[Imports] Proposed import removal: nuclear explosion sites

Christoph Hormann chris_hormann at gmx.de
Fri Apr 17 09:06:21 UTC 2015

On Thursday 16 April 2015, olvagor wrote:
> If you decide to remove the explosion sites from OSM, please consider
> this:
> 1) There were some explosions (under water, space, atmospheric, ...?)
> which left no trace on earth. Just delete them. (But maybe some of
> these also left traces - take a look at Bikini atoll).
> 2) Also delete all that technical data. Things to keep for 4) and 5):
> names and dates
> 3) Most explosions happend on or beneath ground [1]. There is (and
> for the next 10.000 years will be) a crater/shaft/radioactive glas or
> simply radiation, which can be measured and therefore mapped. And if
> you have the right equipment, you can analyse the isotopes and stuff
> and find out, which device was detonated at that site. I agree, this
> is different from reading the name from a sign, but there IS
> something
> visible/traceable left.

I think this is a valid argument - there are many other things in the 
OSM database just vaguely mapped as a node where no one has yet 
verified an observable feature exists but reason says there probably is 
so adding name, type of object and rough location are appropriate to 
help future mappers of the area who might be unsuspecting to identify 
what they see.

For example:


can help mappers to more accurately identify structures like this:


which is the entrance to an explosion tunnel for an underground nuclear 
test there (if this entrance belongs to exactly this explosion is not 
absolutely clear since the coordinates might not be too accurate and 
there are other tunnels nearby).

Criteria to me would be:

- from an objective standpoint it is likely that observable, localizable 
and permanent and therefore mappable things related to this feature 
- the feature and its attributes contain useful data for future mapping 
of these things

I think this more or less concurs with your suggestion, i.e. remove (1) 
and (2), keep (4) and (5) and use basic reasoning for (3).

As far as radiation is concerned - most above-ground nuclear tests have 
not left sufficiently strong localizable radiation to qualify as 
mappable in OSM, for most underground explosion there is no or very 
little radiation detectable at the surface.  So radiation is not really 
a very useful criterion.

Christoph Hormann

More information about the Imports mailing list