[Talk-GB] OS Boundaries
davefox at madasafish.com
Sun Apr 25 14:34:17 BST 2010
Lester Caine wrote:
> Dave F. wrote:
>> Lester Caine wrote:
>>> But well mapped rivers don't have ways down their middle
>> Care to expand on that please?
> MOST rivers are now being mapped fully and so are areas rather than a line with
> some arbitrary width. So there is no 'way' corresponding to some arbitrary mid
> point to the river ...
I contest your assertation that 'most' is accurate, but that's another
There should be a way to indicate both the direction of flow, bit also
the route, where applicable, for boat routes. To show that it goes
through a lock rather than a weir for example.
& also for boundaries, of course.
>>> Even more important, we need a way to maintain historic information
>>> such as '1995 boundary' where later boundaries are different.
>> Why do we need to do that?
>> I delete out of date data.
>> Please explain why you think we should keep it?
> Just because YOU are not using the data does not entitle you to delete it!
And because you might want to use it doesn't mean it should be kept in
the database of a *current* map.
I wasn't suggesting that because I do something a certain way it was
correct, just that I do it.
However, is this being done by others? I've yet to come across it in use.
Do you have a link to a wiki page?
> The whole reason *I* am interested in OSM is as a base for documenting my
> genealogical data. Being able to check a location at some point in time is
> important and while many of the attempts to get time data properly tagged have
> not been accepted, simple information like 'constructed=1980' would at least
> allow maps to be rendered to provide a view in a particular year. ONCE that is
> possible, then the related boundary information is also important.
>> If a footpath gets moved do you think I should still show a way & mark
>> it as 'this is where it used to go'?
> 'closed=2007' makes perfect sense to me. People then coming back to an area that
> they walked 30 years ago would then see why they can't follow the same route today?
How far back do you suggest going? AFAIS, we are up to our necks in
current data let alone trawling through OoD data.
I live in a old Roman city, if I had the patience & time to go back that
far, the database would be unreadable & unusable with so much info
layered on top of each other.
> Just like 'micromapping', historic information may not be of interest to
> everybody, but moving forward, why would you NOT want to maintain data that has
> already been mapped. We just need agreement on how it is maintained - since the
> 'history' of object edits is simply no substitute for mapping historic data.
More information about the Talk-GB