<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p> </p>
<div> </div>
<p>This is your opinion, which you are seeking to impose on everybody. Somewhat selectively it would appear, as you are not going to burn your fingers on highway=proposed. I guess you will be deleting the HS2 (proposed UK high speed rail line) route as well, right? If you would like to, you will find it here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1986960">http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1986960</a></p>
<p>Go on, I dare you.</p>
<p>On 2015-08-29 09:48, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:18:17 -0400<br /> Russ Nelson <<a href="mailto:nelson@crynwr.com">nelson@crynwr.com</a>> wrote:<br /><br />
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">But what gives them the right to delete things that other people CAN<br /> see and DO want to have in OSM?</blockquote>
<br /><br /> Because mapping thoroughly destroyed objects that no longer exist (like<br /> rail lines where even earthworks are levelled and houses are built over<br /> place where railway used to be - something defended in this thread by<br /> some) is a dangerous precedent that would lead to a complete mess (like<br /> mapping destroyed and no longer existing objects and slapping end_date<br /> on them or mapping objects that never existed and pretending that<br /> putting start_date on them makes it OK).<br /><br /> Mapping proposed and potential (so not existing, unverifiable and<br /> likely to never appear) is already major problem in my region.<br /><br /> Adding to that objects that no longer exist is an extremely poor idea.<br /><br /> Therefore I will delete any object that no longer exists or never<br /> existed (after communication with mapper or other method to verify<br /> whatever I am mistaken, with exception of highway=proposed).<br /><br /> It is important to avoid treating mapping completely destroyed railways<br /> as OK - we already have terrible highway=proposed (mapped in some<br /> valid places and many where projects are pure political fiction or<br /> outright SF - like highway=proposed that used to be mapped across<br /> Boering Strait*).<br /><br /> * Yes, I deleted it. I am not OK with mapping "abandoned railroads" (as<br /> in "traces of it are present") but railways where only trace is<br /> presence on old documents should not be mapped.<br /><br /> _______________________________________________<br /> talk mailing list<br /><a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br /><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a></div>
</blockquote>
</body></html>