[Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?
steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Mon Jan 4 02:29:46 UTC 2021
I continue to stroke my chin and say "hmm" at this, but Paul's notion makes sense as a question to ask. The question it asks is "Do I map (or not map) THIS specific not-there-any-longer AND has-something-else-there-now thing?" (making it harder or easier for me to map). Which begs the question "Do I as a mapper get to make this determination on a whim, or are there clear rules I should follow because people have thought about 'this' and suggest that I 'tag like this' (or actually TELL me to)." Lots going on here.
We are those people inventing "this" right now. Meanwhile, I continue to stroke my chin. Hmm. It's like "anarchy" vs. a good invention that fits in well with our tenets. Sure, I'd love for us to invent the perfect solution. Then, "hmm."
Let's recall that abandoned/razed/dismantled/whatever railways have faced this conundrum for many years, and look, we continue to revisit this question at international / global tagging levels. What do we get? Hmm. Mostly.
> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:40 PM, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not happy with a rule that says razed sections MUST be
> removed in all situations or that razed sections MUST be
> removed if any object overlays them. If it's causing
> you problems then get rid of it, if it's not causing you
> problems then you don't have to delete it, but you
> Yeah, I know, we don't map non-existent objects. Mostly.
More information about the Tagging