[OHM] Historic places versus confidence

mick bareman at tpg.com.au
Wed Mar 6 04:42:25 UTC 2013


On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 23:13:26 -0400
Rob Warren <warren at muninn-project.org> wrote:

> 
> I think we don't have choice with the dates tag or else we'll end up  
> with a monster database filled with unusable anachronisms. Without  
> going off the handle immediately, I like the idea of the API  
> validating the data with simple rules: "Must have dates set and/or  
> must have documentation".
> 
> The nice thing about multiple front-ends / application / clients is  
> that we'll be able to enforce standardized tags for things a little  
> easier by having the application do it for the user directly.
> 
> best,
> rhw
> 
One issue I have with "documentation" is the field length limits of GIS packages. Maybe the documentation field could be a URL pointing to the actual text.

I use the OSM plug-in in QGIS to convert OSM to MapInfo or, to a lesser extent, ESRI files. MapInfo has a maximum field length of 254 characters for a text field, ESRI text fields are 80 characters. MapInfo also has a limited number of fields (its less than 67, not sure how much less. You can still open the file but only for READONLY access.

I prefer to use MapInfo because:
the editing is much easier than QGIS.
versions before v8 can run in Linux under wine.
MapInfo uses a feature oriented model whereas ESRI is geometry oriented. E.G. MapInfo can contain points, lines and areas in a single layer where ESRI requires separate layers for each geometric type which I find confusing.

mick



More information about the Historic mailing list