On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Am 29.01.2011 13:48, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: >> >> 2011/1/29 Ulf Lamping<ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com>: >>> >>> image=URL >> >> >> I wonder if this is something we would like to have in our db. Imagine >> if we become really widely used, the amount of these tags would >> probably explode. > > And what's the actual problem with that?
+1 Exactly. When we start limiting our conceptual framework about what is and isn't okay- that's when the project loses its value. > BTW: Having a link to a photo of an object would be probably a lot more > useful to a lot of people than half of the tags we currently have in the DB > :-) Again, this is true. >> I see this as a case for an external database. > > You see a lot of things different than I do ;-) Here's my .02: I was at a Wikipedia event not too long ago and a lot of the "value add" the users were mentioning was in WikiCommons. WikiCommons is their repository of usable content that's not directly in Wikipedia. It's images, original documents, etc. I thought "Why don't we have that? We can store images of places, licensed maps, etc." And if we don't, I'm sure we could work with them (WikiMedia) to do it for us and work collaboratively. The more material we have to work with, the greater our opportunity is to make more interesting, more compelling, more accurate maps. That should be our focus, and to provide the tools to facilitate this by our community of developers and mappers. - Serge _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
