[Imports] Proposed import removal: nuclear explosion sites
nakaner at gmx.net
Fri Apr 17 07:45:29 UTC 2015
I agree with you.
Am 2015-04-15 um 23:18 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> On 04/15/2015 04:09 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> It does not cause any problems to keep this data, and it is
>> very small data set. Just keep it.
> 1. If it were true that the data does not cause problems, that would
> still not be a sufficient reason to keep it in OSM.
> 2. I believe that it *does* cause problems because it indicates to
> others that OSM is a suitable place for such data (which OSM is not).
> There is a very real danger of people wanting to map past natural
> disasters or even past cultural events, "because we also map nuclear
> explosion sites".
> These sites are a bad example and if the import had been properly
> discussed along the rules we have today, it would certainly have been
> shot down.
<irony>If we have data about nuclear explosion sites in the past, why
don't we map car and train accidents, too? One node per accident (large
accidents may use an area). Lots of accidents at one place indicate a
dangerous location, i.e. if an railway crossing or road crossing has
lots of accident nodes, routing software may advice their users to avoid
this railway/road crossing.</irony>
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Imports