Very cool thoughts. Not very well handled by existing geo-systems,
but I've been exploring ways to handle multiple views of "reality".
---
Raj
On Sep 16, 2007, at 2:49 PM, Bill Kearney wrote:
Ian White wrote:
Because they are informally-defined, traditional notions of
boundaries do not apply. Does SoHo have to be adjacent to NoHo?
Why can't they overlap? That's how people think about space, so it
follows that you can be in multiple 'hoods at the same time. It
gets messy to create a uniform definition around something that
isn't fact-based, so I don't think it's well-suited to an open
project (or should I say crowdsourcing??).
And people's "definition" of a neighborhood will vary based on the
context being considered. It's one thing to think of a particular
address as being "in a neighborhood" when discussing it casually.
It's another thing entirely when things like school districts or
other more formal organizations are involved. To say nothing of
the 'class warfare' issues of who is or isn't "on the wrong side of
the tracks".
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
