On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us>wrote:
> > I wonder if it time to accept that we are unable to reach a consensus. Can > we agree to let the local community decide which way to proceed? They are > in the best position to know the issues surrounding neighborhood borders. > There didn't seem to be any show-stoppers in the arguments for > nodes/polygons. > Maybe not a "show stopper", but that trivializes the debate. The OSM convention of "verifiable mapping" is an important one, I think the project deviates from this to short term gain but long term detriment. Encouraging mapping of a invisible boundary is problematic. Often that boundary will be unverifiable, fluid and opinion-based. Encouraging yet more mapping clutter of large areas is a problem due to poor tool support (we've got landuse, administrative, watersheds, and now neighborhoods). The best one can hope for is that neighborhoods would finally break things so bad that editing software would start to hide those layers for most editing purposes. There IS a wiki talk page on this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Neighbourhood And here is sample node that I feel "works", even though the aera is fluid. It hits the majority of the use cases I've heard of for OSM, and links to a proper description of a concept that's just not as simple as a polygon: place=neighbourhood name=SoMa name_1=South of Market website=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_of_Market,_San_Francisco<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_of_Market,_San_Francisco>
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
