An argument could be made for deleting anything that isn't a road, given that the project is called Open_Street_Map. Rather than concern myself with what belongs and what doesn't, I operate on the principle that if it is geographic data, isn't spam, and someone thought it interesting enough to map, it belongs. The data in question is as valid a POI as anything else a person might want to navigate to.
Far more DB space is taken up by building outlines and similar things that aren't by any means necessary for a street map than by these explosion sites. To my mind there is a stronger argument for better tagging of this data than there is for removing it completely, at least with regard to the objects that reflect physical traces left by the tests. I have a very difficult time understanding the deletionist mindset. It's not as if the objects that are not of interest to you are evicting objects that do interest you. If you run a DB server, there is nothing stopping you from choosing not to ingest objects you consider irrelevant. On April 15, 2015 1:24:08 PM EDT, Bryce Nesbitt <[email protected]> wrote: >On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:09 AM, Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote: >> I agree. It does not cause any problems to keep this data, and it is >> very small data set. Just keep it. > >I think this illustrates the point that it's very easy to add >questionable or low quality data to OSM, >and very hard to gain consensus to remove it. > >_______________________________________________ >Imports mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
