Warin, may I please remind you that in your message of 31 October you were the mapper who expressed great concern about loss of data?
On 11/13/2018 2:37 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > > On 2018-11-12 22:00, Warin wrote: > >> On 13/11/18 01:07, Allan Mustard wrote: >>> Not contrived at all in these days of tight budgets. I see no reason >>> the inverse would not work. I'll add it. >> >> I think there are too many things in the proposal. Keep it simple. >> Yes the 'extras' might sound nice but they add complexity and each >> one is a point that can lead to someone objecting to that specific >> thing and leading to enough no votes that it fails. > > At moments like this I like to invoke one of my heroes: Albert > Einstein. One famous saying attributed to him is: As simple as > possible, but no simpler. > > If you simplify complex realities too much, you lose valuable detail. > If it's complex, it's complex. If you want to leave out a level of > detail, such as being able to distinguish between the different types > of services provided on behalf of multiple "tenant" countries in a > diplomatic mission, then so be it, but let's discuss whether it is > desirable to leave that out, and whether the resultant ambiguity is > acceptable. Data modelling means constructing an approximation to > reality, and is all about what details to keep in and what to leave > out. Once it is left out, it cannot be reconstructed from the rest of > the data. (If it can, your data model is not properly normalised.) > > If OSM is being limited to being suboptimal because of politics and > the inability to reach consensus, I would rather the system was fixed > instead of condemning the whole business to eternal mediocrity. >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
