At 10:22 AM 5/17/2008, Steve Hill wrote: >Peter Miller wrote: > > > I agree. I think we need to adopt a Wikipedia concept of 'notability'. For > > example... A wood is notable, a large established solitary tree in a park > > might be notable, but a nettle is not. Is a rare plant notable? I would > > suggest it is not notable in OSM itself. > >I'm afraid I see the notability criteria as one of Wikipedia's biggest >problems so I would hate to see OSM go the same way. I've seen too many >genuinely useful articles get blown away because someone decided they >covered non-notable subjects, to the point that I gave up editing Wikipedia. > >The point is: why should anyone care about notability so long as the >data is useful, accurate and maintained?
+1 to Steve's Wiki comment and point. Unlike Wiki, we have the advantage that it is the renderer that controls what folks finally see - and at what zoom level - , not the database. I feel certain, though, that we will *eventually* have a core OSM database and then things like a multiple and/or read-only coastlines database plus optional specialist databases for history, plants, geology, geomorphology, school projects, art projects ... . But we need to be really sure we have got our basic structures how we want them before adding another layer of complexity for our hard-working sys admins and software writers. I suggest Masterly Inactivity be the current strategy. Meanwhile, let folks add what they want. Mike _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
