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

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Jun 8 07:50:06 UTC 2020



sent from a phone

> On 7. Jun 2020, at 03:32, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> How hard you look for them? I would hope that does not extend to ground penetrating radar that is used to find old buildings that used to exist
> 

ultimately things under the surface would be included, the distinction is not how difficult to find or hard to access something is, but whether “it exists”


> 
> Where something has been demolished and replaced with something else, should the old thing remain in OSM? 
> 


If nothing at all has remained, usually no, eventually for some time yes (e.g. to avoid someone reputting it from aerial imagery). 
> 
> And yes I am thinking of old railway routes that have gone and been replaced with roads/rail trails etc. 
> 
> 
> 
> To me - the old thing is no longer there, the new thing has overlay-ed it and replaces it. If people want to map old things .. well their place should be in OHM not OSM.


we were discussing things which have been removed or have decayed but of which something has remained. These can be very sparse, small and hard to find traces, but something must be observable. It does not mean everybody must be able to identify and correctly interpret it, even without additional knowledge.

Cheers Martin 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200608/7727b9ed/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list