[Talk-us] Legislative districts, Land-use zoning, etc.

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 10/21/2015 04:46 AM, Ray Kiddy wrote:
> To me, OSM is a tool which is ideal for relating various information
> layers across a multi-dimensional substrate. This substrate is a
> two-dimensional geography, which is defined geographically. To me, it
> seems perfect for things like borders.

OSM is first and foremost a community of people curating a data set.
This process works best with data that is verifiable on the ground,
because if two community members disagree over something, the dispute
can be resolved by simply looking at the place. Also, the mapper
(surveyor) is the ultimate authority in OSM; we map what *is*, not what
some government says should be.

We do have a few items that go against these principles, most notably
borders. They are not easily verifiable, and they are items where the
authority lies elsewhere - where OSM can only ever be a copy of some
master data being defined by a government, instead of being the
authoritative source. OSM is certainly not "perfect" for collecting and
curating such information; this is a fact and not a matter of personal
opinion. Having these borders in OSM is already a compromise where the
usefulness (high) has been weighed against the suitability of OSM as a
medium (low).

> It is very true that, as you say, OSM "excels at holding information
> that users can see, verify and update." I think it is also true that
> OSM excels at relating abstract themes in a multi-dimensional space.

I can't process the use of "multi-dimensional" in this context. OSM is
not multi-dimensional, it is 2.5-dimensional at best, and affixing bits
and bobs of extra information to some objects doesn't make it
multi-dimensional. OSM certainly does not excel at relating abstract
themes - the contrary is true, OSM is about concrete stuff. As soon as
we veer into the less concrete - for example, public transport relations
instead of steel tracks on the ground - we hit the limits of our editing
tools, and of most people working with OSM too. Yes we do that (public
transport relations) but we certainly don't "excel" at it.

> And OSM is many, many others things as well. Many others would define
> it differently and all of those would also be valid and useful.

> All of our viewpoints are valuable, and it is more clear that this is
> true when we describe our viewpoints as viewpoints, not as norms.

I think this lovey-dovey relativism doesn't go anywhere. To me, it
smacks of "well, the scientific method is one way to look at physics but
of course there are many others that are equally valid and useful". OSM
is certainly not whatever anyone sees in it, and certainly not all these
views are equally valid and useful.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"