Dave, Clearly all those things, and much more, can and should be mapped. They can all be seen on the street and they all have public access. I agree: "If it's a physical entity then it can be mapped." ++
What is less clear is what happens if changing the licence means we lose "invisible" administrative boundaries and data from areas where public access is difficult, restricted or non-existent. For example would be nice to include the boundaries of a UK National Park or a site of special scientific interest or (dare I say it) the coastline of Australia - but I don't think it is a "disaster" that threatens the future of the project if these things are removed because of a change in the licence. PY On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote: > paul youlten wrote: >> >> But it is still a street map that we are making - administrative >> boundaries, top secret government installations, Al Qaeda training >> camps, water catchment areas and so on are fascinating (and probably >> great fun to map) but they are not necessarily part of a street map. >> >> PY >> >> > > Paul > > I think you have a slightly narrow perspective of OSM. > > Yes, it has street in the title & yes, it says "/such as street maps" /in > the tag line, but it doesn't say 'only' street maps. > > Do you think parks, pubs, recycling centres etc shouldn't be mapped? > > If it's a physical entity then it can be mapped. > > Cheers > Dave F. > > > -- Tel: +44(0) 7814 517 807 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
