[Talk-GB] OS Boundaries

[Dave F.]

Lester Caine wrote:
> Dave F. wrote:
>   
>> Lester Caine wrote:
>>     
>>> But well mapped rivers don't have ways down their middle
>>>       
>> Really?
>> 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 ...
>
>   

I contest your assertation that 'most' is accurate, but that's another 
point.

But...
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank

There should be a way to indicate both the direction of flow, bit also 
the route, where applicable, for boat routes. To show that it goes 
through a lock rather than a weir for example.

& also for boundaries, of course.

>>> 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 I delete out of date data.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!
>   
And because you might want to use it doesn't mean it should be kept in 
the database of a *current* map.

I wasn't suggesting that because I do something a certain way it was 
correct, just that I do it.

However, is this being done by others? I've yet to come across it in use.
Do you have a link to a wiki page?

> 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?
>   

How far back do you suggest going? AFAIS, we are up to our necks in 
current data let alone trawling through OoD data.
I live in a old Roman city, if I had the patience & time to go back that 
far, the database would be unreadable & unusable with so much info 
layered on top of each other.

> 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.