<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 28/09/2010 10:28, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTin0nx_QC-USrLNocn9fbRvfQpbmH+-6KL59KevA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">2010/9/28 Dave F. <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:davefox@madasafish.com"><davefox@madasafish.com></a>:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
that's not a good option: those datasets will diverge more and more,
and in the end all connection/topology gets lost.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
How can they diverge when there not joined in the first place? -
there's very little historic data in the database to start with.<br>
<br>
One of the benefits of OSM is the ability to 'mash-up' different
data sources so there's very little need to have all data in one
container.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTin0nx_QC-USrLNocn9fbRvfQpbmH+-6KL59KevA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If historic data was kept within OSM it would become far to cluttered.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
only if people insert it in masses. I don't see this. As long as you
don't permit mass imports, it will not be a problem.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
as I said the method it was added is irrelevant, it will still lie
on top of each other.<br>
I live in a city that, historically, goes back well over 2000 years.
Even if one plot of land is hand mapped back into the past, it will
be very confusing to edit the current structure.
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTin0nx_QC-USrLNocn9fbRvfQpbmH+-6KL59KevA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">@Martin K.
To me data is data, irrelevant of how it was added.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I know, my approach is less dogmatic and more practical.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Err?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTin0nx_QC-USrLNocn9fbRvfQpbmH+-6KL59KevA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Only current data should be within the OSM database.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
an abandoned railway is current data. It is an abandoned railway
currently (as long as you don't excavate all foundations and draining
layers and remove them together with bridges and tunnels, you will
still have most of the railway there, even if the tracks are removed).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
You obviously didn't read, or take on board what I said earlier.
I'll give it one more go:<br>
<br>
If it's a physical entity that was old railway line infrastructure
& is *still visible*, such a bridge or a cutting/embankment, map
& tag it, including the railway=abandoned tag if you're aware
that that is what it was.
<br>
<br>
However if there is <b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>no<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>
visible evidence of it (ie embankments being flatten), then it
shouldn't be mapped. This is not current data & doen't belong in
OSM.<br>
<br>
If a building is completely demolished to make way for a new
structure, it should be removed from the database.<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Dave F.<br>
</body>
</html>