[Tagging] Delete vs Removed LSP?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 26. Apr. 2022 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org>:

> 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).
>


buildings that are not there should not be mapped, my example was for an
arterial road and it is still there, below the surface.



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


why?



>
> 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).
>


typical situation is that the "old" and the "new building" are actually
one, so it would be indoor mapping to map the old church below the new
church, which are in a way all just phases of the "same building".



>
> Either way this old layers are not mappable.
>


I am sure they are mappable, e.g. with indoor mapping techniques, they are
there, their existence can be verified, but be assured, personally I do not
have intentions not do it ;-)
This kind of stuff would usually have to be mapped in scales we are not
typically dealing with.




> 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"
>


yes, well known. Definitely worth mapping it, although I would not expect
people to map individual buildings in underground layers, they should
probably get something more abstract like site_type=tell (or similar)



>
> 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.
>


completely different things, railways that disappeared with no trace (more
rare than not, from railway usage traces are usually there, I am ignoring
the "identifiable" part, because this just suggests we would give carte
blanche to ignorants who could delete everything claiming they weren't able
to recognize the objects or traces), and existing buildings or roads that
cannot be seen on the surface.



> (for example if "Railway Street" is sole remaining trace, then
> railway=abandoned
> should be and will be removed)
>


+1

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220426/7219d657/attachment-0001.htm>