[OSM-talk] Bing coverage relations, in particular 1298962

[Bráulio]

Also, one could just remove type=boundary (since it isn't really a
boundary) and name=something from the relation/ways so they don't show up
on any renderer. You could put a description=* tag instead or some
nonstandard one.

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 03:58, Stephan Knauss <osm at stephans-server.de>wrote:

> On 27.04.2012 03:28, SomeoneElse wrote:
>
>> The "Hires coverage of Bing imagery in the Near East" label is from the
>> name on this relation:
>> Regardless of the "perhaps the map shouldn't render unknown things just
>> because of name=blah" issue, I'd argue that metadata such as this really
>> doesn't belong in OSM. I've messaged the three previous editors of this
>> relation and two haven't objected to it's removal (the other one hasn't
>> replied). Can anyone put forward a good reason why it should be kept?
>>
>
> Not exactly about this relation but in the country I map we have a similar
> relation.
>
> The thing is that unlike in many western countries the coverage of aerial
> imagery is limited. So having a way to easily share the boundaries was
> needed.
>
> The boundary is not on the ground like most boundaries. Actually I have
> never seen a boundary. I saw constructions like fences or walls at places
> people say there is a boundary, but never the boundary itself.
>
>
> So why to keep them?
>
> You can do fancy queries with boundaries. Have you ever tried to make a
> statistic on the number of unnamed highway=residential of an area having
> imagery comparing to a similar sized area (in number of highways or area)
> having no aerials?
>
> Or you could visually compare against other map sources and find an
> unmapped place in case you are into armchair mapping.
>
> Have a look here.
> http://compare.osm-tools.org/
> It hides streets from a google map if there is a road/water in a similar
> location in OSM. If you see a lake/road on the map than it's not in OSM.
> With the edit button on the left you can open the are in JOSM (button is
> disabled if JOSM is not running).
>
> It can also display the coverage on a map. For this a local cached copy is
> used. Due to load reasons I recommend not to use osm.org for browsing
> such relations.
>
>
> So what to do with such relations?
>
> In case of local relations please leave the decision to the local
> community. If they consider it useful then it is.
> Don't try to decide what's best for people on the other side of the globe.
> A boundary relation like this does no harm at all, so just leave it there
> and ignore it if you don't like it.
>
> Stephan
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20120427/b2b35412/attachment.html>