[OSM-talk] OpenPlantMap

[Michael Collinson]

At 10:22 AM 5/17/2008, Steve Hill wrote:
>Peter Miller wrote:
>
> > I agree. I think we need to adopt a Wikipedia concept of 'notability'. For
> > example... A wood is notable, a large established solitary tree in a park
> > might be notable, but a nettle is not. Is a rare plant notable? I would
> > suggest it is not notable in OSM itself.
>
>I'm afraid I see the notability criteria as one of Wikipedia's biggest
>problems so I would hate to see OSM go the same way.  I've seen too many
>genuinely useful articles get blown away because someone decided they
>covered non-notable subjects, to the point that I gave up editing Wikipedia.
>
>The point is: why should anyone care about notability so long as the
>data is useful, accurate and maintained?

+1 to Steve's Wiki comment and point.  Unlike Wiki, we have the 
advantage that it is the renderer that controls what folks finally 
see - and at what zoom level - , not the database.

I feel certain, though, that we will *eventually* have a core OSM 
database and then things like a multiple and/or read-only coastlines 
database plus optional specialist databases for history, 
plants,  geology, geomorphology, school projects, art projects ... 
.  But we need to be really sure we have got our basic structures how 
we  want them before adding another layer of complexity for our 
hard-working sys admins and software writers.

I suggest Masterly Inactivity be the current strategy. Meanwhile, let 
folks add what they want.

Mike