[diversity-talk] Anyone with an interest in history should not contribute to OSM?

[Liz Barry]

Hi Rob,
Rob, it's great to hear from you and learn about the awesome people and
resources of the National Library of Scotland, please keep us posted. It
strikes me that adding names to currently existing topographic features is
not at all the same issue as adding past versions of towns. I don't
necessarily understand how this relates to attracting a wider community,
but that's an issue I care about, so please explain more.

+1 Serge on your explanation, very helpful. Is there a good wiki link that
clearly explains the "ground-verifiable" principle? Many mention it in a
passing sentence, like these:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions

Liz


@lizbarry <http://twitter.com/lizbarry>


On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>wrote:

> Serge,
>
> Thanks for your reply. It provides great background context for other
> people who may not have been aware of this.
>
> I am however aware of all of this, and was trying to open up a dialogue
> that looked slightly deeper
>
> Yes, the maps in question are hostoric, but they may still contain usefull
> info. For example, names of topographical features that don't have signs on
> the ground. If you were able to watch RichardF's presentation at either
> sotm 2013 or sotm US 2013 then you would have heard him descibing a
> situation where he asked an elderly resident for the name of something that
> was not signposted "on the ground". I don't see anyone demanding that this
> is removed from OSM as it is not verifyable "on the ground".
>
> Moving beyond the usefullness of this particular map series we have two
> quetions:
>
> * Are we going to make a serious effort to atttact a wider community to
> OSM?
> * If yes, then what is the best way for new community groups to engage
> with our core developers (in any situation, not just this one).
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
> Ps. For names that are not verifyable "on the ground" surely verifyable
> "in historic sources" is the next best thing?
>
> On 2 Nov 2013 13:56, "Serge Wroclawski" <emacsen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Rob,
>
> That's a great question, and I since it's one that comes up often, I
> think I can provide a little context that may help explain why you're
> getting the responses that you are.
>
> OSM has certain principles about how it maps (much like Wikipedia has
> principles for article authors and editors). One of those is "ground
> verifiable". In other words, can someone else than you go to that
> place and verify what's there.[1]
>
> This comes up in a number of ways. For example, just a month or two
> ago, a mapper was creating artistic work on OSM based on his walking
> patterns, and mapped these as features. But no one else could go to
> the same field and see what he saw, so these were removed.
>
> In the same way, historical mapping is not supported in OSM because
> OSM is always a reflection of what is there on the ground now, at this
> moment.
>
> As an example, consider the earthquake in Haiti. When the earthquake
> hit, buildings collapsed, and roads were damaged or destroyed. Those
> features were not mapped, and if they were on the map, they were
> amended to reflect the damage or deleted altogether., and in their
> place were the features that existed, the tent camps and other
> temporary shelters.
>
> I live in New York City, and if OSM has existed in September of 2011,
> we would have removed all the buildings which came down because those
> buildings no longer existed.
>
>
> A question that comes up frequently is "Coudln't we roll back the map
> in time and see what was present then?" The answer is that we can roll
> back the map to see what was present in the database at a given time,
> but not what was present on the ground.
>
> That's why a historical map would not work in OSM if the features on
> that map are no longer present. It would be the same as the buildings
> in Haiti.
>
> So then what's to do?
>
> There is a project for people with your same interest:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historical_OSM
>
> I do not know how active it is, but it exists, and if you feel
> passionately, you may want to  consider working with them, since they
> have exactly the same interest as you. There are a number of technical
> hurdles to overcome, but I suspect if there are smart, dedicated
> people working on it, then you (collectively) could get very far.
>
> I hope this answer has been informative, even if it's not the answer you
> wanted.
>
> - Serge
>
> [1] This brings up the question of political boundaries, which is a
> complex topic and there is debate in the OSM community, but I will put
> it aside for now.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity-talk mailing list
> diversity-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/diversity-talk/attachments/20131102/b3d1ec6a/attachment-0001.html>