<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>Apr 26, 2022, 13:49 by dieterdreist@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><div class="" dir="ltr">Am Di., 26. Apr. 2022 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>>:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div>Otherwise it would be ridiculously overwhelming and would block any editing by<br></div><div dir="auto">beginners (3D mapping is already causing major issues).<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>buildings that are not there should not be mapped, my example was for an arterial road and it is still there, below the surface.<br></div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">what about buildings where remains are under surface?<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I am highly dubious about mapping even ones where clearly preserved underground <br></div><div>remains are present at known locations.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>why?<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Because it is<br></div><div dir="auto">- unverifiable for mappers<br></div><div dir="auto">- often tricky: one historian will claim "it is certainly remain of old chapel of following<br></div><div dir="auto">shape", other will dispute is it certain, another will claim that it was a palace,<br></div><div dir="auto">another will describe it as a city wall, another will...<br></div><div dir="auto">- going to result in uneditable map if someone would map it fully<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div dir="auto">Entrances of old churches are located below street level - not above it. Partially<br></div><div dir="auto">because buildings and roads were reconstructed multiple times and remains of them<br></div><div dir="auto">caused ground level to increase (part of that was layers of old rubbish).<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>typical situation is that the "old" and the "new building" are actually one, so it would be indoor mapping to map the old church below the new church, which are in a way all just phases of the "same building".<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">but it is standard that each shape was a bit different. See for example<br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.livius.org/site/assets/files/19907/troy_section.gif">https://www.livius.org/site/assets/files/19907/troy_section.gif</a> from <br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.livius.org/articles/place/troy/">https://www.livius.org/articles/place/troy/</a><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And historians rarely agree what is certain and what is likely and what should<br></div><div dir="auto">be treated as likely old state (they often agree in rough description and disagree<br></div><div dir="auto">in details)<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div dir="auto">Either way this old layers are not mappable.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I am sure they are mappable, e.g. with indoor mapping techniques, they are there, their existence can be verified<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">It can be verified by archeological excavations, it cannot be verified by normal mapper<br></div><div dir="auto">(as it would require digging into a street in a middle of city, or doing even more<br></div><div dir="auto">annoying things)<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In other words, it is unverifiable for a typical mapper.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><div dir="auto">but be assured, personally I do not have intentions not do it ;-)<br></div><div>This kind of stuff would usually have to be mapped in scales we are not typically dealing with.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">the problem is that it is enough to have single person copying from archeological<br></div><div dir="auto">research<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For extreme case see <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_(archaeology)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_(archaeology)</a><br></div><div dir="auto">"mound consisting of the accumulated and stratified debris of a succession of<br></div><div dir="auto">consecutive settlements at the same site, the refuse of generations of
people<br></div><div dir="auto">who built and inhabited them, and of natural sediment"<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>yes, well known. Definitely worth mapping it, although I would not expect people to map individual buildings in underground layers, they should probably get something more abstract like site_type=tell (or similar)<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Yes, entire mound is definitely mappable. I am just against mapping several<br></div><div dir="auto">(or hundreds of layers) even if site was archeologically mapped without destroying<br></div><div dir="auto">such layers (for example with ground penetrating radar).<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><div> <br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div dir="auto">And yes, archeological excavations can recover and document this layers.<br></div><div dir="auto">Still, it is not mappable in OSM and should be deleted if mapped - like<br></div><div dir="auto">railways that disappeared without identifiable trace.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>completely different things, railways that disappeared with no trace (more rare than not, from railway usage traces are usually there, I am ignoring the "identifiable" part, because this just suggests we would give carte blanche to ignorants who could delete everything claiming they weren't able to recognize the objects or traces), and existing buildings or roads that cannot be seen on the surface.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">In this case I have "identifiable" because otherwise people will claim that it cannot be<br></div><div dir="auto">deleted because there are traces on old maps, or in street names or in local knowledge<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">(for example if "Railway Street" is sole remaining trace, then railway=abandoned <br></div><div dir="auto">should be and will be removed)<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>+1<br></div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>