[Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

Dave F. davefox at madasafish.com
Tue Sep 28 19:26:16 BST 2010


  On 28/09/2010 10:28, M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 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.

How can they diverge when there not joined in the first place? - there's 
very little historic data in the database to start with.

One of the benefits of OSM is the ability to 'mash-up' different data 
sources so there's very little need to have all data in one container.


>> 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.

as I said the method it was added is irrelevant, it will still lie on 
top of each other.
I live in a city that, historically, goes back well over 2000 years. 
Even if one plot of land is hand mapped back into the past, it will be 
very confusing to edit the current structure.
>> @Martin K.
>> To me data is data, irrelevant of how it was added.
>
> I know, my approach is less dogmatic and more practical.

Err?
>
>> 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).

You obviously didn't read, or take on board what I said earlier. I'll 
give it one more go:

If it's a physical entity that was old railway line infrastructure & is 
*still visible*, such a bridge or a cutting/embankment, map & tag it, 
including the railway=abandoned tag if you're aware that that is what it 
was.

However if there is *no* visible evidence of it (ie embankments being 
flatten),  then it shouldn't be mapped. This is not current data & 
doen't belong in OSM.

If a building is completely demolished to make way for a new structure, 
it should be removed from the database.


Cheers
Dave F.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100928/604ee156/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list