[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That they still exist as historical documents is not a viable argument.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