[OSM-talk] immutable=yes Fwd: DEC Lands

[Andy Allan]

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Russ Nelson <russ at cloudmade.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2009, at 7:43 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
>> . However, I reject the idea that there is any data that belongs in
>> OSM that "makes no sense to edit". If you can't edit it, then by
>> definition it shouldn't be in a wiki-style map.
>
> No one has been able to refute my claim that if someone would enter it
> by hand, it belongs in OSM regardless of its source.  And if it comes
> from surveyed data, then it makes no sense to edit its position.
> Metadata, perhaps.  But unless you've been out in the field with a
> theolodite, you have no business changing the location of the NYS DEC
> Lands position.

So my point of view is that there's no place for data in OSM that
can't be collected and/or maintained by the community. Data imports of
things that we can otherwise collect are useful bootstraps. But if we
don't have the ability to verify/improve/dispute/resolve problems
about it, whether through technical means or issues of
authoritiveness, then there's not much point in it being there.

So I think there's absolutely no point in this boundary data being put
into OSM, since you have described how it's logically impossible for
us to either maintain it or collect it or dispute it. It's not that
it's technically impossible. We have trained surveyors amongst the
community, and I'm sure we could rustle up a theodolite if needs be.
But if we collect evidence of boundaries that disagree with the
dataset, and therefore by definition it's our evidence that's
incorrect, then we've lost already.

OSM isn't a dumping ground for unmaintainable datasets, they can be
kept elsewhere and combined at another point in the toolchain.

Cheers,
Andy