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

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Mon Jun 8 12:27:18 UTC 2020

Jun 6, 2020, 00:02 by voschix at gmail.com:

> I need to reopen this thread.
> We have not arrived at a consensus so far in this talk,
> 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.
> This rewrite in the middle of an inclusive discussion on the main aspect of the page seems to me not correct. As far as I remember (I may not have read all the contributions in all details) we did not talk about rewriting that page. I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this is one of the more fortunate cases where the original route has been conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
> I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic value and for that reason should be in OSM.
Sorry for missing this message - I diffed to it only now.

It is now rewritten a bit, hopefully for better.

I added explicit "Everyone agrees that overgrown railway rails remain mappable.",
removed explicit claim that "road geometry as sole trace" is not mappable.

Would it be OK to add "There is consensus that former railway replaced by an open pit mine
which removed all traces is not mappable"? Or is a claim that traces may remain even then?

Would be OK to add "road geometry where it is clear that it replaced railway may make such
former railway mappable (+ image link). But in a case where on old map or archeological survey would be needed
to identify whatever road replaces former fortification/railway/canal such object is not really identifiable
and mapping such historic object in OSM is a bad idea."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200608/a6f85d46/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list