Jonathan Masur has added a larger number of historic municipality boundaries in the canton Vaud, breaking a fair number of real boundaries in the process, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53490105#map=14/46.5737/6.7725
Any Objections to reverting all of this?
Simon
Hello,
Le 04. 11. 17 à 12:51, Simon Poole a écrit :
Jonathan Masur has added a larger number of historic municipality boundaries in the canton Vaud, breaking a fair number of real boundaries in the process, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53490105#map=14/46.5737/6.7725
Any Objections to reverting all of this?
yes, 3 :
- first let him have some time to answer in stead of "reverting the changesets in a couple of hours"
- the changeset you show doesn't any added boundary... boundary already exist in the history of those 3 relations. what's broken precisely ?
- in the area I map a lot, after the merge of municipaly, you delete old boundary, because, as read on the wiki "il is clean to not having to maintain old boundary". but in fact, removing historical boundary has made me lose hours : many track change their name according to the old municipal boundaries. the postal addresses of buildings depending (largely) on the old comunal boundaries. Old boundaries are so useful that I have a josm file with their way that I load every time I need it. I find it useless and counterproductive that these info are lost in osm while keep them would require less effort (no maintenance as it will not change anymore, maybe just prefix with disued) I was thinking about opening a topic about it, but it's probably an opportunity to talk about it now.
I'm still looking at the changeset and.. woaw you already revert it.... so why asking ? it's really a VERY bad way to do
Regards, Marc
I've already reverted given that the number of changes would make it very problematic to wait longer.
Am 04.11.2017 um 13:19 schrieb marc marc:
Hello,
Le 04. 11. 17 à 12:51, Simon Poole a écrit :
Jonathan Masur has added a larger number of historic municipality boundaries in the canton Vaud, breaking a fair number of real boundaries in the process, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53490105#map=14/46.5737/6.7725
Any Objections to reverting all of this?
yes, 3 :
- first let him have some time to answer in stead of "reverting
the changesets in a couple of hours"
- the changeset you show doesn't any added boundary... boundary already
exist in the history of those 3 relations. what's broken precisely ?
See https://wambachers-osm.website/index.php/10-osm-reports/1073-countries-compa...
- in the area I map a lot, after the merge of municipaly, you delete old
boundary, because, as read on the wiki "il is clean to not having to maintain old boundary". but in fact, removing historical boundary has made me lose hours : many track change their name according to the old municipal boundaries. the postal addresses of buildings depending (largely) on the old comunal boundaries. Old boundaries are so useful that I have a josm file with their way that I load every time I need it. I find it useless and counterproductive that these info are lost in osm while keep them would require less effort (no maintenance as it will not change anymore, maybe just prefix with disued) I was thinking about opening a topic about it, but it's probably an opportunity to talk about it now.
You misunderstood he has been adding historical boundaries that never existed in OSM prior to his changes (and that from an undocumented source), this is orthogonal to the question of retaining boundaries that no longer exist due to mergers etc.
I'm still looking at the changeset and.. woaw you already revert it.... so why asking ? it's really a VERY bad way to do
See above. Given that it amounts to an undocumented, undiscussed and likely illegal import it would have been zapped in any case, doing it now simply reduced the amount of work (if individual changes are determined to be OK after the fact, they can always be reinstated, that is not an issue).
Simon
Regards, Marc _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Am 04.11.2017 um 13:19 schrieb marc marc:
Hello,
Le 04. 11. 17 à 12:51, Simon Poole a écrit :
Jonathan Masur has added a larger number of historic municipality boundaries in the canton Vaud, breaking a fair number of real boundaries in the process, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53490105#map=14/46.5737/6.7725
Any Objections to reverting all of this?
yes, 3 :
- first let him have some time to answer in stead of "reverting
the changesets in a couple of hours"
- the changeset you show doesn't any added boundary... boundary already
exist in the history of those 3 relations. what's broken precisely ?
- in the area I map a lot, after the merge of municipaly, you delete old
boundary, because, as read on the wiki "il is clean to not having to maintain old boundary". but in fact, removing historical boundary has made me lose hours : many track change their name according to the old municipal boundaries. the postal addresses of buildings depending (largely) on the old comunal boundaries. Old boundaries are so useful that I have a josm file with their way that I load every time I need it. I find it useless and counterproductive that these info are lost in osm while keep them would require less effort (no maintenance as it will not change anymore, maybe just prefix with disued) I was thinking about opening a topic about it, but it's probably an opportunity to talk about it now.
