<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/9/13 10:10 AM, Rob Nickerson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK4yQTmqKPOTAou03ECiRS9fH+TQhJKpvRS00CLC2P-A_exdVg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><br>
There are also a lot of good reasons to not do this (as set
out in my email to talk-gb). I would argue that there are
many more good reasons not to do this, than there are
reasons to do this. Just because we have a UI issue, does
not mean we should make it harder for people to view these
layers. And who decides whether it is "historic" of "no
value" to current mapping?<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
i think that actually there's a fair argument to be made that in a
growing<br>
OSM just adding more stuff to the list of imagery is a bad plan,
unless<br>
the editor guis are revised to handle it in a sensible manner (say,
with<br>
sub menus or pull rights or something.) <br>
<br>
but this is a wiki style project, which means that there's a herding
cats<br>
problem. i don't doubt that in the long run something will get
worked out.<br>
in fact, sub menus and pull rights are something that breaking out
the<br>
imagery facilitates, so that's likely the path we'll end up on. but
when<br>
you have many independent agents, all doing what they perceive to<br>
be best for the project, you will occasionally get these
coordination<br>
issues.<br>
<br>
you need to recognize that this is probably a transitional phase,
and<br>
not the ultimate resolution.<br>
<br>
richard<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>