Re: [Talk-us] Admin borders in the US

2013-11-06 Thread Bryce Cogswell
I have to agree with Jason on this as well. Admin borders are some of the most 
important cartographic information on the planet, to the extent that wars are 
fought over them, and are easily verified through dozens of independent 
sources. To exclude them from OSM on the basis of a ground verifiable 
ideology seems silly.

On Nov 6, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote:

 
 On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jason Remillard remillard.ja...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 The inconsistency is caused by those that insist on defining the
 project in terms of things that can be verified on the ground. My
 definition of the project has no inconsistency.
 
 A free map of the entire world.
 
 +1
 
 
 -- 
 Clifford
 
 OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] Neighborhoods / Zillow

2013-06-15 Thread Bryce Cogswell
Your entire argument is based on the premise that neighborhood boundaries are 
subjective and unverifiable, and while that may be true for your neighborhood 
it is not true for mine. So why shouldn't I map what I can easily verify on the 
ground?

Bryce

On Jun 15, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us 
 wrote:
 
 I wonder if it time to accept that we are unable to reach a consensus.
 
 On what issue are we unable to reach a consensus? The original
 proposer, Martijn, after reading the arguments put forth, has decided
 he agrees with both Ian and myself.
 
 Can we agree to let the local community decide which way to proceed?
 
 
 They are in
 the best position to know the issues surrounding neighborhood borders.
 There didn't seem to be any show-stoppers in the arguments for
 nodes/polygons.
 
 There were several issues brought up. The issues brought up were:
 
 1. The idea that in many neighborhoods around the country, everything
 about these neighborhoods is subjective, and largely driven by opinion
 and real estate agents.
 
 2. Neighborhoods don't have clear boundries, so polygons were a poor fit.
 
 3. OSM is not a good place for non-observable data of any sort.
 
 4. There is not a way to have consensus on a neighborhood boundary
 because of its subjective nature. Two individuals may share entirely
 differing views and both have equal correctness, since it's a matter
 of opinion.
 
 5. Places can, and often are part of multiple neighborhoods, and OSM's
 place classification system doesn't handle this.
 
 6. Nodes are bad substitutes for polygons because one can only assume
 that a node's idea of an area corresponds to a radius, which isn't
 the case in  many cases.
 
 7. There are wonderful tools and existing datasets which OSMers can
 use to capture this same information.
 
 
 OSM is not entirely built around consensus, but I'm concerned because
 I don't know how you can measure the local community in its opinion.
 
 I'm also a bit concerned when the idea of community consensus is
 thrown out the window for total localism. While I agree that sometimes
 things should be done without every single member of the community
 approving, we should strive for larger community building when
 possible.
 
 - Serge
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us