Hi, Matt Amos wrote: > 3) not sharing information which should be shared. if i went to a > roman road and surveyed it extremely accurately and, because its a > currently-in-use road, lined up the current highway with the > measurements that would update the "special interest" roman road, > right? well, it depends on how that works. if the roman road and > current road share all their nodes, but i add a node to the current > road, does that make the client add a node to the roman road too? > again, the client can't know this without downloading all the data. > > my solution would be to set up my own OSM server for this kind of > purely historical data, where it won't conflict with existing OSM > data.
I was actually trying to suggest that it might, in some cases, really make sense for things to be shared between the then and the now. If you take the Parthenon in Rome, then the geometry should be pretty much the same between now and ancient times, and as you say, refining the geometry of today's tourism=attraction should ideally also improve the ancient place_of_worship=church. This could not be done if you have Ancient Rome on a separate server. Much as we pride ourselves in topological correctness - for us, a junction is not where two linear shapes happen to intersect, but an explicitly placed node that, if moved, will modify both shapes -, I would also love to see continuity in the temporal dimension, i.e. I would prefer the Parthenon to use the same nodes, then and now, because it *is* the same building. I guess this has the potential to be hellishly complex but also fun. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
