[Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

Peter Dobratz peter at dobratz.us
Fri Jul 13 13:45:58 BST 2012


On 7/13/12, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
>> NE2,
>>
>> So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
>> buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.762886&lon=-71.430509&zoom=18&layers=M
>>
>> Does 86 Central Street, Hudson, NH have remnants of a railroad running
>> through their living room?  No, because that's ridiculous.
>
> Is it on the former route of a railway? Of course. And that's what
> railway=abandoned has meant since I joined OSM.

That is the exact point being discussed.  Why are we singling out
railways as a feature that essentially never goes away entirely even
though areas have been completely redeveloped?

In the case of the houses on Central Street in Hudson, these aren't
exactly new construction.  Here are the dates of construction
according to the town of Hudson's property tax assessor:

84 Central Street - built 1854
86 Central Street - built 1880
90 Central Street - built 1880
94 Central Street - built 1860
96 Central Street - built 1964

When was this railway that runs through the above buildings in
operation?  It must have been more than 150 years ago.  Maybe we can
agree to delete this instance of railway=abandoned as it either no
longer exists or it's clearly not in the right spot.

>> Maybe you could hold off dumping stuff on top of work that I've done
>> while we continue to discuss the matter.
>
> Back at ya. Don't delete something that doesn't interest you.
>>
>> Does anyone have any objection to reverting the following changesets?:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12202043
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12186087
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12191431
>
> For the record, I do object. And the fact that you would consider
> killing a fly with a sledgehammer is disturbing.
>

A sledgehammer is doing edits over a large geographic area dispite the
objection of a local mapper.  If you're going to put stuff over things
that are already mapped at least you can make it mesh nicely.

My primary objection to imports is basically dumping things on top of
already existing things without regard to work that other people have
done.



More information about the Talk-us mailing list