Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Neighbourhood Plan Import
Copied also to talk-gb. The problem is where do we stop? The majority of present/potential boundary data doesn't have a physical presence on the ground. Consider ONS Lower, middle and other output area boundaries or the NAPTAN charging areas that were added with the NAPTAN import. Arguably they are useful in the same way as ward boundaries are but should they be in OSM? Because the number of nonphysical boundaries or areas is potentially limitless I'm in favour of keeping them out of OSM because there is little chance of the average mapper verifying them or interacting with them (in relation to other objects). Perhaps it's time to have nonphysical boundaries pulled from some other database? Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Jonathan Harley [mailto:j...@spiffymap.net] Sent: 23 April 2013 09:29 To: talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Neighbourhood Plan Import On 22/04/13 09:27, Brian Prangle wrote: Hi everyone Do we have a collective opinion about this proposed import circulated by stephen.pete...@sky.com mailto:stephen.pete...@sky.com on the talk gb list? Personally I wouldn't want it as I believe we decided not to include ward boundaries as the present cartographic style clutters up and already busy urban map. The data sounds potentially useful, to me. Decisions about imports should be based on usefulness of the data, not on the present cartographic style. It's up to the designer of a particular map style how cluttered or not they want to make it. J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6265 - Release Date: 04/22/13 ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Neighbourhood Plan Import
there is little chance of the average mapper verifying them or interacting with them I've always thought that kind of thinking (not to belittle it, as it's a valid thought process) isn't worthwhile - limiting features because we can't imagine it being used is based on the limits of our imagination. Just because we can't see it being used doesn't mean someone else won't, and come up with something that'll solve a neat problem. I would have thought, and I speak only as a passive OSM contributor user, that making OSM a more comprehensive database is a good thing, tying together all those disparate boundaries into one lookup, effectively. Phil -- Philip John, philipjohn.co.uk lichfieldcommunitymedia.org journallocal.co.uk On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Copied also to talk-gb. The problem is where do we stop? The majority of present/potential boundary data doesn't have a physical presence on the ground. Consider ONS Lower, middle and other output area boundaries or the NAPTAN charging areas that were added with the NAPTAN import. Arguably they are useful in the same way as ward boundaries are but should they be in OSM? Because the number of nonphysical boundaries or areas is potentially limitless I'm in favour of keeping them out of OSM because there is little chance of the average mapper verifying them or interacting with them (in relation to other objects). Perhaps it's time to have nonphysical boundaries pulled from some other database? Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Jonathan Harley [mailto:j...@spiffymap.net] Sent: 23 April 2013 09:29 To: talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Neighbourhood Plan Import On 22/04/13 09:27, Brian Prangle wrote: Hi everyone Do we have a collective opinion about this proposed import circulated by stephen.pete...@sky.com mailto:stephen.pete...@sky.com on the talk gb list? Personally I wouldn't want it as I believe we decided not to include ward boundaries as the present cartographic style clutters up and already busy urban map. The data sounds potentially useful, to me. Decisions about imports should be based on usefulness of the data, not on the present cartographic style. It's up to the designer of a particular map style how cluttered or not they want to make it. J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6265 - Release Date: 04/22/13 ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Neighbourhood Plan Import
I hope you don't mind me chiming in on this thread, I'm not very active on these lists but I do read everyone's posts, but I actively map on OSM both in this country and with HOT. I've worked in IT most of my working life and spent 5 years contracted to a tri-service (Army, RN RAF) organisation of the British Military, working on a GIS system that imported data from many disparate sources/organisations and then made it available using web technologies to all areas of the armed forces and goverment agencies, both centralised installations and deployed units. The mantra there was firm and unequivical, all data/intelligence is put in the database, no matter how insignificant, as long as its source is verifiable and authoratative and meta-data can be applied to it so it is searchable and adequately described then it is up to the user to choose to display the data and use it or not. Those sourcing and presenting data should have no input to validating the data or applying any value to it. Hope that helps. Jonathan (OSM ID: bigfatfrog67) On 23/04/2013 12:32, Philip John wrote: there is little chance of the average mapper verifying them or interacting with them I've always thought that kind of thinking (not to belittle it, as it's a valid thought process) isn't worthwhile - limiting features because we can't imagine it being used is based on the limits of our imagination. Just because we can't see it being used doesn't mean someone else won't, and come up with something that'll solve a neat problem. I would have thought, and I speak only as a passive OSM contributor user, that making OSM a more comprehensive database is a good thing, tying together all those disparate boundaries into one lookup, effectively. Phil -- Philip John, philipjohn.co.uk http://philipjohn.co.uk lichfieldcommunitymedia.org http://lichfieldcommunitymedia.org journallocal.co.uk http://journallocal.co.uk On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Copied also to talk-gb. The problem is where do we stop? The majority of present/potential boundary data doesn't have a physical presence on the ground. Consider ONS Lower, middle and other output area boundaries or the NAPTAN charging areas that were added with the NAPTAN import. Arguably they are useful in the same way as ward boundaries are but should they be in OSM? Because the number of nonphysical boundaries or areas is potentially limitless I'm in favour of keeping them out of OSM because there is little chance of the average mapper verifying them or interacting with them (in relation to other objects). Perhaps it's time to have nonphysical boundaries pulled from some other database? Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Jonathan Harley [mailto:j...@spiffymap.net mailto:j...@spiffymap.net] Sent: 23 April 2013 09:29 To: talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Neighbourhood Plan Import On 22/04/13 09:27, Brian Prangle wrote: Hi everyone Do we have a collective opinion about this proposed import circulated by stephen.pete...@sky.com mailto:stephen.pete...@sky.com mailto:stephen.pete...@sky.com mailto:stephen.pete...@sky.com on the talk gb list? Personally I wouldn't want it as I believe we decided not to include ward boundaries as the present cartographic style clutters up and already busy urban map. The data sounds potentially useful, to me. Decisions about imports should be based on usefulness of the data, not on the present cartographic style. It's up to the designer of a particular map style how cluttered or not they want to make it. J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com mailto:m...@spiffymap.comPhone: 0845 313 8457 tel:0845%20313%208457 www.spiffymap.com http://www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6265 - Release Date: 04/22/13 ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Neighbourhood Plan Import
Hi everyone Do we have a collective opinion about this proposed import circulated by stephen.pete...@sky.com on the talk gb list? Personally I wouldn't want it as I believe we decided not to include ward boundaries as the present cartographic style clutters up and already busy urban map. Regards Brian ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
