[Talk-us] Civil War sites

Steven Johnson sejohnson8 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 28 16:14:13 BST 2011


I, too, have been thinking that a core+layers approach would be useful in a
number of contexts, primarily conflation between different
databases/datasets. But the same qualities that make it useful for
historical (i.e. Civil War battlefield mapping) might also be useful for
mapping of ephemeral events such as Burning Man (
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.76684&lon=-119.22824&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF
)

-- SEJ

t: @geomantic        s: sejohnson8

"A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely
of jokes." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein



On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:36, <john at jfeldredge.com> wrote:

> I like this core+layers idea.  It would make it easier to render a series
> of overlays, for cases where one wanted to show changes over time.
>
> -------Original Email-------
> Subject :Re: [Talk-us] Civil War sites
> From  :mailto:rwelty at averillpark.net
> Date  :Mon Mar 28 09:29:59 America/Chicago 2011
>
>
> On 3/28/11 10:21 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Richard Welty<rwelty at averillpark.net>
>  wrote:
> >> i'm debating whether or not i want to set up a parallel database, using
> >> the OSM design, to contain historical data that can be used in a mashup
> >> with OSM, and opening it up for historically minded mappers to use as
> >> a laboratory for experiments in how one would tag this stuff.
> > Actually, what might be really interesting is having a wikispaces type
> > hosting environment where anyone could set up a separate OSM instance
> > with a separate database, rails port, mapnik rendering with a custom
> > stylesheet etc.
> >
> i was thinking this could also be a model for how to do things like
> a separate boundary database, etc. i've long thought that some of the
> issues we argue about would be made much simpler if we had a
> core + layers model.
> > This would be interesting to map historic data that's not appropriate
> > for the main OSM database (for example, one OSM-space per
> > battlefield), or to experiment with nonstandard tagging, or to create
> > maps with non-OSM compatible licenses (although I would discourage the
> > latter).
> >
> we should try one or two of these to get a better sense of what a
> common solution ought to look like.
>
> richard
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not
> to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20110328/211d584d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list