[Talk-GB] Line of multifaceted historical importance, but no current surface visibility

[Peter Neale]

FWIW, I do not think that "objects" that cannot be seen and don't (any longer) exist should be in OSM.
I accept that some things that cannot be seen (but do currently exist, in some form, e.g. buried pipelines, administrative boundaries) should be included in OSM.
Regards,Peter

PeterPan99

    On Monday 1 September 2025 at 19:20:49 BST, Daniel Hatton via Talk-GB <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org> wrote:  
 
 
I've just tentatively marked a line - way #1426446375 - which is of 
historical significance for three reasons:

- it's a former route of the public right of way whose current route is
  on the map as ways #236141514, #1316968262, #499954461, #236141513,
  and #499954465

- it was the eastern boundary of one of the fields ("Church Field") in
  the pre-inclosure strip farming system of the parish where it's
  situated

- it's the route of a Roman road that was widely misidentified in the
  19th century as the Icknield Way (the current consensus is that the
  name "Icknield Way" belongs to another Roman road running parallel
  with it, about 2.7km further east)

I've looked both on the ground and in satellite imagery, and there's no 
obvious trace of the line currently at surface.

What's people's view on whether this line should be marked in OSM, and 
if so, what tags it should have?

-- 

Kind regards,

Dan Hatton

                Dr. Daniel C. Hatton

E-mail:        dan.hatton at btinternet.com

Signal:        dch.28
SIP:            dan.hatton at sip.linphone.org

_______________________________________________
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/20250902/ccbb252f/attachment.htm>