[Talk-GB] OSM should not be a database dump.

[Dave F]

On 10/02/2023 14:53, Cj Malone wrote:
>
> To play devils advocate, who cares about GB?

My devil has insisted yours be informed that no one really gives a ... 
about the rest of the world. All data consumers can take the database as 
is. Why should it be up to OSM data contributors to authenticate the 
data purely because consumers can't be bothered to write a few lines of 
code to filter the data.

'OSM should not be a database dump' is applicable world wide.

>   Asking data consumers to implement external APIs all over the world isn't viable

Yes it is.

>   and it seeds power to other projects like Overture.

1. What's 'Overture'?
2. I was unaware OSM desired 'power' (Apart from a couple of members of 
OSMF, possibly)

> We've added fhrs:id for how long? I don't know of a single OSM project
> to pull that data in [1].

1. So what?
2. Consumers don't 'pull it in', they refer back to it, in a separate 
database where it remains more accurately updated.

> Imagine if we only added it and not addresses, how much worse would OSM data be here?

I thought I'd clearly made the point in my original post i was only 
referring to "school specific data". Evidently not.

DaveF