[Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Lester Caine lester at lsces.co.uk
Wed Aug 8 11:05:07 UTC 2018


On 08/08/18 10:56, Dave F wrote:
> 
> On 08/08/2018 09:54, Lester Caine wrote:
>> we are now in a situation where much accurately mapped material is 
>> simply dumped when there is a change to the current situation.
> 1. it's not dumped, it's still in the database as a historic version.
> 2. Changes almost always increase the accuracy & detail of the database.

Going back through the change logs is not the easiest process? Isolating 
deletions that are due to historic changes rather than simple factual 
corrections also muddies the water. But making the link to OHM more 
organised would allow current valid data to be archived properly?

>> The 'delete' process should be handled in a manor more sensitive to 
>> the hard work that has gone before!
>>
>> the vast majority of the material making up the historic data such as 
>> boundaries IS the same as the current 'live' data.
> 
> I'm unsure that's true, but if it were, why duplicate?

That was always my argument AGAINST OHM ... since much of the data 
making up boundaries has not changed, having to duplicate that 
information over to OHM, and then decide where material is current or 
historic means that IDEALLY OHM is a complete copy of the OSM database, 
but with the historic material easier to find than via change sets ... 
why not just manage a single database? People who don't want access to 
historic material simply ignore data which has 'expired' via end_date.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk



More information about the Talk-GB mailing list