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

[Rob Nickerson]

On 2 November 2013 14:25, Liz Barry <ebarry at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
Liz,

They are completely different, however I am not proposing adding "past
versions of tows" to OSM (as that is what the Open Historical Map is for).

I am suggesting that these historic maps are added as an available
background layer to the shared resource on github. The Open Historic Map
team can then also use this shared resource, and if iD editor adds these
layers to iD's background member then OSM contributors can use them to
supplement their contributions. As noted in my reply to Serge, not
everything is verifiable "on the ground", surely if the feature still
exists then if it's name is not verifiable "on the ground" then surely
"verifiable in historic sources" is the next best thing?

As for diversity: If we can work closely with Libraries, Archives and the
Open Historical Map communities then we stand to benefit (after all anyone
who can edit in Open Historical Map) can easily make the jump to OSM given
that most of the tools are the same.

Finally, having a good understanding of the background of the area you are
surveying, may help you to spot subtle things that still exist that you may
have previously missed.

Best,
Rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/diversity-talk/attachments/20131102/5c0e2269/attachment.html>