<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Di., 26. Apr. 2022 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>I live in Kraków, city first mentioned in year 965 (and it was back then already a<br></div><div dir="auto">locally important and wealthy settlement).<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It was rebuild multiple times, plenty of traces/reconstructions/guesses were made<br></div><div dir="auto">and historians put a lot of effort into research where various buildings used to be.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Some of them are quite certain.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">But it is not mappable as destroyed:building=* in OSM.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Fortunately it is not verifiable (different historians have differing reconstructions),<br></div><div dir="auto">and not mappable in OSM.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto"></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?</div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div></div><div dir="auto"><br></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><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto"><br></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, but be assured, personally I do not have intentions not do it ;-)</div><div>This kind of stuff would usually have to be mapped in scales we are not typically dealing with.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For extreme case see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_(archaeology)" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">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><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto"><br></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><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto"></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</div><div><br></div></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Martin<br></div></div>