[OHM] Should we map former endonyms?

[Lester Caine]

Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> There is already much 'history' in OSM that simply can't be accessed easily
>> >and that volume is growing daily:(
> How do we differentiate between a building, deleted in OSM three years
> ago, because it was demolished, and one deleted because somebody had
> made a mistake, or re-drew it in better detail?

This is the whole problem with 'deleting' anything from OSM data currently. It 
is all too easy to simply 'delete' something and then add a new version of the 
same thing, loosing all of the history for the existing object which may well 
include useful validation data! Import data is one of the offenders here, where 
a new 'iteration' of an import may well simply wipe previous data. This is why 
we need to close these holes in order to maintain the integrity of data that we 
already have!

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk