Razed would be much better for this kind of object (though I am not a big fan fan of razed, sooner or later completely mundane things without any kind of recognition are tagged this way).
But at least it is not misrepresenting things. 2014-12-16 22:20 GMT+01:00 Zecke <z...@saeuferleber.de>: > > > "interesting to map dismantled city gates as historic=city_gate" > >> >> It is OK to map ruins/remmants, archeological site - but note that >> completely destroyed objects should NOT be mapped. > > > typically city gates have had such a huge impact on the structure of > cities that they normally persist even if there is nothing left in physical > terms. The roads that once passed the gates are still the "arterial" roads, > the squares are still named after the gates (typically) and the whole area > often still has that name (e.g. referring here to my birth town Tübingen, > where everybody would still know "Neckartor" (dismantled 1804), "Lustnauer > Tor" or "Haagtor" (and 2 others, all of which non-existent physically but > very existent in daily life/communication, e.g. to set up a place to meet)). > > > Actually we recommend to map such objects with the razed: prefix for > objects that once existed but now there are only barely remnants or even > indirect indications thereof. > As long as there is a historical interest in them and there is a slight > indication of its position we are willing to map them in the historic map. > > Cheers, > Zecke > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
