On 29-Mar-16 10:19, Rob Nickerson wrote:
Should we attempt to include everything that is in the open data datasets plus our on the ground additions (manually or, unless we suddenly get many more mappers, by some form of controlled merge) or should we leave the end users with the task of mixing OSM with the open data?
I'm generally not in favour of importing 'definitive' data from other sources, and it would be better to have some dynamic overlay procedure (which must of course available to normal end-users of the map on www.openstreetmap.org, not just to sophisticated OSM data processors).
An example is parish boundaries which, I understand, have been imported from Ordnance Survey data. The problem with these are that they often get inadvertently corrupted in OSM: they tend to lie along other features, which means that it's rather easy to get them inadvertently to share nodes, which in turn ends up with them being dragged around by mistake.
I appreciate that we don't have such a dynamic overlay procedure, and nor do I have a solution to offer, but the problem is real: if we import data which is definitively specified elsewhere, we are pretty much guaranteeing that OSM's version of that data will be inferior to other mapping, even if only because it'll get out of date.
I suppose a satisfactory alternative to dynamic overlay would be if any such import were required to have an automated procedure for adopting regular updates from the definitive source.
-- Cheers, John _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
