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

Andrew Black andrewdblack at googlemail.com
Sun Aug 26 15:37:38 UTC 2018


Before we can decide whether to delete or document it we need to decide
whether it is wanted.
Might a Loomio vote be a way forwards.



On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 15:42, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180826/16b6f623/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list