[Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/9/28 Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com>:
> 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.


that's not a good option: those datasets will diverge more and more,
and in the end all connection/topology gets lost.


> If historic data was kept within OSM it would become far to cluttered.


only if people insert it in masses. I don't see this. As long as you
don't permit mass imports, it will not be a problem.

> @Martin K.
> To me data is data, irrelevant of how it was added.


I know, my approach is less dogmatic and more practical.


> Only current data should be within the OSM database.


an abandoned railway is current data. It is an abandoned railway
currently (as long as you don't excavate all foundations and draining
layers and remove them together with bridges and tunnels, you will
still have most of the railway there, even if the tracks are removed).

cheers,
Martin