[OSM-talk-be] ardenne - way 890280505

[Wouter Hamelinck]

I'll take the opposite view and say that the Ardennes have their place in
OSM. The exist on the ground, cover a more or less well defined area which
is visible on the ground (elevation, forest cover, geology...). The
existance of the tag natural=mountain_range shows that this kind of
geographical features have their place in OSM. That their is no clear
administrative border is not an argument. For most of the natural features
that is the case and often one might argue a bit where best to put the
border.
For me the polygon has its place in OSM.

I do agree that natural=mountain_range is not correct because the Ardennes
are not a mountain range, but a plateau.
The polygon as it is at the moment is also too large, covering also the
Calestienne and extending in what is Fagne-Famenne (for instance
Marche-en-Famenne is obviously in Famenne and not in the Ardennes), but
that has nothing to do with the question whether or not the polygon should
be in OSM.

Wouter

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021, 15:37 Pierre Parmentier, <pierrecparmentier at gmail.com>
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#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://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cha%C3%AEne_de_montagnes)
>    - (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). 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/d8e1dec6/attachment.htm>