<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><br><br><div dir="ltr">sent from a phone</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On 7. Jun 2020, at 03:32, Warin <61sundowner@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>How hard you look for them? I would hope that does not extend to
ground penetrating radar that is used to find old buildings that
used to exist<br></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div>ultimately things under the surface would be included, the distinction is not how difficult to find or hard to access something is, but whether “it exists”<div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Where something has been demolished and replaced with something
else, should the old thing remain in OSM? <br></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div>If nothing at all has remained, usually no, eventually for some time yes (e.g. to avoid someone reputting it from aerial imagery). <br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>And yes I am thinking of old railway routes that have gone and
been replaced with roads/rail trails etc. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
To me - the old thing is no longer there, the new thing has
overlay-ed it and replaces it. If people want to map old things ..
well their place should be in OHM not OSM.</div></blockquote><br></div><div><br></div><div>we were discussing things which have been removed or have decayed but of which something has remained. These can be very sparse, small and hard to find traces, but something must be observable. It does not mean everybody must be able to identify and correctly interpret it, even without additional knowledge.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers Martin </div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>