I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We have some options...
1) remove them all
2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them
3) leave them in the database and document them, even though they are
controversial, to say the least
Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things that are in OSM to
be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki
Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
maybe we can go for option 3?
Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but then I
think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts.
On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:
> No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM.
> They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is
> irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed.
>
> DaveF
>
> On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
>> steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to these
>> historic county boundaries being in OSM.
>>
>> I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.
>>
>> Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
