[OHM] Is OpenHistoricalMap officially part of OSM Foundation?

[Lester Caine]

Rob Nickerson wrote:
> p.s. I'm not a contributor to OHM, but to my eyes it seems that the most
> sensible thing to do would be to make OHM part of OSM (by handing the rights
> over to OSM Foundation). Obviously the maintainers are going to be the same
> people as now, and the OSMF are hardly going to tear things apart, but at least
> you will have the "official" status and the backing of the board. You would get
> increased publicity, and we would avoid situations like the current one. I'll
> leave it at that as I'm aware that I can be insulting the way you guys have
> decided to run your project.

SInce essentailly the bulk of the historic material I am looking to add myself 
is simply a 'start date' for material that is already present ON OSM, I see no 
reason for maintaing that as a separate database. Later adding the roads that 
have disapeared under new development is still the grey area here, and moving 
forward, existing already present roads nd other objects may well now disapear 
in the future, but the surounding infrastructure remains the same. So at what 
point does a current item get moved to the historic database when it's fine 
detail is still maintained in the change log of the main database. OHM is two 
separate things ... an overlay for material that does not have a physical 
presence such as 'war movements', but more practical simply a view of how the 
main OSM map evolved over time rather than by it's 'mapped' dates. Any historic 
background material allows the fine nuances of objects coming into existance 
being tagged as such ... ON OSM!

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk