[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Survey Markers

[Kyle Hensel]

Hi Graeme,

I’m not too sure about the mapping of destroyed features in OSM...
Michael just raised a similar point: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2021-June/061689.html

My understanding is that OSM shouldn’t be used to map historical, non-existent things according to:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't%20map%20historic%20events%20and%20historic%20features

Similar to how you shouldn’t map abandoned railways if there is absolutely no trace of them left.
But there seem to be exceptions to this, so I think someone else needs to answer this question.

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick<mailto:graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, 4 June 2021 16:38
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools<mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Survey Markers



Nice work, Kyle!

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 13:23, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Though I really appreciate

> survey_point:condition=destroyed is not proposed. If the survey marker no
> longer exists, it should be deleted from OSM.

Wondering about this one?

To prevent armchair mapping of old points that have been identified as no longer existing, or to stop somebody wandering around looking for a point that "should" be here, would it be better to leave these tagged as demolished (destroyed?):survey_point=yes?

BTW, what is the difference between
survey_point:structure=beacon man_made=survey_point
and
man_made=beacon

While they may look similar, a survey_point=beacon is intended for surveying; while a man_made=beacon is usually used for navigation purposes & will usually be lit, or active electronically.

Thanks

Graeme


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210604/5edffdf3/attachment.htm>