You cite a lot of good examples of OSM data that are not "pure binary
facts", and I could think of a few more. But I'm not sure what the
intent of this demonstration is. Open the eyes of the "OSM is pure
facts" crowd ? Debate whether this is a trait of OSM we want to
minimise ? Figure out ways to s
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Pierre Béland wrote:
> Mappers are surely influenced by the Map tools they are using. If they
> cannot see community related POI's, it wont convince them to add these.
This is why I was a fan of the Tiles@Home information overload,
render-everything osmarender w
Map tools they are using. If they cannot
see community related POI's, it wont convince them to add these.
Pierre
De : Johan C
À : Talk Openstreetmap
Envoyé le : Jeudi 19 juin 2014 15h22
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Just facts?
On Thursday 19 June
On Thursday 19 June 2014, Frederik Ramm wrote:
At SOTM Birmingham a workshop was aimed at mappers who wanted to share
their dreams for OSM in, say, 2020. Results can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Future/Dreams
On the aspect of technique, editing, tools some dreams were:
On Thursday 19 June 2014, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> "Ultimately, map data is pretty much fact and whether it exists or
> not is a binary statement. [...]
This is IMO what mapping should aim at, as outlined by the verifiability
rule - practical mapping and actual data is however often quite far
aw
Hi,
this is an offspring from the discussion about whether or not we are
well advised to follow Wikimedia's example of requiring the disclosure
of paid contributions.
The discussion has been led here on talk and on osmf-talk. A statement
by Emilie Laffray on osmf-talk best summarizes the idea:
6 matches
Mail list logo
