[Talk-GB] OS Boundaries
John Robert Peterson
jrp.crs at gmail.com
Sun Apr 25 10:32:12 BST 2010
Couldn't agree more. Serial deletionism is a concept that I just don't
understand, I'm sure it's well intentioned, but I can't see where it's
On to technical details:
There is however a dificulty in distinguishing between when somone
moves somthing because it was previusly mapped at low resolution, and
when it's moved because it actually moved. I often find this problem
To get going at least, all we need is support in renders for a closed
tag, then the higher lever issue of educating people to use it (or at
least not abuse it)
then there are probelms like:
On 25 April 2010 07:57, Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave F. wrote:
>> Lester Caine wrote:
>>> But well mapped rivers don't have ways down their middle
>> Care to expand on that please?
> MOST rivers are now being mapped fully and so are areas rather than a line with
> some arbitrary width. So there is no 'way' corresponding to some arbitrary mid
> point to the river ...
>>> Even more important, we need a way to maintain historic information
>>> such as '1995 boundary' where later boundaries are different.
>> Why do we need to do that?
>> I delete out of date data.
>> Please explain why you think we should keep it?
> Just because YOU are not using the data does not entitle you to delete it!
> The whole reason *I* am interested in OSM is as a base for documenting my
> genealogical data. Being able to check a location at some point in time is
> important and while many of the attempts to get time data properly tagged have
> not been accepted, simple information like 'constructed=1980' would at least
> allow maps to be rendered to provide a view in a particular year. ONCE that is
> possible, then the related boundary information is also important.
>> If a footpath gets moved do you think I should still show a way & mark
>> it as 'this is where it used to go'?
> 'closed=2007' makes perfect sense to me. People then coming back to an area that
> they walked 30 years ago would then see why they can't follow the same route today?
> Just like 'micromapping', historic information may not be of interest to
> everybody, but moving forward, why would you NOT want to maintain data that has
> already been mapped. We just need agreement on how it is maintained - since the
> 'history' of object edits is simply no substitute for mapping historic data.
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
> Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Talk-GB