> But does it belong in OSM? You need to provide a very strong argument to go
> against the maxims.
Agreed.
If you can verify the location of an abandoned landfill which is
overgrown, and you really want to map it, it would be best to use
abandoned:landuse=landfill
(If the landfill is merely di
> Lately in my area old landfills from the 60ies and 70ies have been
> opened again for maintenance. They are forest by now but all trees have
> been removed beforehand. So those landfills are now observable.
Yes, you _could_ observe and map them nowand as soon as they cover them
over again th
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 11:34 Uhr schrieb Jez Nicholson <
jez.nichol...@gmail.com>:
> in the UK at least, people just didn't keep records because "out of sight,
> out of mind".
>
that's what they tell you...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstree
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:32:05AM +, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Mapping of things that cannot be verified on-the-ground has to be a very
> special case. Such as underground power cables.
>
> A currently active landfill and a completed/capped-off landfill are not the
> same thing. One is verifiabl
Mapping of things that cannot be verified on-the-ground has to be a very
special case. Such as underground power cables.
A currently active landfill and a completed/capped-off landfill are not the
same thing. One is verifiable on-the-ground, the other is not. One has a
[surface] landuse of being a
Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 10:54 Uhr schrieb Cascafico Giovanni <
cascaf...@gmail.com>:
> Hello,
>
> I've an OSM compatible dataset that helps me to spot landfills. Older
> ones are already covered by grass and/or trees.
>
> IMHO could be useful to save landfill locations for a future possible use.
Hello,
I've an OSM compatible dataset that helps me to spot landfills. Older
ones are already covered by grass and/or trees.
IMHO could be useful to save landfill locations for a future possible use.
Does it make sense tag the ones with surface alterations with level=-1 ?
Or shall I consider lan
