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

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Sun Aug 26 14:41:38 UTC 2018


I wanted to talk about the process, not the outcome.  It is obvious there is not an overwhelming consensus one way or the other, and as usual the debate just fizzles out with no conclusion. If we do nothing, the data stays in the database because nobody has the balls to delete it, but it can't be documented for fear of legitimising it. 

Is this the best we can do?



On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black <andrewdblack at googlemail.com> wrote:
>I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. They
>are
>neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant.
>They add no quality to the database.They should be removed."
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl>
>wrote:
>
>> I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We have some
>options...
>>
>> 1) remove them all
>>
>> 2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them
>>
>> 3) leave them in the database and document them, even though they are
>> controversial, to say the least
>>
>> Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things that are in OSM
>to
>> be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki
>>
>> Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
>> maybe we can go for option 3?
>>
>>
>> Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but
>then I
>> think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
>> determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts.
>>
>> On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:
>>
>> No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant
>to
>> OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never
>change" is
>> irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be
>removed.
>>
>> DaveF
>>
>> On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been
>making
>> steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to
>these
>> historic county boundaries being in OSM.
>>
>> I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.
>>
>> Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing
>listTalk-GB at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20180826/47fe1bc7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list