[OSM-talk] Was the deletion of Null Island reasonable?

[stevea]

With Chandler wobble, I think it starts to get either self-referential or "what is the NEW center of reference...that of the galaxy?"  A major point of this is a sort of "Earth's zero point begins here."  That's OSM's reference (its zero) or "starting place."  It's a curiosity, it's a mathematical / geometric / geographic "thing," it is real in those senses and it is not "fictional."

Null Island is "Earth's certain kind of zero."  If for no other reason than it can prevent (has prevented) errors from creeping into our map (those of a certain kind of "didn't specify anything here, zero assumed"), I say it's good for OSM to denote this as has been discussed.  A node, +1 (although I think I've seen others besides myself agree).  What its tags might be (place=locality leans yes) can be further discussed.  Personally, I'd stop with place=locality, I welcome other links to ontologies / wikidata / wikipedia articles....

It IS reasonable for OSM to represent this.

Nothing there?  (No node in OSM representing Null Island?)  I'd be saddened if so, but I would learn to live with it.