On Jul 29, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
In any case, I disagree that it's better to leave information you know to be wrong in rather than deleting it. Perhaps that's our fundamental disagreement.
For my part in the conversation, I *agree* with you that people should delete (or fix when possible) information that they know is wrong.
But that is not the (or my) fundamental disagreement. My disagreement is on the deletion of *all* tiger: tags, because you don't see a need for them or you don't like the namespace or they don't fit your view of what/where/how they should be documented.
As for tiger:name_base, tiger:name_type, etc., if there's someone that's using that information, we definitely should take it out of the tiger namespace. I'd be happy to move it from tiger:name_base=* to name_base=* instead of deleting it, if someone is using it and would take 5 minutes to put something up on the wiki announcing it. If it's useful, then it's useful for non-tiger ways as well as tiger ways.
Yes, it is useful for non-tiger ways as well. And I will bet it will be useful for other countries besides the U.S. also.
I haven't seen a conclusion on what people want to see in the naming convention (see for example the thread at http:// lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-April/003138.html).
Just because the conversation is ongoing, that doesn't mean you need to delete the data in the meantime.
- Alan _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
