[Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
>  On 28/09/2010 01:41, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> Strawman. We're only talking about former railway alignments.
>
> Hmm... not sure you understand the meaning of the straw man argument.
>
> -----
>
> You're (sic) statement "Because we don't only map what's currently there." proves
> you (& I) have moved the discussion on to include all data.

False dichotomy. There's a big difference between mapping only what's
current and mapping everything that has ever existed.
>
>>> Why do you think it should remain in the OSM database?
>>
>> Because it's of local interest even where no linear traces remain.
>
> As I said before (I shall repeat as you evidently didn't read it), I agree,
> it *is* of interest & the data should be kept, just not within the OSM
> database.

Then what database would you move it to?
>
> From your last missive:
>
> "Because we don't only map what's currently there.
> To expand on this:
> http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/old_name/
> http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/old_ref/"
>
> This is a poor argument. These are clearly for *current* entities that are
> still in existence, but have been renamed.

Either way it's historic information.