On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Alan Mintz <alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net<alan_mintz%2b...@earthlink.net> > wrote:
> > I really don't understand your argument. It's the nature of OSM that many > people will contribute many types of data, much of which will not be cared > about or understood by the majority of consumers. What's wrong with that, > and why do you think removing it because you don't understand or like it is > acceptable behavior in a crowd-sourced environment? > > importing is not crowd-sourced! we should apply different rules here. what is wrong normally might be a very good thing for imports and the other way round > The only reason that makes sense might be "it's wrong". In the case of > tiger:*, it's not wrong. It's in its own namespace because it indicates the > value as it was in another database at the time of import. Not that I > believe we need to justify it, but the three (at least) of us arguing to > keep the tags in this thread, each for reasons that we've described, should > be sufficient to prove that someone needs the data, and you really have no > right to stomp on our work, or data that we need for our work. Also, we're > not alone - many people recognized the need to fix the way names are stored. > Having to go back to history will be adding an order of magnitude to the > complexity of that. > > if you need them use a native tiger DB, working through history is such a pain that it doesn't make sense. GIS experts will know how to do this and can easily compare osm data with another DB. > Have a look at tagwatch and you'll see that tiger:* is just one of many > such import namespaces, most of which you are not likely to care about, > whether they are doc'd or not. > > other trash doesn't make these tags more useful. We have all learned from early imports and since then changesets have been added to the API0.6 tiger import was done before and we can't blame anyone. but now we can do it better and fix old mistakes > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
