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

Adam Snape adam.c.snape at gmail.com
Sun Aug 26 18:45:14 UTC 2018


Hi,

I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to
demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those
seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear
consensus in favour of deletion.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 16:38 Andrew Black, <andrewdblack at googlemail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180826/3a684abf/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list