I wrote:
I'm sure people say they are going to drive the Princes Highway from
Sydney to Melbourne, but you can never pin it down to actual set of
roads. They just mean they are driving down the coast, as opposed to
the Hume. It is a useful turn of phrase, but it is a mapping
anachronism.
On 07/09/11 21:00, Liz wrote:
So you would be happier if there was a fourth dimension n the data,
that of time?
So that you could mark a route as 'original princes highway'
and another route as 'princes highway 1990' and so on?
Well, we have railway=abandoned, so perhaps we need a route=abandoned?
Seriously though, no. I'm still sticking to verifiability being a
touchstone of OSM, and necessary given the nature of our community
project. We can't each just go and make a route where we feel there
should be one, without reasoning or evidence, and the try on the
"doesn't do any harm" defence as a justification for its continued
existence.
Similar to HIghway 1. Probably as much in the Australian psyche as
Route 66 is in the U.S, but routings and markings change, and we need to
mark up the references on the ground. We can't mark a way as Highway 1
just because it had that cute sign pinned to a pole back in the 60s.
I'm sure we are interested in the history of the development of the road
network, but I'm not sure our database is the place for the information
right now. Of course, in 100 years time, if we do our jobs properly,
someone will have a nice historical reference of the same.
Anyway, much to the relief of all, I really will stop pushing this now.
My last word on the issue.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
