[Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

Nathan Edgars II neroute2 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 28 01:41:19 BST 2010


On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
>  On 28/09/2010 01:11, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Dave F.<davefox at madasafish.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> But only add what is actually visibly there now. Not what was there fifty
>>> years ago.
>>
>> What was there 50 years ago is useful,
>
> I agree
>
>>  and removing it would be
>> vandalism.
>
> I disagree. How can it be vandalism if it's not there anymore?

Because we don't only map what's currently there.
>
>>  You can argue about whether Mapnik should show it, but
>> don't remove it.
>
> For those who want to keep historic records (& I think there should be),
> they should take a record of current data at regular intervals & keep it in
> a separate database.
>
> If historic data was kept within OSM it would become far to cluttered.
Strawman. We're only talking about former railway alignments.
>
> Why do you think it should remain in the OSM database?
Because it's of local interest even where no linear traces remain.



More information about the Tagging mailing list