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

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Jun 8 10:50:20 UTC 2020

Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 12:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoniecz at tutanota.com>:

> Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by dieterdreist at gmail.com:
> Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org>:
> On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
> I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the
> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been
> replaced by roads with the same geometry.
> +1
> Add I have no problem with removal of them.
> this is fine, we do not have to share opinions on everything. But we
> should be cautious to not misrepresent community consensus in the wiki. It
> doesn't appear to be an universally shared conviction that you can remove
> these objects of which the traces are less evident than of other things.
> Can you edit wiki or link problematic page and quote text that should be
> changed?

the reference is Volker 6/6/2020, 0:04:

> Nevertheless the wiki page Demolished_Railway
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway> was completely
> rewritten on 07:17, 27 May 2020 by Mateusz Konieczny
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mateusz_Konieczny>
> In particular the wording
> " Here railway is gone without any trace in terrain except possibly road
> alignment. Its course is well documented, but such historic feature is out
> of scope of OpenStreetMap, should not be mapped and should be deleted if
> mapped"
> in the caption of the first picture is certainly something we were talking
> about, but had not agreed upon.

Lets say that there was a castle and was replaced by a sport pitch, and
place looks like

> this nowadays (a theoretical example):
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Tehelne_pole-pitch_and_stand.JPG
> Castle is remembered. Is such castle mappable? In my opinion would not be
> as there are
> no identifiable traces (possibility of archeological excavations are not
> really changing this).

I do not know if this is a real example (you say it is theoretical), but
according to what I experience every day, you can find many traces of
former things, which do not exist as such any more, but are still
detectable. Objects like castles hardly ever vanish completely without
leaving any traces.

Take the Berlin castle for example, here a sequence of different states:

around 1900, at its "top"

tearing it down 1950:

new building atop in 1981 (from the seventies):

>From the last picture you would not expect that anything remained, but when
they tore down the seventies building around the year 2000, some parts of
the old castle surfaced:

So even if this would be the only reason, there would have clearly been
traces of the castle, although not visible on the ground (but below). But
there are other, less direct, traces. For example the castle left traces in
the urban structure, the main arterial road bends in front of the castle,
and it did so also during the time when the castle wasn't there. And some
buildings around it have always been referring to the castle, e.g. the
building for the imperial guards and horses. Also the name of the bridge
(castle bridge / Schloßbrücke) was always referring to the castle.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200608/8556627d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list