[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Neighbourhood Plan Import

Tue Apr 23 12:00:21 UTC 2013

I hope you don't mind me chiming in on this thread, I'm not very active 
on these lists but I do read everyone's posts, but I actively map on OSM 
both in this country and with HOT.

I've worked in IT most of my working life and spent 5 years contracted 
to a tri-service (Army, RN & RAF) organisation of the British Military, 
working on a GIS system that imported data from many disparate 
sources/organisations and then made it available using web technologies 
to all areas of the armed forces and goverment agencies, both 
centralised installations and deployed units.  The mantra there was firm 
and unequivical, all data/intelligence is put in the database, no matter 
how insignificant, as long as its source is verifiable and authoratative 
and meta-data can be applied to it so it is searchable and adequately 
described then it is up to the user to choose to display the data and 
use it or not.  Those sourcing and presenting data should have no input 
to validating the data or applying any value to it.

Hope that helps.

Jonathan
(OSM ID: bigfatfrog67)
On 23/04/2013 12:32, Philip John wrote:
> "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 <http://philipjohn.co.uk>
> lichfieldcommunitymedia.org <http://lichfieldcommunitymedia.org>
> journallocal.co.uk <http://journallocal.co.uk>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Andy Robinson <ajrlists at gmail.com 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:jon at spiffymap.net>]
>     > Sent: 23 April 2013 09:29
>     > To: talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org
>     <mailto: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>
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:md at spiffymap.com>    Phone: 0845 313
>     8457 <tel:0845%20313%208457> www.spiffymap.com
>     <http://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
>     <mailto: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 <http://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
>     <mailto:Talk-gb-westmidlands at openstreetmap.org>
>     http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130423/2022083b/attachment.html>