[Tagging] Delete vs Removed LSP?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Apr 26, 2022, 13:49 by dieterdreist at gmail.com:

> Am Di., 26. Apr. 2022 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> tagging at openstreetmap.org> >:
>
>> 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.
>
>
what about buildings where remains are under surface?

>>
>>
>> I am highly dubious about mapping even ones where clearly preserved underground 
>> remains are present at known locations.
>>
>
>
> why?
>
Because it is
- unverifiable for mappers
- often tricky: one historian will claim "it is certainly remain of old chapel of following
shape", other will dispute is it certain, another will claim that it was a palace,
another will describe it as a city wall, another will...
- going to result in uneditable map if someone would map it fully

>> 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".
>
but it is standard that each shape was a bit different. See for example
https://www.livius.org/site/assets/files/19907/troy_section.gif from 
https://www.livius.org/articles/place/troy/

And historians rarely agree what is certain and what is likely and what should
be treated as likely old state (they often agree in rough description and disagree
in details)


>> 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
>
It can be verified by archeological excavations, it cannot be  verified by normal mapper
(as it would require digging into a street in a middle of city, or doing even more
annoying things)

In other words, it is unverifiable for a typical mapper.

> 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.
>
the problem is that it is enough to have single person copying from archeological
research

>>
>> 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)
>
Yes, entire mound is definitely mappable. I am just against mapping several
(or hundreds of layers) even if site was archeologically mapped without destroying
such layers (for example with ground penetrating radar).

>  
>
>> 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.
>
In this case I have "identifiable" because otherwise people will claim that it cannot be
deleted because there are traces on old maps, or in street names or in local knowledge

>>
>> (for example if "Railway Street" is sole remaining trace, then railway=abandoned 
>> should be and will be removed)
>>
>
>
> +1
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220426/4bc2032d/attachment.htm>