Disagree. We all add data which abides by certain rules & criteria. We
vet it ourselves as we're adding it. If a contributor fails to do that,
they should be expected to justify the reasons. This hasn't occurred.
That they still exist as historical documents is not a viable argument.
As Dave W. pointed out, it's the thin end of the wedge.
DaveF
On 26/08/2018 19:45, Adam Snape wrote:
Hi,
I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to
demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for
those seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a
clear consensus in favour of deletion.
Kind regards,
Adam
On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 16:38 Andrew Black, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Before we can decide whether to delete or document it we need to
decide whether it is wanted.
Might a Loomio vote be a way forwards.
On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 15:42, Colin Smale <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I wanted to talk about the process, not the outcome. It is
obvious there is not an overwhelming consensus one way or the
other, and as usual the debate just fizzles out with no
conclusion. If we do nothing, the data stays in the database
because nobody has the balls to delete it, but it can't be
documented for fear of legitimising it.
Is this the best we can do?
On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant
to OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will
"never change" is irrelevant. They add no quality to the
database.They should be removed."
On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We
have some options...
1) remove them all
2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them
3) leave them in the database and document them, even
though they are controversial, to say the least
Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things
that are in OSM to be documented in some way, e.g. in
the wiki
Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM
otherwise espouses, maybe we can go for option 3?
Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be
removed, but then I think it should be the
responsibility of the DWG to make that determination,
communicate the decision, and do the reverts.
On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:
No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic
data, irrelevant to OSM. They are neither "current or
real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant.
They add no quality to the database.They should be
removed.
DaveF
On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:
It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time
smb001 has been making steady progress across
England. I take it that means acquiescence to these
historic county boundaries being in OSM.
I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging
in the wiki.
Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I
am not aware of?
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
