[Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?
pla16021 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 8 13:02:12 UTC 2020
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Jun 8, 2020, 14:28 by pla16021 at gmail.com:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> For example
> promotes much stricter verification requirements.
> I am not sure whatever I would want go so far, but mapping something
> appearing in a single aerial imagery seem not ideal.
So in parts of the world where only one source of aerial imagery is
we can't map from it? That doesn't seem right.
I can understand an objection to mapping an object that appears on older
imagery but not on newer imagery. Things change. After a survey of part
of town I rarely visit, I mapped a house (which was for sale) , but when I
happened to revisit it a couple of weeks later to check a detail nearby the
had been demolished. But these are images of (intermittent) surfaces
by subsurface conditions so the feature mapped won't go away unless the site
is disturbed by, for example, construction.
Yes, official recognition (or ven better - placing information board or
> something there)
> would push it toward "lets map this".
There are archaeological features on Exmoor I've mapped that are officially
recognized and protected as archaeological features of national importance.
It needs an expert eye to distinguish them from naturally-occurring
I'm also aware of what appear to be the same sort of feature documented
by amateurs which I have not mapped. For all I know, the amateurs are
correct and in at least some cases the experts are wrong, but it is a
criminal offence to tamper with the features designated by the experts
(they're very easy to tamper with).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging