Clifford and Serge write:
> Seattle has very defined neighborhoods and even sub-neighborhoods.
As you imply, Seattle may be an exception (more detailed explanation below).
Serge, this isn't an implication, it is stated and actual fact.
> ...But if we have access to
> administrative boundaries, I believe they should be in OSM. (At least until
> we have a viable alternative.) Why not neighborhoods?
There are some good reasons to not consider this.
First, there are a growing number of people who believe that
administrative data is very useful, but breaks OSM's "ground
observable" rule. That is, someone who is present on the ground should
be able to observe the data in OSM. It's usually not possible to do
that with administrative boundaries.
And other times, Serge, it is 100% possible. Signs which read
"Welcome to Hillcrest" and "Allied Gardens, a community of San Diego,
City In Motion" are real and fairly delineate where a "community"
(neighborhood, quarter, district, suburb, area-within-city-limits...)
begins and ends. Seattleites agree that you "enter" Ballard when you
cross the bridge, or that you are "in" Magnolia as you drive over
Balmer rail yard via the Magnolia Bridge or West Dravus. OSM can map
these, OSM SHOULD map these, OSM DOES map these. San Diego (and
elsewhere) has signs -- therefore this is "ground truth-able." In
Seattle (and other places) maybe there are or aren't signs, but when
you ask locals, and 100% who are knowledgeable to answer say "Yup,
once past Salmon Bay on the Ballard Bridge, you are 'in' Ballard"
then OSM needs to say so, too.
Of course adminstrative boundaries are things people care about, but
there's a growing number of people who believe that this data would be
best served from some other dataset and then used in conjunction with
OSM data during output (ie rendering, geocoding, etc.) rather than be
integrated into OSM itself.
"Growing?" Are you keeping track, Serge? May we see your data, please?
The second reason to consider not entering neighborhood data into OSM
is that many towns and cities do not have hard and fast rules
regarding neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are subjective.
Neighborhoods CAN be subjective, but other times they are as solid as
a city limit sign. OSM should reflect that, especially when true.
Not only are
they subjective but neighborhoods have strong associations with issues
of personal identity, such as ethnicity (and) socio-economic status.
In other words, a conflict between two people in regards to a
neighborhood can have larger implications.
Heck, this is true between Israel and Palestinians, as well as every
border dispute on Earth. OSM copes. Sure, maybe the DWG gets
involved (I remember Chechnya...) and it is some effort to untangle
the politics. But we owe this effort (our best effort) to our map
consumers. We DON'T owe them "let's throw up our hands because there
is no line drawn on the ground." Too many people who consume our
(and every other) map believe boundaries to be such an integral part
of "map" that the concept of boundaries to delineate the names and
features of "place" will never go away. Hey, I know that astronauts
looking at Earth don't see boundaries. But they aren't making a map.
We are.
Imagine if Bob and Alice conflict on where a neighborhood boundary is
inside OSM. The issue escalates to an edit war and the DWG is called
in to resolve the conflict. Let's say that Frank is our DWG member.
How is Frank supposed to resolve the conflict between Alice and Bob?
Is there a sign? Done. Are there "public published" (e.g. city
government) geo data? Well, "less done," but still done. The latter
might not be "on the ground verifiable" but such data DO represent
"the will of the People." I believe OSM can take that as "not
nothing" even if it is not zealously "on the ground verifiable." How
do we justify every other boundary in OSM? We can't see THOSE,
Serge, can we?
Often...administrative recognition is not in alignment with the people.
This is a contradiction; see above.
I imagine this would be especially an issue with neighborhoods where
lots of the under-represented populations live.
I don't, so I suppose we can agree to disagree.
I suspect you can see where this could all be problematic... That's
why I'm not in favor of this data being inside OSM. I think it'd be
better for a different dataset that OSM tools can then consume.
I don't, so I suppose we can agree to disagree.
Tenets of our map like "on the ground verifiable" are important, but
only to the extent they are widely and consistently respected.
Boundaries, in our map since Day 1 and never-to-be-eradicated (I'm
just being realistic) totally violate that spirit, so this argument
rings hollow to me. Just because our data police find their work
difficult doesn't mean they get a pass on rolling up their sleeves
and doing it: they knew the work was work when they signed up. They
don't get to hide behind inconsistent tenets with unsurpassed zeal,
contradicting the history of the map and the voices of its volunteers.
I respect Serge, and I respect the often difficult work the DWG does
and must do. But on this issue: where neighborhoods and boundaries
are firmly established in reality and therefore both are and should
be in our map, I steadfastly disagree with him.
Primarily determined to achieve light, not heat,
SteveA
California
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
