[Imports] Proposed import removal: nuclear explosion sites

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Mon May 4 10:01:41 UTC 2015


Hi,

   here's a summary of the discussion, attempting to sort people into
yes/no/maybe and repeating the main point of their contribution to the
discussion.


1. People agreeing with a removal:

(Some of them said "but let's keep the data in OHM")

* Frederik Ramm - because event and not visible on ground (ok to map
craters)
* Richard Welty - "marginal OSM material"
* Alex Barth - because event and will never change
* Bryce Nesbitt - map what's on the ground if there is something
* Dan Stowell - data is inappropriate for OSM and also imported rather
than surveyed
* Michael Reichert - event data not appropriate, slippery slope
* Hans De Kryger - agree with removal


2. People against a removal:

* Martin Koppenhoefer - data is interesting and usually not interfering
with others; probably surveyable with right equipment; many craters
visible on aerial imagery; keep explosion data on craters; ok to remove
those where no trace visible
* Giovanni Cascafico - radiation is more important than saving bytes
* Pavel Machek - amount of data is small and out of way; keep
* Nathan Mills - against deletionist attitude in general; would prefer
better tagging over deletion at least where physical traces remain


3. Yes-and-no statements:

* Clifford Snow - better use Wikipedia link, attach it to something that
remains e.g. the island where explosion happened
* olvagor (original importer) - ok to delete explosions that left no
trace and ok to delete technical data but says that where craters
remain, they should be linked to the explosion at least by name, manual
inspection on aerial image required instead of mass deletion
* Christoph Hormann - largely agrees with olvagor, explosion sites can
help inform mapping of other objects in vicinity


I must say that of all the "keep it" arguments, the one that made me
think is: There *might* be physical features on the ground that are not
yet mapped, and perhaps not even mappable at this time because of lack
of good aerial imagery etc., and when these features are mapped one day,
knowing that there was a nuclear explosion in the vicinity will be a
helpful resource for the mapper. I.e., the explosion information would
have a status similar to a "fixme" node placed somewhere or a "hires
imagery available in this rectangle" way. Such information is common in
OSM although far from universally liked. And of course future mappers
could simply consult the available public data on blast sites if they
wonder about a crater's provenance.

There seems to be a wide consensus that at least those sites without
visible traces could be deleted. Frankly I would have preferred the
import to only import those with visible traces in the first place,
rather than having to try and identify those without visible traces now!
I'll think about how to progress from here.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



More information about the Imports mailing list