[Tagging] Delete vs Removed LSP?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I live in Kraków, city first mentioned in year 965 (and it was back then already a
locally important and wealthy settlement).

It was rebuild multiple times, plenty of traces/reconstructions/guesses were made
and historians put a lot of effort into research where various buildings used to be.

Some of them are quite certain.

But it is not mappable as destroyed:building=* in OSM.

Fortunately it is not verifiable (different historians have differing reconstructions),
and not mappable in OSM.

Otherwise it would be ridiculously overwhelming and would block any editing by
beginners (3D mapping is already causing major issues).

I am highly dubious about mapping even ones where clearly preserved underground 
remains are present at known locations.

Entrances of old churches are located below street level - not above it. Partially
because buildings and roads were reconstructed multiple times and remains of them
caused ground level to increase (part of that was layers of old rubbish).

Either way this old layers are not mappable.

For extreme case see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_(archaeology)
"mound consisting of the accumulated and stratified debris of a succession of
consecutive settlements at the same site, the refuse of generations of people
who built and inhabited them, and of natural sediment"

And yes, archeological excavations can recover and document this layers.
Still, it is not mappable in OSM and should be deleted if mapped - like
railways that disappeared without identifiable trace.
(for example if "Railway Street" is sole remaining trace, then railway=abandoned 
should be and will be removed)

Apr 26, 2022, 11:30 by dieterdreist at gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 25 Apr 2022, at 15:55, Dave F via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>> How far back should we go? i live in a Roman city. That's a /lot/ of removed data.
>>
>
>
> seems like a red herring to me, or do you have knowledge about all this data back until ancient roman times?
>
> Generally I agree, keeping stuff that is completely gone with lifecycle prefixes is something that exceptionally can make sense, but is normally not desirable.
>
> On the other hand, we shouldn’t require that things are obvious to everybody, or that they are visible in all cases. For example if during construction work an ancient arterial road is “found” (or maybe better, is temporarily brought to light), and after some documentation is later recovered with earth, it should still be possible to keep the feature, even if is currently not visible on the surface (but could be checked on/in the ground by digging). Similar situations occur frequently because remnants are often recovered to protect them.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220426/12473fa2/attachment.htm>