2013/10/21 Pieren <pier...@gmail.com> > It was only a consensus in the group of contributors thinking that > (which is then easy to reach a consensus). > This remembers me similars discussions about: > - hi-res aerial imagery coverage by huge polygons (Yahoo!) >
agree that this is not really a datum suitable (from a puristic view point) for osm, but on the other hand there are mappers in certain areas with worse coverage than your average European Country, where they misuse the osm db for this kind of information (and it makes it easy for them to maintain this data together) and then improve the map with stuff we all want to have (based on these boundaries their workflow is much easier). Yes, you could say that there could be a different workflow suitable without putting these polygons into our db, but maybe they don't have to capacities, and surely the overhead of these few and simple polygons is very low, so I tend to suggest to let them do it. > - parcels > IMHO there is really no good reason not to put parcel data, as many of our other data actually depends on them (landuse and addresses), besides that we're probably not prepared currently because of the sheer quantity. - underground facilities (sewer, parkings, phone cables) > are a little bit difficult (verificability unless there are public datasets) probably also maintenance (as this is something that very few people map and hence verify / correct). > - geologic stuff (mountain strings, stratifications) > geologic stuff (stratifications) doesn't belong to OSM IMHO (data not surveyable/verificable by the crowd, resolution not adequate to the rest of our data). By "mountain string", are you refering to mountain ranges? IMHO ridges and arêtes are suitable (simple lines, well defined, surveyable), making a collection of these ridges to get a mountain range might be doable. > All such features have the problem that they are often not verifiable > (underground) or creates high density maps with many different layers > where none of the OSM editors can handle easily and correctly > different layers > Some of these are NOT different layers (except the geologic stratifications and the aerial imagery coverage). As they depend one of eachother (e.g. landuses depend on parcels, addresses depend (at least in some countries) on parcels, even underground lines depend often on what is above ground and vice versa) they should not be disjunct. cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
