things clearer. Now you admit it is still very confusive. But I did not change what you meant.

My permanent blocking is largely excessive, and while I could have accepted a temporary block (until we find a way to discuss and organize things), now it blocks all the other projects that I have maintained and discussed with tons of people. And the maintenance of the wiki (that no wiki admin took in charge for years) is once again degrading,with people making incompatible edits, broken links, and so on.

I need to be able to discuss with people, at least alert them. Now it’s impossible. My situation is now worse than what has been done against obvious spammers, which I am not (I have also helped since long to avoid massive sabotages by abusers).

It’s strange because I only wanted to help you and support your project. But you did not really join the community the way it was working. Still you benefit (like amny others) of what I have done since years on this wiki, which I made compeltely international, and that I consistantly helped to reduce its maintenance cost and its performance. Some templetes were patiently done to do that, I documented many of them (including those left undocumented by many oither authors, and then used inconsistantly or producing unexpected results).

It’s a shaming situation. For what was only a minor problem : a lack of mutual understanding of our intents, and incorrect assumptions by you that I had would have not read or understood what you did. I have never disputed the fact that the capital city of the country was a “city”: it was clear for me from the begining and I had absolutely not changed that. But it was not just that: lot of other coutrnies have capital cities with special status at primary level: you could have looked at them as examples: the term “city” in the wiki (and in OSM) is not meant to be understood as administrative: OSM uses another classification for that based on boundary=adminsitrative plus admin_level. I had also checked the content of Wikipedia and Wikidata about that country (maintained since by a larger community than OSM, including governemental users), and checked various existing standards.

I just used the existing common practices adopted since long everywhere else on the wiki. You may criticize it, but most of these were not created by me, and theses conventions have a large number of users, so I cannot change that just to please one user working isolately in a single country, where there’s eveidently lot of work to do (and I thank you for taking some lead to start it and provide some data, but it still needs to be organized and structured along with the rest so that data gets also usable more internationally and we get a reasonnably integrated map where no details is forgotten). It’s a long task. Changes cannot be done radically and before continuing a work it’s important to structure it using the existing common conventions, even if we can also start discussing them to see how to change them (and I know it will not be easy because there will be tons of users and projects involved or concerned directly by such change).

However as an amabassador his role would be to negaciate and find contacts. I’ve experimetned the fact that he wants to work strictly alone, contacting only a few OSM admins to get their trust, without really presenting himself correctly or taking any contact or discussion with existing contributors, starting to do everything from scratch. So he should better help into providing data and negociating authorizations with local auhorities to get their data, help with some translations (from his paid crew team of translators), propose imagery sources…