[Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?
voschix at gmail.com
Wed Jun 3 11:17:46 UTC 2020
can you tell us the place? The photo seems to show a US city, but which one?
Even at thrìe small scale of the image I can see several traces that look
very much like ex-railway tracks (it's easy in US cities as they do not
follow the block structure).
Please don't forget that I am not saying that we should map every single
ex-railway, I am only asking do not remove them, where someone has inserted
Ex-railway corridors are often major landscape objects, in that sense they
are part of the geography. The argument has been made in this discussion
here; to map an ex-railway, only by mapping every remaining trace of it
(embankments, roads; buildings only) but "seeing the e-railway is often
far easier on aerial photographs than on maps that's why it is helpful to
sometimes to add in the map even completely razed bits of ex.railways to
tie the visible bits together.
I invite you all to have a look at the excellent web site "
bahntrassenradwege.de <http://www.bahntrassenradwege.de>". Has nothing to
do with OSM, but illustrates why documenting ex.railways is important and
can also have a big impact on the economy when converted to a bicycle
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 07:05, Mark Wagner <mark+osm at carnildo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST)
> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933103 at gmail.com:
> > >
> > >
> > > 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <> 61sundowner at gmail.com> > 寫道：
> > >
> > >> On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > >> > My main point is that out there are things that consist of
> > >> > visible objects plus objects which have left visible traces,
> > >> > and also some pieces that have been completely erased, but of
> > >> > which we have documented knowledge of where they once were. The
> > >> > entire thing makes sense only with all its parts. These things
> > >> > be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and hence, if
> > >> > someone has gone to the length of mapping them, should find
> > >> > space in OSM. In my view a general rule that any mapper can
> > >> > erase any object from the map, when he does not see any trace
> > >> > of it, is certainly not correct , he may be removing parts of
> > >> > the thing thsat only with all its partsmakes sense.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Where an old railway line has been built over by houses,
> > >> factories, shops and roads I see no reason to retain the
> > >> (historical) information in OSM.
> > >>
> > >> The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but
> > >> where there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain
> > > visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop,
> > > road) have been made on top of their original site. So that cabnot
> > > be used as a criteria to determine whether that should be removed
> > > or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each individual
> > > cases.
> > Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was constructed
> > over former railway and this section of railway remains somehow
> > mappable in OSM?
> > With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I
> > can also imagine special cases of this remaining true.
> > But entire factory?
> It's not a factory, but how about a car dealership, two storage rental
> facilities, a school bus parking lot, a sports park, and about forty
> city blocks of other things?
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging