And as someone who has deleted quite a few things in OSM I would agree with that statement. When I didn't have a better replacement available then I prefer not to delete unless I have done a ground level inspection and there really isn't anything there.
I think my favourite was a mapper who was demonstrating 3D software with OSM. They dropped in a group of multiple level buildings into an area I was mapping in Africa. They didn't consider what they did was wrong, it was only Africa. Cheerio John On 1 Sep 2016 1:26 pm, "Begin Daniel" <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote: > *P: OSM is very much an "add only" project, since the social consequences > of incorrectly deleting things seem so high.* > > > > What I do perceive in the current thread is that deleting something not > perfect without replacing it with something better hurts, not that it is > not acceptable to delete something. > > > > Daniel > > > > *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca] > *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 13:05 > *To:* Begin Daniel > *Cc:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > What is very cool with OSM is that you can edit the data. Urban polygon is > wrong? Modify it! The definition is obscure in the Wiki? Change it! But > yes, the learning curve is often steep, and you may need to discuss with > someone else… > > > > "Just fix it" is not quite the answer. The point the original poster made, > which I concur with, is that the very existence of these shapes makes > working with the "important" data difficult. In terms of forest and land > use polygons, every vertex I move there is a vertex I'm not going to move > on something "important". (And the vertex density of the forests/land use > are another reason that working around/with them is painful and > energy-sapping.) > > > > As discussed in the other thread, the shear volume of Canada means I'm > never in 1M years going to "fix" the forests. As it stands, I mostly ignore > them. Too many vertexes to move, for too little net benefit, so there's > forests running through the new subdivisions of Prince George. At least the > roads are there and hopefully correctly named now. > > > > (I would, however, love to just delete the urban "land use" polygons, but > who know if that's "allowed" or not. Absent a strong personality like the > person who caused this thread, it seems like OSM is very much an "add only" > project, since the social consequences of incorrectly deleting things seem > so high. Nobody wants to be "that guy".) > > > > ATB, > > > P > > > > > > > > *From:* Paul Ramsey [mailto:pram...@cleverelephant.ca] > *Sent:* Thursday, 1 September, 2016 11:17 > *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap > *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts > > > > I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to > the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some > of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons / > boundary overlaps). > > > > In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly > wanted to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which > doesn't seem to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the > present) and the forest polygons (which have the same problem). > > > > Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where > does the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees? > Since anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of > land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at > high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why > don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)? > > > > P > > > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon <hame...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to reduce > the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new mappers > like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make incremental > improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM community I was back > in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote region that hasn't > had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited areas I aimed to > improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I ended up giving > up on them until I could get some more experience as I absolutely did not > understand what the hell was going on.... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
