On 10/08/2018 13:14, Colin Smale wrote:
Who is the arbiter of relevance? I think for any given "mapper" or
"consumer" 99% of the contents of OSM is not relevant. People are
mapping the nuts and bolts of the insulators on electricity pylons.. I
can't see that being relevant to most people.
Can you see the nuts and bolts?
I don't think there's any real argument about whether or not we map
things we can see. There may be disagreements about *how* we map them,
but the basic principle that we map what is visible is, I think, pretty
firmly established.
The basic question here is how we go about mapping things which you
can't see - intangibles, such as administrative boundaries, postcodes,
road numbers, etc. And that's where questions of relevance come into it.
The basic principle of OSM is that it is free, in all possible senses.
It's free, but it isn't unrestrained. You can't just make up entries.
You can't put Ambridge and Hogwarts on the map (although you can, now,
include Platform 9 3/4). You can't label a road as a river and a wood as
a skyscraper. To be useful, we have to agree to a common set of
principles and then stick to them.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
