Hi,
On 29.12.2012 05:38, Russ Nelson wrote:
> The moment it makes its way in to OSM it becomes incorrect. There is
> *absolutely* no way to improve the data once it's in OSM, so it should not
> be in OSM. Period.
That's a great theory, but I don't think many people subscribe to
it.
I think that is more than a theory. Weren't you the one who proposed to
import some kind of park boundaries, years ago, and implement mechanisms
to make the geometry un-changeable - reasoning that any change being
made by mappers could only be for the worse?
The idea didn't get a very warm reception then, and I don't see why
things should have changed.
OSM is not a geodata delivery vehicle that you should abuse to publish
third-party GIS data. I know it is tempting - so many county GIS
departments, each with their own data collection, difficult to discover
and use - but it is a role that OSM cannot, and should not attempt to,
fulfil; not least because the sheer amount of such data would dwarf that
which we have surveyed and which we can reasonably hope to care for.
If you want a geodata delivery infrastructure, set up a separate service
- based on OSM technology if you want - and collect third-party data
there. Mix it with human-surveyed and curated OSM at the rendering stage
if you want.
There is no point in having this discussion again unless you're going
to bring up something new.
Exactly.
and lots of opinions. You're welcome to express
yours, but you're not welcome to claim it is or should be the ruling
opinion.
It is, and should be, the ruling opinion that data that cannot be
sensibly edited by mappers shouldn not be in OSM. OSM is for editing,
not for mirroring stuff that is edited elsewhere.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
