On 23 April 2013 10:55, Andy Robinson <ajrli...@gmail.com> wrote: > Copied also to talk-gb. > The problem is where do we stop? The majority of present/potential boundary > data doesn't have a physical presence on the ground. Consider ONS Lower, > middle and other output area boundaries or the NAPTAN charging areas that > were added with the NAPTAN import. Arguably they are useful in the same way > as ward boundaries are but should they be in OSM? Because the number of > nonphysical boundaries or areas is potentially limitless I'm in favour of > keeping them out of OSM because there is little chance of the average > mapper > verifying them or interacting with them (in relation to other objects). > Perhaps it's time to have nonphysical boundaries pulled from some other > database? >
If somebody wanted to set-up a separate database for nonphysical boundaries that mappers can't easily verify on the ground in relation to physical objects, I'm sure people would be interested in using it. Even if somebody did set this up, the problem would be that the boundaries and OSM databases wouldn't be linked. So if I tweak some street layouts, the boundaries database would need to be updated to match that. Linking them would probably be a technical hurdle too far. This is one reason I put in ward boundaries for Southwark. I could just use the OS boundary line dataset, but it's very useful having a precise correspondence. Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance
_______________________________________________ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
