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

[Ray Kiddy]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:19:20 +0200
Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> 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).

I am seeing the truth in what you are saying now.

First, I am still somewhat new to the OSM game. But also I am
interested in the use of it for borders for, for example, school
districts in the US. And I am seeing that (in line with Richard's
suggestion, different e-mail), I may want to investigate doing that in
a separate database connected to OSM. And I created just such a
database several weeks ago, so yes, that makes sense. I am currently
writing software which keeps track of the relations and which
periodically checks their integrity.

> > 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.

I meant "dimension" in terms of themes. So a map (2 d) with a layer for
average family income, a layer for electricity usage and a layer for
foliage coverage is a 5-dimensional map. Like that.

> > 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
> 

"Lovey-dovey" :-) I like that. I usually have been accused of not
being, shall we say, "lovey-dovey". Perhaps I am just trying to be
politic and have sung the pendulum too far.

The points I am seeing from you all make sense, so I stand corrected.

thanx - ray