Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> writes: > Again, I'm still not hearing a suggestion that would keep this valuable > information in OSM, or a compelling reason not to keep it.
It's not clear that it's valuable. If you want to propose a scheme for desired corridors by only-slightly-authoritative organizations, feel free. The compelling reason is that there is information in the database which is incorrect. That's always a good reason to simply outright remove it. > We do map proposed routes, we don't map for the renderer. It still > sounds like the core issue is some proposals are mapped more > specifically than they are on paper. The present issue is that there is are specific routes in the db as proposed when there is no actual proposal, but instead merely a desired corridor by a only-slightly-authoritative organization. > I don't think this is an insurmountable problem to fix within the > boundaries of not tagging for the renderer. It's straightfoward: delete the bogus data. > With that in mind, I would love to hear ideas how to tackle the > proposed corridor issue so that they may be more properly mapped, not > outright excluded over cyclemap rendering issues. It's not about cyclemap rendering issues. The problem is that the database has incorrect information. If someone added polygons that said "aca_desired_corridor", and that was checkable because they published that desire, I don't think there'd be any issues, other than the larger issue of "X wants Y - so what? Who is X and why does anybody care?" It sounds like you are conflating "how to (and whether) should we represent desired corridor by only-slightly-authoritative organizations" and "fixing the database by removing items that are incorrect". It's not reasonable to ask anyone to refrain from fixing the database without solving some other problem.
pgp85XfpYFsMU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us