just to insure that the correct facts are out there: OHM was in a position where a new hosting arrangement needed to be worked out, when a major server crash occurred. so we were literally twisting in the wind until those issues were resolved. there is no real external support for the project so we couldn't just go out and rent a server or VM somewhere.
the previous backup arrangements were inadequate, and files were truncated. so i think 6-9 months worth of data (maybe 12 months) was lost. i'm in the process of assessing what work i need to personally redo, but it doesn't look all that bad. i am working with Rob Warren on setting up a stronger backup plan - but even if we'd had a stronger backup plan, the need to rehost OHM would still have been an issue. there are some advantages to a separate OHM. a large part of the community thinks OSM should only be about current data. if we started seriously doing the things we want to do in OSM, it would be pretty controversial with a potential risk of an edit war. OHM can be a playpen for experimentation. i wish to work on a schema for relations so that i can describe the movements of troop units in campaigns and battles. again, if i started doing this in OSM, i imagine that the unhappiness would be extensive, and given the other goals of OSM, it's not really a good place to play. there is a need for need for tagging extensions for historical mapping. this is a tricky one. historical mapping needs some temporal language for which current OSM tagging is completely inadequate. and given how the tagging discussion goes some times, i think the tagging list is the completely wrong place for such discussions - but if we are trying to keep historic data in OSM, this is where we would have to have it. so from my point of view, keeping the historic data in its own place is part of trying to keep OSM peace. did we have some problems? yes. are they correctable? yes. i think some lessons have been learned, but our takeaway is very different from yours. On 2/27/17 4:03 PM, yo paseopor wrote: > Humanity is so curious. We make a mistake, we "receive" the > consequences and we don't learn anything, and promote the same mistake. > > OHM was a good project...but had a bad choice: data outside OSM. Then > the project had slept...and the information is , nowadays...lost? > Well, the project woke up...but now...where is the "old" information > of the same project? > Compare it with http://histosm.org . Why this map is more complete > than the other? Because all the info is IN OSM. > > Ok , it would be one situation, is not the normality... > Think about http://parking.openstreetmap.de ...oh, isn't working? Oh, > Did we lose the information? Well, you can use > http://bit.ly/parkingosm because the data was inside OSM so you can > make another render to show the information. > > So I think the right place for information is OSM's database. Then who > wants can use data to make a render of that data. > History is real and specific in a lot of things. So these things that > one day existed or had that property should be in OSM. How...I don't > know the best way, but it is important to make the information > accesible to everyone, and in a easy way without the risk of losing > information. > > Salut i història (Health and History) > yopaseopor > PD: I support this proposal or similars > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- [email protected] Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
