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

Mark Goodge mark at good-stuff.co.uk
Fri Aug 10 13:35:28 UTC 2018

On 10/08/2018 13:14, Colin Smale wrote:

> Who is the arbiter of relevance? I think for any given "mapper" or 
> "consumer" 99% of the contents of OSM is not relevant. People are 
> mapping the nuts and bolts of the insulators on electricity pylons.. I 
> can't see that being relevant to most people.

Can you see the nuts and bolts?

I don't think there's any real argument about whether or not we map 
things we can see. There may be disagreements about *how* we map them, 
but the basic principle that we map what is visible is, I think, pretty 
firmly established.

The basic question here is how we go about mapping things which you 
can't see - intangibles, such as administrative boundaries, postcodes, 
road numbers, etc. And that's where questions of relevance come into it.

> The basic principle of OSM is that it is free, in all possible senses. 

It's free, but it isn't unrestrained. You can't just make up entries. 
You can't put Ambridge and Hogwarts on the map (although you can, now, 
include Platform 9 3/4). You can't label a road as a river and a wood as 
a skyscraper. To be useful, we have to agree to a common set of 
principles and then stick to them.


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list