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

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 9 12:19:01 UTC 2020


On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 13:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Jun 9, 2020, 13:55 by pla16021 at gmail.com:
>
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek PiĆ³rkowski <jarek at piorkowski.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as
> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned
>
>
> Nope.  We'd map the portions that are existing ways like this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236
>
> If it is mapping just still existing ways, why it has "conjectural=yes"
> tag?
>

That is a non-sequitur.  The ways exist and have been mapped.  The route,
which consists of those ways, has been marked as conjectural.  How
much of it is conjectural could be a very tiny fraction of it.

>
> For mapping of just still existing ways it seems to be suspiciously
> well matching modern infrastructure like for example in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236#map=18/51.39839/0.45684
>

Yes, roads that have been improved tend to follow their old route.
Occasionally,
however, a road improvement (using machinery unavailable to the Romans)
includes a slight diversion.  Sometimes the diversion retains the name and
the original route is prefixed with "Old." Mainly, though, the routes of
roads
go back many centuries to days when they were little more than cart tracks.

>
> In other words, it seems to be a clear case of mapping guessed route of
> formerm
> historic no longer existing object.
>

It has as much (or as little) existence as a walking route.  It certainly
has more
existence than a walking route without signs, as there are plenty of street
signs
for it.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200609/7f85c1db/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list