May 28, 2020, 23:42 by vosc...@gmail.com: > This is a "problem" that is being exaggerated, in my view. There are very > small percentage of historic "things" in the OSM database that really do not > exist anymore in the sense that they are truly invisible. > And it should stay the same, preferably both with absolute number and percentage going down. > There are plenty of historical "things" in OSM of which large parts still > exist today, like the Colosseum in Rome or the Great Wall of China, just to > name two big ones. > Noone proposed deleting objects such as Colosseum and you know that. Colosseum is not completely gone - neither as building nor as tourism attraction and you know this well. > One extreme example that springs to mind is > The Ridgeway > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ridgeway>> on the Berkshire Downs in > Southern England, believed to be Europe's oldest long-distance road. Even if > it's exact course has been lost over the millennia it is today a major > tourist attraction for hikers and MTB fans as the prehistoric monuments are > aligned on its course like the pearls on a necklace. Most of it is today a > National Trail, but bits are missing, and no longer visible in the landscape, > mainly due to human intervention. I have not checked on OSM how it is mapped > - I know it from walking it in pre-OSM times. > National trail is (almost certainly) mappable but guessed route of the Ridgeway is not something that can be mapped in OSM. It is not a place to discuss which historian has a better guess or store all known versions proposed as possible route. > There was a > railway form Ostiglia on the Rover Po to Treviso in Veneto > <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrovia_Treviso-Ostiglia>> , Italy, built in > the early 20th century and abandoned in 1987. No rails remain, but nearly all > station buildings and other ancillary buildings and many bridges are still > there (or have been restored). More than half of it has been converted so far > into a foot-cycle route, one of the busiest in the country. The entire course > is still visible in the landscape, easily spotted from satellite imagery. > > This <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2375471>> is the OSM bicycle > route relation of the (existing) foot-cycleway and this is the > site > relation of the original railway > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1860446>> course and (most of) the > buildings and some other artefacts. Planning work is under way to complete > the entire foot-cycle route from Treviso to Ostiglia. I will obtain the > planing material with the aim of inserting it in OSM as proposed cycling > route. > Proposed features are separate can of worms but at least check copyright status of this plans. I agree that it is good example of something on a boundary (assuming that both "rails completely gone" and "track of former railway is recognisable"). Do you have some good images showing both? Preferably something on Wikimedia Commons. Or on a matching license. > And if an OSM mapper has inserted that context information, in the extreme > case in the form of razed railway tags on a hedge, or similar trivial > objects, this information is a valid contribution to OSM, and I would > consider removing it as vandalism. > Vandalism is typically reserved for edits that damage OSM database and are deliberately malicious. Mapping razed railway where it is actually clearly recognizable is OK. Mapping razed railway where it is no longer recognizable and requires old map or memory to map it? Out of scope. > On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 06:12, Skyler Hawthorne <> o...@dead10ck.com> > wrote: > >> >> On May 25, 2020 15:35:44 Jack Armstrong <>> jacknst...@sprynet.com>> > wrote: >> >>> I agree with >>> Mateusz Konieczny. If there is some vestige of the object >>> remaining, then mapping it in some way seems reasonable. But, if the >>> railway, building, highway, etc., are completely removed and there are >>> absolutely no visible remains of what was once there, it can be removed. >>> >>> I don't see the need to map something that does not actually exist. >>> >>> - Jack Armstrong >>> chachafish >>> >> >> I agree. OSM is not a historical object database. If it doesn't exist, it >> shouldn't be in the data. >> -- >> Skyler >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
