On 2018-08-10 13:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 10/08/2018 12:05, John Aldridge wrote:I'd like to register a +1 in favour
> of accepting these historic counties.
> I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on the
> ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current
> administrative boundaries either. These historic counties do, rightly or
> wrongly, form part of some people's sense of identity *today*, and I think
> that crosses the bar for inclusion.
> The current administrative boundaries are relevant to everyday life in a
> number of different ways. Even if you can't see them on the ground, the
> boundaries determine who collects your bins, who you can vote for, who fixes
> the potholes in the roads, who manages school admissions, etc.
> The "historic" boundaries, though, whatever particular snapshot of them you
> choose as the most important one, don't have any relevance to everyday life.
> They do matter to a small number of people with specialist uses, but - like
> now-obliterated routes of former railways - they are better suited to a
> spin-off project rather than being in the core OSM.
Who is the arbiter of relevance? I think for any given "mapper" or
"consumer" 99% of the contents of OSM is not relevant. People are
mapping the nuts and bolts of the insulators on electricity pylons.. I
can't see that being relevant to most people.
The basic principle of OSM is that it is free, in all possible senses.
There is no up-front right and wrong, nor good and bad; anything goes
unless and until it is noticed and challenged for crossing some
poorly-defined boundary. Often it is the well-intentioned mapper who
opens a discussion prior to adding their favourite information who is
the victim; I expect most mappers just "get on with it" and are never
challenged, however esoteric their mapping. I wish we could be more
consistent in this, but it will probably never happen because of our
collective allergy to limiting mappers' creative freedoms.
Talk-GB mailing list