In general the OSM community errs on the side of vetoing new initiatives -- doing an import properly means raising it on the mailing lists, which invariably attracts vastly more criticism than assistance. Even coordinated (non-automated) remote mapping attracts considerable criticism these days -- most ludicrously, by people suggesting that it&#x27;s better to leave an area unmapped so that it might one day attract local mappers (rather than remote contributors who will work on it immediately).<p>There&#x27;s also the question of the license. Without opening a can of worms about the usefulness of sharealike provisions in general, I think it&#x27;s safe to say that making a geocoding result trigger sharealike implications in a database is clearly problematic (consider geocoding a database of customer addresses, then being obliged to share the rest of the table!). Unfortunately OSM hasn&#x27;t yet reached agreement on a geocoding guidance. Consequently a couple dozen of us working on OpenAddresses have gotten the project to over 200 million addresses in less than 2 years. OSM is now a decade old, has millions of registered mappers, and contains less than 60 million addresses.<p>I don&#x27;t mean to be all doom and gloom, though. I would love to improve OSM as a home for address data. And I urge those of you who care about this incredibly important resource to join me -- hop on the talk and legal-talk lists and help make the case for a geocoding guidance that makes sense.