[Tagging] Potential proposal for more detail in old_ref=*?

Richard Welty rwelty at averillpark.net
Mon Feb 27 21:26:21 UTC 2017

just to insure that the correct facts are out there:

OHM was in a position where a new hosting arrangement needed to be worked
out, when a major server crash occurred. so we were literally twisting
in the wind
until those issues were resolved. there is no real external support for
the project
so we couldn't just go out and rent a server or VM somewhere.

the previous backup arrangements were inadequate, and files were truncated.
so i think 6-9 months worth of data (maybe 12 months) was lost. i'm in the
process of assessing what work i need to personally redo, but it doesn't
all that bad. i am working with Rob Warren on setting up a stronger backup
plan - but even if we'd had a stronger backup plan, the need to rehost OHM
would still have been an issue.

there are some advantages to a separate OHM.

a large part of the community thinks OSM should only be about current
data. if we started seriously doing the things we want to do in OSM, it
be pretty controversial with a potential risk of an edit war.

OHM can be a playpen for experimentation. i wish to work on a schema for
relations so that i can describe the movements of troop units in campaigns
and battles. again, if i started doing this in OSM, i imagine that the
would be extensive, and given the other goals of OSM, it's not really a good
place to play.

there is a need for need for tagging extensions for historical mapping.
this is
a tricky one. historical mapping needs some temporal language for which
current OSM tagging is completely inadequate. and given how the tagging
discussion goes some times, i think the tagging list is the completely wrong
place for such discussions - but if we are trying to keep historic data
in OSM,
this is where we would have to have it.

so from my point of view, keeping the historic data in its own place is
part of
trying to keep OSM peace. did we have some problems? yes. are they
yes. i think some lessons have been learned, but our takeaway is very
from yours.

On 2/27/17 4:03 PM, yo paseopor wrote:
> Humanity is so curious. We make a mistake, we "receive" the
> consequences and we don't learn anything, and promote the same mistake.
> OHM was a good project...but had a bad choice: data outside OSM. Then
> the project had slept...and the information is , nowadays...lost?
> Well, the project woke up...but now...where is the "old" information
> of the same project?
> Compare it with http://histosm.org . Why this map is more complete
> than the other? Because all the info is IN OSM.
> Ok , it would be one situation, is not the normality...
> Think about http://parking.openstreetmap.de ...oh, isn't working? Oh,
> Did we lose the information? Well, you can use
> http://bit.ly/parkingosm because the data was inside OSM so you can
> make another render to show the information.
> So I think the right place for information is OSM's database. Then who
> wants can use data to make a render of that data.
> History is real and specific in a lot of things. So these things that
> one day existed or had that property should be in OSM. How...I don't
> know the best way, but it is important to make the information
> accesible to everyone, and in a easy way without the risk of losing
> information.
> Salut i història (Health and History)
> yopaseopor
> PD: I support this proposal or similars
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

rwelty at averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170227/9c19145d/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the Tagging mailing list