[Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Volker Schmidt]

Re-opening this thread, sorry.

The wording in the wiki page Demolished Railway
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway> that was
introduced in July 2019 halfway in an inclusive discussion in this thread,
still includes the statement:
"Its course is well documented, but such historic feature is out of scope
of OpenStreetMap, should not be mapped and can be deleted if mapped" (in a
picture caption)
There is a similar wording
" Place where railway existed in the past. It must not be tagged in any
way, as no trace of it remains."
that was inserted on 17 July 2019 into the wiki page Life cycle prefix
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix>

Both statements are not only not reflecting correctly the inconclusive
discussion in this thread, but are also against the spirit of good practice
in OSM.

As I had pointed out in several contributions to this discussion, with
support of some of the other participants, there can be good reasons to
have such information in OSM, and there was no agreement that such bits in
abandoned-railway routes should be removed from the database.

A similar discussion has been opened in the Italian list now, proposing the
deletion of such pieces that are invisible on the ground.

 I just want to add a pointer here to a big (6k km) cycling project in the
US <https://www.railstotrails.org> that is underlining my point that
razed/dismantled/removed/disused railways do have a place in map data.

Have a god and safe 2021

Volker




On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 02:19, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/6/20 6:46 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today,
> map it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM
> >
> > Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not there
> any more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap? Through all
> the years I have never encountered anything like this mapped in
> OpenStreetMap.
> >
> >
> Way: former Buninyong line (802945258)
>
> Way: Buninyong Line (802945251)
>
> Way: Ballarat - Buninyong line (168429101)
>
>
> Note I put these in OHM ~2 years ago.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201231/cb04deda/attachment.htm>