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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

This kind of temporary keeping no longer existing objects is commonly accepted.

(note temporary part - mapping objects that are fully and completely gone[1] and
unlikely to be mapped by accident is at best extremely dubious, and deleting them is fine)

[1] so for example it is OK to map railway tracks where some evidence of them remains

Dec 31, 2020, 22:08 by miketho16 at gmail.com:

> I have had a problem with other mappers adding things back into OSM that still appear in some of the imagery available to OSM, but where newer imagery (or recent survey) show that such things no longer exist.  I initially tried mapping these with just the OSM geometry and a note=* tag, but it seems that one of the QC tools considers these to be an error, and someone was going around deleting these.  I have started adding a "removed:*=*" tag, e.g. removed:building=yes along with a note=* tag explaining.  Technically I am mapping things that no longer exist, but the purpose is to make it less likely that other well intentioned mappers undo my (and others) work and make the map less accurate.
>
> Mike
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joseph Eisenberg <> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> I actually think it should be deleted entirely since nothing remains of the right-of-way at the spot in the link, but I left it for a (bad) example: 
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13375829/#map=19/33.78089/-118.15134>>  
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 11:47 AM stevea <>> steveaOSM at softworkers.com>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you, Joseph, for recently editing that to railway=razed (and removing the erroneously entered usage=main tag).  In this case, the tag railway=razed accurately captures the semantics of this rail right-of-way.
>>>  
>>>  SteveA
>>>  
>>>  > On Dec 31, 2020, at 11:38 AM, Joseph Eisenberg <>>> joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>>> > wrote:
>>>  > 
>>>  > Re: "the traces of rail ballast in the soil, the signs of deteriorated embankments, cuttings and ditches, and so on all are clear signposts"
>>>  > 
>>>  > Yes, it's fine to map an abandoned railway in that case.
>>>  > 
>>>  > However, I don't think they should be in the database when the right-of-way has been completely re-graded and the land has been re-developed, with new streets and buildings, totally eliminating the old features.
>>>  > 
>>>  > E.g.: >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13375829/#map=19/33.78089/-118.15134>>>  - this is miss-tagged as an abandoned railway in this segment. 
>>>  
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  Tagging mailing list
>>>  >>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>>  >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>  Tagging mailing list
>>  >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210102/6ca189df/attachment.htm>