[talk-au] Aboriginal languages

[Ian Sergeant]

Suburbs boundaries are set by an authority.  They are verifiable - even if
not by ground truth.  They are accurately measurable and surveyable.  This
is the nature of the land system that we have worked within for centuries,
and which OSM reflects.  So they fit right in.

It's possible that Aboriginal lands are not so precisely defined.  There
may not be definite authority.

Rather than being "criminal" to not include them.  It just might mean it's
not the best database structure to model this data.  It even might be
presumptuous of us to assume that this model of mapping is even appropriate
to map this data.

Of course, if there is a usable, measurable form of this data, then sure,
lets do it.  I'm simply saying that there are many items that don't
naturally fall within OSM data for a number of reasons.

Ian.


On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 10:42, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 08:21, Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't see that mapping Nations is an option, I see it as almost
>>> criminal that we don't already.
>>>
>>
>> Surely the essential question to be asked here, is whether these
>> boundaries fit into the OSM model, which is largely inspired by the
>> ordinance survey, where every boundary can be placed as a surveyable marker.
>>
>> So, while they deserve attention and focus, if they can't be verified and
>> measured, then perhaps OSM isn't the right tool.
>>
>
> Suburb boundaries usually don't have anything physical on the ground to
> survey, but we still include them where they actually exist and are a
> concept that is recognised by people.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20200602/91510b9c/attachment.htm>