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

[stevea]

Ray Kiddy writes:
>  > 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 agree.  There are hundreds or thousands of clearly themed maps 
based upon OSM data, all and any of which are useful for that 
particular narrow slice of query that a map consumer wishes to see 
(literally, visualize).  Building hundreds, thousands or millions of 
these visualizations based upon the rich data found in OSM truly is 
what OSM is about:  the ends DO justify the means in this case!  In 
short:  why bother building a rich database or don't bother to ask it 
to provide beautiful answers?  That would be silly!  We can, and we 
do.

And Frederik Ramm replies:
>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.

On the contrary, OSM is absolutely multi-dimensional:  "bobs of extra 
information" (in the form of our super tool, free-form tagging) DO 
make it multi-dimensional.  That's the beauty of an abstract 
dimension:  it can be defined to be what you want it to be.  Often we 
start with the two dimensions of "earth's surface" then we choose a 
richly-defined theme to be the third (or include a fourth or fifth). 
This is simply abstract thinking applied, and to say that a dimension 
must be "space" (as in 2-space or 3-space or "2.5-space at best") and 
space ONLY is so very limiting.  Space is a good place to BEGIN using 
the 2 dimensions of "earth's surface," but after that, OSM is so 
wonderfully useful PRECISELY because we use it in "creative, 
productive, or unexpected ways" (just like our Main Page says). 
Those other ways might be abstractly defined as "multi-dimensional 
extensions of a geographically-defined database."  After that, as it 
is said, "the sky is the limit."

We COULD excel at public transport relations (real things, "findable 
on the ground"), we just don't quite yet.  OSM only having 
partially-implemented or not-quite-perfect public transport routes is 
not an existence proof that public transport routes don't belong in 
OSM or that they overly challenge the editing skills (or tools) of 
the project or its participants.

I reject the assertion that a public transport route is "less 
concrete" than, say, a drinking fountain.  Public transport routes 
have platforms, signs which display their timepoints, schedules, a 
beginning and end, etc.  They are a real, not abstract things, and 
OSM not only reflects this, we have done so with sane growth from 
public_transport=v1 to v2 in a way we should be proud of.  Sure, we 
have much more growth and data to enter to be an impressive and 
definitive source -- we are still a growing project.  Let us not 
dismiss this real, useful and actively growing subset of our data as 
"less concrete" or even its only faintly-hinted-at next logical 
conclusion of "these are unworthy data, so let's purge them."  This 
smacks of "changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game." 
Yes, we've done this before (e.g. old license to ODBL), but the 
process is painful, only works when we are honest and forthright that 
that's what we're doing, and most of us agree to do so.

>  > 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.

I don't want to put words in Frederik's mouth, but what I think he is 
getting at is that OSM is not a dumping ground for whatever we want 
it to be.  Yes, that is true, and a good point.  Do we need to manage 
what goes into and doesn't go into OSM?  Yes, of course.  Our core 
tenets (e.g. "on the ground verifiable") guide us well here.  But if 
we are going to change the rules mid-stream, let us say so and not 
pretend we are not.

SteveA
California