[Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced
sk53.osm at gmail.com
Fri Aug 4 12:43:30 UTC 2017
I would be very grateful if you did not talk about me (or David Earl, for
that matter) in such an off-hand way on this mailing list. I find it really
This is nothing to do with historical mapping: it's retaining an element to
avoid erroneous re-mapping of a non-existent building. They get deleted
when imagery is updated. In the past considerable work has been created by
people mapping from aerial imagery when someone has gone to the trouble of
updating stuff from a survey. Keeping a small number of elements in OSM for
this purpose is I believe entirely reasonable.
On 4 August 2017 at 12:45, Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 04/08/2017 12:11, Dan S wrote:
>> 2017-08-04 12:04 GMT+01:00 Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com>:
>>> 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
>>> OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History Map.
>> Yes I thought so too. I tried to search the talk-gb archive for it but
>> I couldn't find the thread. Shame it isn't easier to find things in
>> our previous threads.
> This is the welcome screen shown to all new users:
>> Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat
>>> here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when compare
>> Don't worry too much about that, I'm sure it's just about awareness,
>> not exceptionalism!
> From his previous posts, regrettably I don't believe that to be true. And
> he's not alone. See Cambridge University where a mapper has knowingly
> misinterpreted well defined tags to suit his custom rendering, (every uni
> building is tagged amenity=university & recreation grounds are tagged as
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB