I agree with removing these sites. I agree with Richard too It might be a good import for OHM. On Apr 17, 2015 12:48 AM, "Michael Reichert" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Frederik, > > I agree with you. > > Am 2015-04-15 um 23:18 schrieb Frederik Ramm: > > On 04/15/2015 04:09 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> It does not cause any problems to keep this data, and it is > >> very small data set. Just keep it. > > > > 1. If it were true that the data does not cause problems, that would > > still not be a sufficient reason to keep it in OSM. > > > > 2. I believe that it *does* cause problems because it indicates to > > others that OSM is a suitable place for such data (which OSM is not). > > There is a very real danger of people wanting to map past natural > > disasters or even past cultural events, "because we also map nuclear > > explosion sites". > > > > These sites are a bad example and if the import had been properly > > discussed along the rules we have today, it would certainly have been > > shot down. > > <irony>If we have data about nuclear explosion sites in the past, why > don't we map car and train accidents, too? One node per accident (large > accidents may use an area). Lots of accidents at one place indicate a > dangerous location, i.e. if an railway crossing or road crossing has > lots of accident nodes, routing software may advice their users to avoid > this railway/road crossing.</irony> > > Best regards > > Michael > (Nakaner) > > > -- > Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten > ausgenommen) > I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists) > > > _______________________________________________ > Imports mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports > >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
