[Talk-us] Admin borders in the US

[Jason Remillard]

Hello,

The inconsistency is caused by those that insist on defining the
project in terms of things that can be verified on the ground. My
definition of the project has no inconsistency.

A free map of the entire world.

Thanks
Jason





On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com> wrote:
> The answer to your "Where is the line" is actually quite a simple question...
>
> We have a logical inconsistency right now. We tell people that OSM
> contains a map of verifiable things. In fact, we remove things which
> are not observable!
>
> But political(administrative) boundaries are an exception to that.
>
> The explanation is always "Because a map is expected to have these
> boundaries", which is true, but it remains a logical inconsistency.
>
> For years there's been this "standoff" between consistency and
> practicality. The proposed solution would be to have another instance
> of the OSM database (just like we have the dev database) which uses
> the same API and same credentials.
>
> So what would go in there? Political boundaries.
>
> As for "splitting the project"- I think it does a little, but in a
> very well defined way. Only administrative boundaries would go in the
> administrative boundary map.
>
> You're right that it does change the nature of the project in a way,
> moving us from one to multiple (2) databases, and it may even be true
> that if we did this, people would want new databases.
>
> There are issues with any solution, but I do see a lot of consistency
> in this one.
>
> - Serge
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us