[Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge
davefox at madasafish.com
Tue Sep 28 02:35:35 BST 2010
On 28/09/2010 01:41, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Dave F.<davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
>> On 28/09/2010 01:11, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Dave F.<davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
>>>> But only add what is actually visibly there now. Not what was there fifty
>>>> years ago.
>>> What was there 50 years ago is useful,
>> I agree
>>> and removing it would be
>> I disagree. How can it be vandalism if it's not there anymore?
> Because we don't only map what's currently there.
I think the vast majority of us do. Looking at recent (since OSM
started) developments in my vicinity, I see no evidence that any
historical elements were retained, & I have seen no earlier data being
added in any place I've looked.
>>> You can argue about whether Mapnik should show it, but
>>> don't remove it.
>> For those who want to keep historic records (& I think there should be),
>> they should take a record of current data at regular intervals& keep it in
>> a separate database.
>> If historic data was kept within OSM it would become far to cluttered.
> Strawman. We're only talking about former railway alignments.
Hmm... not sure you understand the meaning of the straw man argument.
You're statement "Because we don't only map what's currently there."
proves you (& I) have moved the discussion on to include all data.
>> Why do you think it should remain in the OSM database?
> Because it's of local interest even where no linear traces remain.
As I said before (I shall repeat as you evidently didn't read it), I
agree, it *is* of interest & the data should be kept, just not within
the OSM database.
From your last missive:
"Because we don't only map what's currently there.
To expand on this:
This is a poor argument. These are clearly for *current* entities that are still in existence, but have been renamed.
More information about the Tagging