[Talk-ca] Deleting non-visible Administrative Boundaries (or "The Great Wall of China")

[Pierre Béland]

Bruno, 

Frederik tiens un discours idéologique sans savoir à quoi servent de telles informations.  Je pourrais toujours dire que je demeure sur la rue ensoleillée, dans un village nulle part. Difficile de s'y retrouver.  Les limites administratives, tout comme les noms de rues sont un élément essentiel d'une base de donnée comme OSM.  Essaie de rechercher, à partir de Nominatim, un nom de rue lorsque les limites administratives de la municipalité ne sont pas tracées.


Tout cela me semble bien plus utile que de tracer des clôtures parce que ça fait beau.

 
Pierre 



>________________________________
> De : Bruno Remy <bremy.qc.ca at gmail.com>
>À : "talk-ca at openstreetmap.org" <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org> 
>Envoyé le : Samedi 29 décembre 2012 12h49
>Objet : [Talk-ca] Deleting non-visible Administrative Boundaries (or "The Great Wall of China")
> 
>
>Hi,
>In this post of Talk-US, Frederik suggests NOT mapping administrative boundaries that are not visible on ground (fences, toll, etc...)
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2012-December/010026.html
>Don't you think that the notion of "virtual" or not is absolutly not applicable on administrative boundaries?! Since humanity  exists, administrative boundaries determines the link beetween   (population) Gouvernements and Geography. Look at our history: except The Great Wall of China, most of old and big Empires settled their boundaries without marks (fences....).
>Look at most administrative boundaries in Sahel (Mali, Mauritanie) or in the the United States (Nevada, Arizona): Long strait virtual lines into Desert Land, without fences neither natural limits (rivers...).
>And what about limits beetween USA and Canada in the Oceans and See?
>Do we delete those boundaries because they're not "visible"?
>So ... deleting (or nor drawing) administrative boundaries makes no sence in this way!
>Dont'you mind?
>A Map has to be a citizen information of administrative and geographical data (and this includes administrative boundaries) and not "2D version of what OpenStreetMap offers in 3D version"
>With political, historical and administrative point-of-view a map should not apply the principe of "What You See Is What You Get".
>If this were the case, only satelites will remain the "only single base material of GIS", and map will die! Isn't it?
>I don't think so but i wonder the absurdity of such arguments in favor of "WYSIWYG" in mapping.
>What do you think of that?
>Bruno Remy
>_______________________________________________
>Talk-ca mailing list
>Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20121229/9dd38473/attachment.html>