[Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[SK53]

This happens to be a local convention which has evolved. I have no idea how
it is done in other places as I don't tend to keep track of changes in
buildings and am less likely to be in the position of regularly seeing a
building & then not being aware of it being demolished. So I'm not offering
it as a general solution and that needs to be said.'

I always say where to place it in context: not everyone reading these
emails will want to trawl through a whole list. So I try and provide enough
information for the casual reader as well as the regular reader.

Different parts of the UK have evolved quite different ways of mapping
certain features. Often a local consensus emerges because mappers encounter
each others work and probably copy a particular approach: either, if they
haven't seen such things mapped before, or if they didn't know any suitable
tags. This is not a bad thing: it ensures that data does get captured, and
usually it only pertains to fairly rare tags or situations.

Jerry

On 4 August 2017 at 12:04, Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:

> I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM
> is not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed
> from OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History
> Map.
>
> Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat
> 'Around here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when
> compare with elsewhere.
>
> On 04/08/2017 09:20, SK53 wrote:
>
> Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished:
> building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active
> mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions.
>
> On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox" <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground.
>> Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being reversed.
>>
>> On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How different is the footprint of the new building?
>>
>> I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old
>> one - given the planing permissions.
>>
>> So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone
>> - that gives at least an indication that there is a building there.
>>
>> Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?
>>
>>
>> On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:
>> >
>> > (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
>> > of editing, I suggest)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black <andrewdblack at googlemail.com>:
>> >> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down
>> and
>> >> rebuilt.
>> >> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back
>> and add
>> >> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
>> >> I have added a note  #1077006
>> >>
>> >> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Talk-GB mailing list
>> >> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>> > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20170804/b8f30a55/attachment.html>