My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some pieces that have been completely erased, but of which we have documented knowledge of where they once were. The entire thing makes sense only with all its parts. These things be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and hence, if someone has gone to the length of mapping them, should find space in OSM. In my view a general rule that any mapper can erase any object from the map, when he does not see any trace of it, is certainly not correct , he may be removing parts of the thing thsat only with all its partsmakes sense. Anyway i am against removing apparently useless data without consultation with the author, with the exception of clear errors.
Volker Volker On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 00:46, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:29 PM Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < >> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> 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? >>> >> >> I didn't map it (somebody else did), but I can observe the path of a >> former railway >> because some of the route has the tree-lined hedges typical in this part >> of the world. >> Often between such hedges is a farm track, or a road, occasionally a >> footpath, but >> there is no highway along this route. It is an otherwise inexplicable >> pair of tree-lined >> hedges, or gaps in woodland. With the occasional bridge, embankment and >> cutting. >> >> Yes, you need historical knowledge to figure out what the route was, but >> you >> can identify it from aerial imagery. See if you can figure out which bit >> on the >> map it is: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0496/-4.6166 >> >> Is the existence of those actual, verifiable features sufficient to >> justify >> mapping an abandoned railway as explanation and to deter other mappers >> from guessing there is a footpath or track where one doesn't exist? Is it >> sufficient to justify mapping the whole abandoned line, even though it is >> less obvious along much of the route? >> >> I might not map such a line myself, but I'd be very reluctant to remove >> it. >> Especially as I suspect there are bridges, culverts, cuttings and >> embankments >> along it that still exist but have not yet been mapped. >> > > I concur with Paul. I've helped do some preliminary work for a new bike > route. The preliminary plan was to use the road for the bike route. When > looking at OSM, next to the road was an abandoned railway. The tracks > appear to be gone, but the raised bed is visible. Without the existence of > the abandoned railway it most likely would have been missed. If this bike > route ever comes into existence, the planners can now consider using the > old railway. They may not due to cost, but at least they have the option. > And they wouldn't have found the old railway from Google or local > county/city drawings, just OSM. > > With no artifacts left, I agree it can and should be removed. But I'm > really cautious with railway lines because they can be repurposed easily. > > Best, > Clifford > > -- > @osm_washington > www.snowandsnow.us > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
