<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Jan 24, 2020, 13:50 by pla16021@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 10:06, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div>&& Deleting a non-functioning fountain node, is discouraged<br></div></div><div>But in case of removed structure deletion<br></div><div>of node is encouraged.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There are some (I'm one of them) who would say that if the fountain is likely to<br></div><div>be remapped because there are many images of it on the web, then it is better<br></div><div>to retain the node and apply a removed: lifecycle prefix to it (and possibly a<br></div><div>note, explaining things). Others will strongly disagree, saying that OSM<br></div><div>doesn't map history and ignoring that this is actually a quality assurance<br></div><div>mechanism.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Yes, it is acceptable and desirable as long as there is a real risk of mistaken remapping.<br></div><div><br></div> </body>
</html>