[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Neighbourhood Plan Import

[Philip John]

"there is little chance of the average mapper verifying them or interacting
with them"

I've always thought that kind of thinking (not to belittle it, as it's a
valid thought process) isn't worthwhile - limiting features because we
can't imagine it being used is based on the limits of our imagination. Just
because we can't see it being used doesn't mean someone else won't, and
come up with something that'll solve a neat problem.

I would have thought, and I speak only as a passive OSM contributor & user,
that making OSM a more comprehensive database is a good thing, tying
together all those disparate boundaries into one lookup, effectively.

Phil

--
Philip John,
philipjohn.co.uk
lichfieldcommunitymedia.org
journallocal.co.uk


On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Andy Robinson <ajrlists at gmail.com> wrote:

> Copied also to talk-gb.
> The problem is where do we stop? The majority of present/potential boundary
> data doesn't have a physical presence on the ground. Consider ONS Lower,
> middle and other output area boundaries or the NAPTAN charging areas that
> were added with the NAPTAN import. Arguably they are useful in the same way
> as ward boundaries are but should they be in OSM? Because the number of
> nonphysical boundaries or areas is potentially limitless I'm in favour of
> keeping them out of OSM because there is little chance of the average
> mapper
> verifying them or interacting with them (in relation to other objects).
> Perhaps it's time to have nonphysical boundaries pulled from some other
> database?
>
> Cheers
> Andy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Harley [mailto:jon at spiffymap.net]
> > Sent: 23 April 2013 09:29
> > To: talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Neighbourhood Plan Import
> >
> > On 22/04/13 09:27, Brian Prangle wrote:
> > > Hi everyone
> > >
> > > Do we have a collective opinion about this proposed import circulated
> > > by stephen.peters1 at sky.com <mailto:stephen.peters1 at sky.com> on the
> > > talk gb list?
> > >
> > > Personally I wouldn't want it as I believe we decided not to include
> > > ward boundaries as the present cartographic style clutters up and
> > > already busy urban map.
> > >
> >
> > The data sounds potentially useful, to me. Decisions about imports should
> be
> > based on usefulness of the data, not on the "present cartographic style".
> It's
> > up to the designer of a particular map style how cluttered or not they
> want to
> > make it.
> >
> > J.
> >
> > --
> > Dr Jonathan Harley   :    Managing Director    :   SpiffyMap Ltd
> >
> > md at spiffymap.com      Phone: 0845 313 8457     www.spiffymap.com
> > The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> > Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6265 - Release Date: 04/22/13
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-westmidlands/attachments/20130423/8d825d36/attachment.html>