Before we can decide whether to delete or document it we need to decide whether it is wanted. Might a Loomio vote be a way forwards.
On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 15:42, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > I wanted to talk about the process, not the outcome. It is obvious there > is not an overwhelming consensus one way or the other, and as usual the > debate just fizzles out with no conclusion. If we do nothing, the data > stays in the database because nobody has the balls to delete it, but it > can't be documented for fear of legitimising it. > > Is this the best we can do? > > > > On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black <andrewdbl...@googlemail.com> > wrote: >> >> I agree with Dave F " 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." >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ > 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
