stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> writes: > To breathe a little fresh air into this discussion (and perhaps pour a > little oil on troubled waters): I have enjoyed in the last few hours > some email exchanges with both Kerry and Paul. > > In short, Kerry and I are discussing how it is inappropriate for OCM > to display a USBR as a proposed ncn when the ACA is still in the > "corridor only" phase, and no SPECIFIC route exists. I think she and > I agree there. In some of those cases, there is an existing STATE > (rcn) route (which MAY become a USBR/ncn) and so it seems the correct > response is to change those from ncn/proposed to rcn/actual. If/as > the state adopts the state route as a specific USBR, (initially as > proposed, perhaps paralleling the existing rcn, perhaps not), it can > then be promoted, or another relation in OSM can capture this for > display in OCM. > > Does this make everybody happy? Consensus is important, even > critical, in OSM.
That makes sense to me. [trying to stick to OSM issues] I think the essence of what's troublesome is that 'proposed' lacks a crisp definition. We should be trying to represent reality in the map (whether or not that annoys people). But there's a continuum from one guy in a bar saying "hey, we should make a route here" (obviously does not cont) to the last 100-page formal application by some government or community body to the official designating body, with the weight of government and community behind it, and which has some significant likelihood of being approved (which obviously does count). The middle is tricky. Given that, I think it's only really useful to discuss whether any specific route merits a proposed tag, with the facts of that situation.
pgpCVOHowCmGT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
