On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Richard Welty <[email protected]> wrote:
> so one of the things from recent discussion that concerns me are > perceptions out there about projects parallel to OSM that are designed > to complement it, specifically OHM. here is an outline of the view from > OHM, and i'm interesting in understanding why some treat the whole > project so dismissively (note that i'm a little bit of a late comer to OHM, > i've been following it with interest since it started but only just > recently > started contributing directly.) > > OHM was created because of the perceived desire to start handling > historic spatial data and characterize temporal aspects of it. the whole > idea is that we accept that OSM is not a good place for this data, so > why not create such a place? > > > > i think the long term future of OSM will probably involve more > OHM like projects to supplement OSM. my question is how will > the core OSM community treat them? right now it seems very > mixed. > > If you are asking for an opinion, then this is the kind-of thing that is a detriment to OSM. Whereas I try to use OpenSeaMap tags where I can for the limited features that sea map applies, I won't go out of my way to add data to OSH. My main concern is that OSH defuses mapping resources that are already sparse in the US. That we couldn't find a set of tags to keep the data in the main OSM database is part of the problems of OSM as a project. There's still plenty to do but OSM the project is moribund. Regards, Greg
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
