The involved parties typically want us to disseminate their truth and only that*. It is not a "why not", the proposals are simply trying to solve a different problem (that IMHO doesn't actually need to be solved, and will simply lead to us never having any working boundaries at all, but as said it has nothing to do with the problem at hand.
* ever wondered why there is that bit about airports in the policy? Yes, because one government wanted us to remove airports that where located in a part of the country they, still, don't control and they had long winded arguments about these not being airports because they hadn't designated them as such. Am 11.12.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Colin Smale: > > On 2018-12-11 13:53, Simon Poole wrote: > >> As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down >> the road. >> >> We will still have to make choices >> > Why? It would be better if OSM did not make choices, but represented > differing points of view equally, without expressing any kind of > preference. Keep out of politics, or it will not end well! Let the > renderer/user choose their preferred world view. > > Why not simply allow multiple manifestations of admin_level=2 with an > additional tag like "according_to". Job done. > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
