On 20 January 2011 15:15, Ian Sergeant <[email protected]> wrote: > Quite the contrary. To be blunt, I'm basically saying, if it is in > OSM, then it is fair game to be corrected, aligned and modified. If > someone is suggesting that data imported into OSM be maintained > pristine, aligned with an external source, then it shouldn't have been > imported to start with.
I doubt anyone is making the claim that it shouldn't be modified, the issue is far more complex than that, in fact myself and others have for quite some time been all for roads to be split from boundaries and even for the boundaries themselves to be removed and newer/better data re-imported as the previous import only dealt with suburb boundaries, and didn't import the postcode boundaries at the same time. However much of the postcode boundaries, and possibly suburb boundaries are extrapolations and it would be great to have a more accurate set of data, but these boundaries are just as important in OSM as any country, state and territory boundary because otherwise we're left tagging everything with 'is_in=*' still. Maybe this might be doable during post processing, but that only complicates things for everyone since OSM-F doesn't allow for layers or multiple databases etc, so people have to hope those hosting the information will still be there in 5 years, 10 years etc, and that also makes it potentially a lot more difficult for the community as a whole to improve it and share the improvements back. > Again, quite the contrary. This issue only arises because the import > does align to physical features. As I said in my previous email, > where the admin boundary is the coastline, and it is the best source > we have for the coastline, then align the coastline to the imported > boundary. Similarly, when we get a better source for the coastline > than the imported boundary, align the admin boundary to the better > source. I doubt anyone is claiming this, the original email of this thread was about a duplicate boundary being added from another data source and the person importing didn't bother to merge the information properly, or co-ordinate their efforts with the rest of the community. >> Erm wouldn't naming one simply be pointless, since of course then it >> will become the focus of such a venture. > > You just don't want to lose your cash.. Put it in a sealed envelope > and get it postmarked. I'll be back to collect.. Exactly what I wrote, no matter which point, way or what not is named, if the stakes are big enough then it would get revisited just for the cash, not because someone was going to go there any way. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
