Isaac Wingfield wrote: > >On Nov 8, 2009, at 4:00 AM, >[email protected] wrote: > >>On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Isaac Wingfield >><[email protected]> >>wrote: >>>It's becoming clear to me that some of the entries on my local part >>>of >>>OSM are based on old, out of date information, and I've been fixing >>>these as I become aware of them. Some of the entries are easy -- a >>>"Golf Club" marker on what is now clearly an industrial site -- but >>>one I'm unsure about is when a location has a "place_of_worship" >>>designation, but on-site inspection reveals that there is no obvious >>>church there, or even a sign designating one. >>> >>>I've tried web searching on the names (wondering if the icons somehow >>>got displaced), but that's been very frustrating. It would appear >>>that >>>a lot of "information sites", such as lists of churches offered by >>>religious organizations, take their data from the same obsolete >>>information sources that OSM used; they all point precisely to the >>>place where the OSM "church" icon is, where there is nothing >>>resembling a church (I even found the same thing regarding the "golf >>>club" I mentioned above, on a site offering information to traveling >>>golfers). >>> >>>So here's the question: It's easy enough to tell a golf club from an >>>industrial site just by walking past it, but a "place_of_worship" is >>>perhaps not so clear; could one by located in a private home, with no >>>external markers? If I find nothing but a house at a location where >>>OSM has a place_of_worship icon, can I just delete it? >> >>I've recently seen some non-traditional places of worship; regular >>meetings in hotel conference rooms and what would otherwise be retail >>shops. >> >>I'd fall back to the OSM "observable / verifiable" guidelines. If you >>can't point to the sign that proves it on the ground, perhaps it >>doesn't belong in OSM. >> >>Have you contacted the user that added the items to get their >>perspective? > >I don't know how to find out who that was, but if I highlight the >icons the data seems to have gotten there as part of an original >"bulk" import from TIGER or something similar; the gnis:create date is >1999. > >Isaac
GNIS indicates that it is from the US Bureau of Geographic Names. http://geonames.usgs.gov/ Their data, apparently, is notorious for being incorrectly located, something I wouldn't expect from the folks at USGS. And, if it was 1999 data, then it could easily be obsolete. -- Randy _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
