[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Survey Markers

[Mark Wagner]

Survey points in the US can reasonably be mapped as "destroyed" in two
cases:

1) Many US NGS and USGS survey markers will have two nearby reference
markers giving bearing and sometimes range to the survey point.  In
this case, it makes sense to note that the survey marker itself no
longer exists.

2) Most US NGS and USGS survey markers take the form of a bronze disk
embedded in a concrete or stone base.  The disk itself is what
constitutes the survey marker.  If it's missing but the foundation is
still present, it again makes sense to map "there was a survey marker
here".

-- 
Mark


On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 05:07:22 +0000
Kyle Hensel <K.y.l.e at outlook.co.nz> wrote:

> 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
> 
>