Also, one could just remove type=boundary (since it isn't really a boundary) and name=something from the relation/ways so they don't show up on any renderer. You could put a description=* tag instead or some nonstandard one.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 03:58, Stephan Knauss <[email protected]>wrote: > On 27.04.2012 03:28, SomeoneElse wrote: > >> The "Hires coverage of Bing imagery in the Near East" label is from the >> name on this relation: >> Regardless of the "perhaps the map shouldn't render unknown things just >> because of name=blah" issue, I'd argue that metadata such as this really >> doesn't belong in OSM. I've messaged the three previous editors of this >> relation and two haven't objected to it's removal (the other one hasn't >> replied). Can anyone put forward a good reason why it should be kept? >> > > Not exactly about this relation but in the country I map we have a similar > relation. > > The thing is that unlike in many western countries the coverage of aerial > imagery is limited. So having a way to easily share the boundaries was > needed. > > The boundary is not on the ground like most boundaries. Actually I have > never seen a boundary. I saw constructions like fences or walls at places > people say there is a boundary, but never the boundary itself. > > > So why to keep them? > > You can do fancy queries with boundaries. Have you ever tried to make a > statistic on the number of unnamed highway=residential of an area having > imagery comparing to a similar sized area (in number of highways or area) > having no aerials? > > Or you could visually compare against other map sources and find an > unmapped place in case you are into armchair mapping. > > Have a look here. > http://compare.osm-tools.org/ > It hides streets from a google map if there is a road/water in a similar > location in OSM. If you see a lake/road on the map than it's not in OSM. > With the edit button on the left you can open the are in JOSM (button is > disabled if JOSM is not running). > > It can also display the coverage on a map. For this a local cached copy is > used. Due to load reasons I recommend not to use osm.org for browsing > such relations. > > > So what to do with such relations? > > In case of local relations please leave the decision to the local > community. If they consider it useful then it is. > Don't try to decide what's best for people on the other side of the globe. > A boundary relation like this does no harm at all, so just leave it there > and ignore it if you don't like it. > > Stephan > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk> >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
