Ray Kiddy writes:
> It is very true that, as you say, OSM "excels at holding information
that users can see, verify and update." I think it is also true that
> OSM excels at relating abstract themes in a multi-dimensional space.
I agree. There are hundreds or thousands of clearly themed maps
based upon OSM data, all and any of which are useful for that
particular narrow slice of query that a map consumer wishes to see
(literally, visualize). Building hundreds, thousands or millions of
these visualizations based upon the rich data found in OSM truly is
what OSM is about: the ends DO justify the means in this case! In
short: why bother building a rich database or don't bother to ask it
to provide beautiful answers? That would be silly! We can, and we
do.
And Frederik Ramm replies:
I can't process the use of "multi-dimensional" in this context. OSM is
not multi-dimensional, it is 2.5-dimensional at best, and affixing bits
and bobs of extra information to some objects doesn't make it
multi-dimensional. OSM certainly does not excel at relating abstract
themes - the contrary is true, OSM is about concrete stuff. As soon as
we veer into the less concrete - for example, public transport relations
instead of steel tracks on the ground - we hit the limits of our editing
tools, and of most people working with OSM too. Yes we do that (public
transport relations) but we certainly don't "excel" at it.
On the contrary, OSM is absolutely multi-dimensional: "bobs of extra
information" (in the form of our super tool, free-form tagging) DO
make it multi-dimensional. That's the beauty of an abstract
dimension: it can be defined to be what you want it to be. Often we
start with the two dimensions of "earth's surface" then we choose a
richly-defined theme to be the third (or include a fourth or fifth).
This is simply abstract thinking applied, and to say that a dimension
must be "space" (as in 2-space or 3-space or "2.5-space at best") and
space ONLY is so very limiting. Space is a good place to BEGIN using
the 2 dimensions of "earth's surface," but after that, OSM is so
wonderfully useful PRECISELY because we use it in "creative,
productive, or unexpected ways" (just like our Main Page says).
Those other ways might be abstractly defined as "multi-dimensional
extensions of a geographically-defined database." After that, as it
is said, "the sky is the limit."
We COULD excel at public transport relations (real things, "findable
on the ground"), we just don't quite yet. OSM only having
partially-implemented or not-quite-perfect public transport routes is
not an existence proof that public transport routes don't belong in
OSM or that they overly challenge the editing skills (or tools) of
the project or its participants.
I reject the assertion that a public transport route is "less
concrete" than, say, a drinking fountain. Public transport routes
have platforms, signs which display their timepoints, schedules, a
beginning and end, etc. They are a real, not abstract things, and
OSM not only reflects this, we have done so with sane growth from
public_transport=v1 to v2 in a way we should be proud of. Sure, we
have much more growth and data to enter to be an impressive and
definitive source -- we are still a growing project. Let us not
dismiss this real, useful and actively growing subset of our data as
"less concrete" or even its only faintly-hinted-at next logical
conclusion of "these are unworthy data, so let's purge them." This
smacks of "changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game."
Yes, we've done this before (e.g. old license to ODBL), but the
process is painful, only works when we are honest and forthright that
that's what we're doing, and most of us agree to do so.
> And OSM is many, many others things as well. Many others would define
it differently and all of those would also be valid and useful.
All of our viewpoints are valuable, and it is more clear that this is
true when we describe our viewpoints as viewpoints, not as norms.
I think this lovey-dovey relativism doesn't go anywhere. To me, it
smacks of "well, the scientific method is one way to look at physics but
of course there are many others that are equally valid and useful". OSM
is certainly not whatever anyone sees in it, and certainly not all these
views are equally valid and useful.
I don't want to put words in Frederik's mouth, but what I think he is
getting at is that OSM is not a dumping ground for whatever we want
it to be. Yes, that is true, and a good point. Do we need to manage
what goes into and doesn't go into OSM? Yes, of course. Our core
tenets (e.g. "on the ground verifiable") guide us well here. But if
we are going to change the rules mid-stream, let us say so and not
pretend we are not.
SteveA
California
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
