Hi, I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear consensus in favour of deletion.
Kind regards, Adam On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 16:38 Andrew Black, <andrewdbl...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Before we can decide whether to delete or document it we need to decide > whether it is wanted. > Might a Loomio vote be a way forwards. > > > > On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 15:42, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> I wanted to talk about the process, not the outcome. It is obvious there >> is not an overwhelming consensus one way or the other, and as usual the >> debate just fizzles out with no conclusion. If we do nothing, the data >> stays in the database because nobody has the balls to delete it, but it >> can't be documented for fear of legitimising it. >> >> Is this the best we can do? >> >> >> >> On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black < >> andrewdbl...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. They >>> are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant. >>> They add no quality to the database.They should be removed." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We have some options... >>>> >>>> 1) remove them all >>>> >>>> 2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them >>>> >>>> 3) leave them in the database and document them, even though they are >>>> controversial, to say the least >>>> >>>> Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things that are in OSM >>>> to be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki >>>> >>>> Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses, >>>> maybe we can go for option 3? >>>> >>>> >>>> Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but then >>>> I think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that >>>> determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts. >>>> >>>> On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote: >>>> >>>> No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant >>>> to OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" >>>> is irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed. >>>> >>>> DaveF >>>> >>>> On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote: >>>> >>>> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making >>>> steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to these >>>> historic county boundaries being in OSM. >>>> >>>> I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki. >>>> >>>> Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of? >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-GB mailing >>>> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-GB mailing list >>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-GB mailing list >>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