I'm still looking at the changeset and.. woaw you already revert it.... so why asking ? it's really a VERY bad way to do
+1
Agree. I would never delete old boundaries, as they might server later on for historical purposes, e.g. If somebody wants to do a map showing the development of community mergers in Switzerland.
cheers, h.
Regards, Marc _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Am 04.11.2017 um 13:36 schrieb Andreas Bürki:
Agree. I would never delete old boundaries, as they might server later on for historical purposes, e.g. If somebody wants to do a map showing the development of community mergers in Switzerland.
As I've pointed out that has nothing to do with the changes at hand, but regardless of that: removing the old boundaries after mergers is simply a practical concern.
- they don't actually exist - they make editing (a lot) more difficult - there are no QA tools for them, essentially guaranteeing that they will be broken and useless after a couple of years - in summary: an awlful lot of baggage to carry around for the theoretical use case of documenting ~6 years of changes in the boundaries (which you can get from the history dump without all of the above issues)
But as said, that is not the issue at hand.
Simon
I think Marc street names argument is very valid. There was a discussion recently on the French forum about old communal boundaries, some are even wanting to put 1970 boundaries in OSM. Worth the discussion at least, even if I don't think it is a good idea. Yves
Le 4 novembre 2017 13:51:00 GMT+01:00, Simon Poole simon@poole.ch a écrit :
Am 04.11.2017 um 13:36 schrieb Andreas Bürki:
Agree. I would never delete old boundaries, as they might server
later
on for historical purposes, e.g. If somebody wants to do a map
showing
the development of community mergers in Switzerland.
As I've pointed out that has nothing to do with the changes at hand, but regardless of that: removing the old boundaries after mergers is simply a practical concern.
- they don't actually exist
- they make editing (a lot) more difficult
- there are no QA tools for them, essentially guaranteeing that they
will be broken and useless after a couple of years
- in summary: an awlful lot of baggage to carry around for the
theoretical use case of documenting ~6 years of changes in the boundaries (which you can get from the history dump without all of the above issues)
But as said, that is not the issue at hand.
Simon
+1 for Simon.
From what I observe, it's hard enough to keep the current data up to
date (and unbroken), so I'd rather avoid piling years of historical data on top of it, especially if current boundaries get broken in the process.
Thorsten
On 04.11.2017 13:51, Simon Poole wrote:
Am 04.11.2017 um 13:36 schrieb Andreas Bürki:
Agree. I would never delete old boundaries, as they might server later on for historical purposes, e.g. If somebody wants to do a map showing the development of community mergers in Switzerland.
As I've pointed out that has nothing to do with the changes at hand, but regardless of that: removing the old boundaries after mergers is simply a practical concern.
- they don't actually exist
- they make editing (a lot) more difficult
- there are no QA tools for them, essentially guaranteeing that they
will be broken and useless after a couple of years
- in summary: an awlful lot of baggage to carry around for the
theoretical use case of documenting ~6 years of changes in the boundaries (which you can get from the history dump without all of the above issues)
But as said, that is not the issue at hand.
Simon
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
I would agree, but if someone find it useful for today mapping, why deleting them? Yves
Le 4 novembre 2017 17:37:12 GMT+01:00, Thorsten Kurz tkurz@gmx.net a écrit :
+1 for Simon.
From what I observe, it's hard enough to keep the current data up to date (and unbroken), so I'd rather avoid piling years of historical data on top of it, especially if current boundaries get broken in the process.
Thorsten
On 04.11.2017 13:51, Simon Poole wrote:
Am 04.11.2017 um 13:36 schrieb Andreas Bürki:
Agree. I would never delete old boundaries, as they might server
later
on for historical purposes, e.g. If somebody wants to do a map
showing
the development of community mergers in Switzerland.
As I've pointed out that has nothing to do with the changes at hand,
but
regardless of that: removing the old boundaries after mergers is
simply
a practical concern.
- they don't actually exist
- they make editing (a lot) more difficult
- there are no QA tools for them, essentially guaranteeing that they
will be broken and useless after a couple of years
- in summary: an awlful lot of baggage to carry around for the
theoretical use case of documenting ~6 years of changes in the boundaries (which you can get from the history dump without all of
the
above issues)
But as said, that is not the issue at hand.
Simon
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
Hi
I agree that reverting the boundaries in Vaud made sense.
Reading the rest of the discussion, I would also prefer if historical boundaries would be kept in a open historical map sister project (the arguments have been mentioned). However, if we would store some recent boundaries in OSM due to popular request, how would they be tagged? Can we make it easy for data consumers to void them?
Michael
-
Andreas Bürki -
marc marc -
michael spreng -
Simon Poole -
Thorsten Kurz -
Yves