On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:19:20 +0200 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > On 10/21/2015 04:46 AM, Ray Kiddy wrote: > > To me, OSM is a tool which is ideal for relating various information > > layers across a multi-dimensional substrate. This substrate is a > > two-dimensional geography, which is defined geographically. To me, > > it seems perfect for things like borders. > > OSM is first and foremost a community of people curating a data set. > This process works best with data that is verifiable on the ground, > because if two community members disagree over something, the dispute > can be resolved by simply looking at the place. Also, the mapper > (surveyor) is the ultimate authority in OSM; we map what *is*, not > what some government says should be. > > We do have a few items that go against these principles, most notably > borders. They are not easily verifiable, and they are items where the > authority lies elsewhere - where OSM can only ever be a copy of some > master data being defined by a government, instead of being the > authoritative source. OSM is certainly not "perfect" for collecting > and curating such information; this is a fact and not a matter of > personal opinion. Having these borders in OSM is already a compromise > where the usefulness (high) has been weighed against the suitability > of OSM as a medium (low). I am seeing the truth in what you are saying now. First, I am still somewhat new to the OSM game. But also I am interested in the use of it for borders for, for example, school districts in the US. And I am seeing that (in line with Richard's suggestion, different e-mail), I may want to investigate doing that in a separate database connected to OSM. And I created just such a database several weeks ago, so yes, that makes sense. I am currently writing software which keeps track of the relations and which periodically checks their integrity. > > It is very true that, as you say, OSM "excels at holding information > > that users can see, verify and update." I think it is also true that > > OSM excels at relating abstract themes in a multi-dimensional space. > > I can't process the use of "multi-dimensional" in this context. OSM is > not multi-dimensional, it is 2.5-dimensional at best, and affixing > bits and bobs of extra information to some objects doesn't make it > multi-dimensional. OSM certainly does not excel at relating abstract > themes - the contrary is true, OSM is about concrete stuff. As soon as > we veer into the less concrete - for example, public transport > relations instead of steel tracks on the ground - we hit the limits > of our editing tools, and of most people working with OSM too. Yes we > do that (public transport relations) but we certainly don't "excel" > at it. I meant "dimension" in terms of themes. So a map (2 d) with a layer for average family income, a layer for electricity usage and a layer for foliage coverage is a 5-dimensional map. Like that. > > And OSM is many, many others things as well. Many others would > > define it differently and all of those would also be valid and > > useful. > > > All of our viewpoints are valuable, and it is more clear that this > > is true when we describe our viewpoints as viewpoints, not as norms. > > I think this lovey-dovey relativism doesn't go anywhere. To me, it > smacks of "well, the scientific method is one way to look at physics > but of course there are many others that are equally valid and > useful". OSM is certainly not whatever anyone sees in it, and > certainly not all these views are equally valid and useful. > > Bye > Frederik > "Lovey-dovey" :-) I like that. I usually have been accused of not being, shall we say, "lovey-dovey". Perhaps I am just trying to be politic and have sung the pendulum too far. The points I am seeing from you all make sense, so I stand corrected. thanx - ray _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us