[OHM] Should we map former endonyms?

[Lester Caine]

Christian Quest wrote:
> 2014-03-20 9:48 GMT+01:00 Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk
> <mailto:lester at lsces.co.uk>>:
>
>     Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>             Do the notability guidelines of Wikimedia allow storing only
>             important places?
>
>
>         because the consequence of using wikidata will be to have wikidata
>         objects not only for places but also for minor streets and squares as
>         soon as they change name (most of these will not have Wikipedia articles)
>
>
>     I'd go a step beyond that and say that while targeting historic data
>     wikidata object identities are probably as useless as OSM objects.
>
>     None of these identities provide for a time element to a search?
>
>     What needs to be created is an extension to something like Nominatim or
>     GeoNames but with a time related axis.
>
>     An simple example of information that has been well mapped in the last 10
>     years is 'Ashchurch Parish Council'. This existed in it's previous format
>     until 1st April 2008 when it was broken up and while an area of housing
>     moved from Ashchurch to an adjoining Parish, the remaining area is now two
>     Parishes - Ashchurch Rural and Northway.
>
>     Currently buried in OSM data is the original area, with it's relation to the
>     earlier name hierarchy, but there is no simple mechanism to extract this
>     data. Personally I would still like to see a proper use of start and end
>     dates directly in the OSM data and simply remove the 'concept' of delete for
>     data that HAS simply evolved, but in the absence of that, the very minimum
>     OHM needs to provide is access to that historic data and the ability to
>     improve on it where OSM simply blocks.
>
>     'former endonyms' are simply a facet of history which OSM processes simply
>     deletes. Only where those endonyms have an actual relevance today do they
>     fit in some peoples guide lines for current OSM data? That they need to be
>     mapped is a given, just where is the data stored?
>
>
>
> In january I posted on the historic mailing list about a new open project I'd
> like to launch, but got no feedback.
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/historic/2014-January/000369.html
>
> It is not an extension to OSM, but really a new project that could store
> "what/when/where" data (OSM is about what/where), making it some kind of
> time-space database.
> Historic data could be stored and query, as well as (near) real-time events,
> schedules, forecasts.
>
> Project name (so far): OpenEventDatabase

This is an additional development that would fit in with the OHM idea. My own 
argument is that data that is currently being gathered is not being well managed 
when it's use is superseded as in the case of boundary or name changes. I see 
your extension as perhaps a means of 'mapping' event history such as the 
progress of a battle or a more modern example, the progress of a development 
project such as the building of a bridge. Something where the final result 
remains visble in OSM, but the hsitory of how it evolved gets lost? Material 
that is not already in OSM 'history' come into that extension? There is already 
much 'history' in OSM that simply can't be accessed easily and that volume is 
growing daily :(

-- 
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