[OSM-talk-be] ardenne - way 890280505

[Karel ADAMS]

Je tends à être d'accord. Le principe de base est que nous "mappons" 
tout ce qui est visible sur place. Ores j'ai survolé l'Ardenne multiple 
fois (et avec grand plaisir!) sans pourtant jamais voir aucune frontière 
Ardennaise :)

Karel

On 7/8/21 1:34 PM, Pierre Parmentier wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was recently intrigued by this way 
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/890280505#map=8/50.022/6.059> whose 
> name is /Ardenne/Ardennes/Ardennen/. I think that this type of data 
> has no place in OpenStreetMap today.
>
> Why not? First some references ...
>
>   * (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardenne
>     <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardenne>)
>   * (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardenne#Communes
>     <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardenne#Communes>) Including a list
>     of communes located in Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and
>     France].
>   * (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dmountain_range
>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dmountain_range>)
>   * (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cha%C3%AEne_de_montagnes
>     <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cha%C3%AEne_de_montagnes>)
>   * (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountain_ranges#Europe
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountain_ranges#Europe>) It
>     does not appear that the Ardennes is considered a mountain range.
>   * In /Denis, Jacques. Geography of Belgium. Brussels: Crédit
>     communal de Belgique, 1992/ there is a map (p. 137) that shows the
>     major morphological units of Belgium. The Northern Ardennes, the
>     Central Ardennes and the Southern Ardennes are among 19 other units.
>
> It is clear from all this that the Ardenne is a geological concept. 
> The data does not belong to OpenStreetMap at this stage. Tags relating 
> to geology are few in number and generally very precisely located. 
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:geological 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:geological>). This is not the 
> case with the way 890280505.
>
> OK, there are several types of boundaries in OSM. But these are - 
> generally - official and public data which are not contestable. The 
> boundaries of the Ardennes are too imprecise and hardly verifiable in 
> the field by an ordinary contributor. Who will arbitrate on possible 
> boundary changes?
>
> The route created by Florimondable may be well-intentioned. But it 
> seems to me to be unmanageable in OSM.
>
> But that's just my point of view.
>
> I contacted both the first (Florimondable) and the last (Stereo) 
> publisher.
>
> I asked Florimondable the reason of this way. He answered 'J/’ai 
> ajouté le massif montagneux des Ardennes parce qu’il… existe. Pour sa 
> géométrie je ne suis pas du tout un spécialiste de ce massif, j’ai 
> donc fait au mieux de mes connaissances./' [I added the Ardennes 
> mountain range because it... exists. For its geometry I am not at all 
> a specialist of this massif, so I did the best of my knowledge].
>
> For Stereo '/Si Florimondable n’a pas vraiment l’utilité du polygone, 
> pas d’objection à ce qu’il disparaisse. Je ne connais malheureusement 
> pas de rendu qui utilise ce genre de trucs.' /[If Florimondable 
> doesn't really have a use for the polygon, no objection to it 
> disappearing. Unfortunately I don't know of any rendering that uses 
> this kind of stuff.].
>
> What do you think of this? Should we keep these types of data in OSM? 
> The French and the German mappers should be involved.
>
> Pierre aka foxandpotatoes
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20210708/17a4a85c/attachment.htm>