[Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Jun 4 01:31:13 UTC 2020
On 2/6/20 9:44 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 12:23, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com
> <mailto:voschix at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Anyway the examples you find in OSM are few and in all cases I
> know the completely erased bits are a tiny part of the overall
> There are three ex-railways in my area (possibly more). Even though the
> rail part of those railways has mostly been removed, the way part of those
> railways is still mostly in evidence. Apart from embankments,
> cuttings, bridges
> and tunnels there are the green corridors - either tree-lined hedges
> or trails cut
> through woods. Some sections have been repurposed as footpaths and/or
> paths. A few short sections have been resurrected as heritage
> railways. The places
> where all traces have been removed and build over are very few and far
> I could delete those tiny sections of ex-railway that somebody spent time
> mapping, but then it loses the coherence that aids understanding (unless I
> shove the pieces into some sort of relation).
> I understand the perspective of the purists, and one day a purist may come
> along and remove sections where all traces have gone. But I have other
> I could be mapping so I won't bother doing it myself.
Here is an entry by some one who thinks it should be in OSM ...
Way: former Ballarat - Buninyong line (802945247)
"name"="former Ballarat - Buninyong line"
If you look you will see that this 'embankment' does not EXIST ... there
are two car parks over it that show no sign of any embankment. There is
a building over it ... roads ... it does not exist.
Yet the person 'maps' it.
Note I put it into OHM some 2 years ago and removed it from OSM. Should
I report them to DWG?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging