[Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database
Dave F
davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Sun Aug 26 20:17:09 UTC 2018
Disagree. We all add data which abides by certain rules & criteria. We
vet it ourselves as we're adding it. If a contributor fails to do that,
they should be expected to justify the reasons. This hasn't occurred.
That they still exist as historical documents is not a viable argument.
As Dave W. pointed out, it's the thin end of the wedge.
DaveF
On 26/08/2018 19:45, Adam Snape wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 list
>>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>>> <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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/20180826/5a79370c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Talk-GB
mailing list