Lars Aronsson schrieb: > Steve Hill wrote: > > >> Peter Miller wrote: >> >> >>> I agree. I think we need to adopt a Wikipedia concept of >>> 'notability'. For example... A wood is notable, a large >>> established solitary tree in a park >>> >> I'm afraid I see the notability criteria as one of Wikipedia's >> biggest problems so I would hate to see OSM go the same way. >> I've seen too many >> > > > Please, the two are not comparable. To my own surprise, I have > turned into a supporter of deletions on Wikipedia. Not > indiscriminate, of course, but in certain cases, and they are more > frequent than I had thought at first. But the same reasons are > not present in OpenStreetMap. > > Instead of the keep/delete issue, it would be useful for > OpenStreetMap (in the API and JOSM) to clearly indicate when an > object was last edited. If I look at a part of a city and ask > myself, whether this crossing really is a roundabout, then it > would be useful to know if that information was added in 2008 or > 2006. This is a problem we didn't have in 2006, because we had no > areas that were mapped two years earlier. Now we have that. > > It could also be useful to be able to validate (check, confirm) > older map features, e.g. this motorway was drawn by SteveC in 2006 > and was validated (timestamped but not altered) by LA2 in 2008. > It could be as simple as adding a tag "validated=2008-05-17/LA2". > Then we could have people go around and validate all objects that > haven't been touched in, say, five years.
One information will be lost for sure with the current model which is NOT comparabel to Wikipedia. Time! If you ever wish to show map items before this moment we need old information. For plants is's obvious that you will gather data from the comparison of different times. I am not going conform with you just to concentrate on the thin layer of presence. regards, Stephan. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
