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

Toby Murray toby.murray at gmail.com
Fri Jul 13 15:49:01 BST 2012


On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:26 AM, 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:
> [ ... ]
>>
>> For the record, I do object. And the fact that you would consider killing a
>> fly with a sledgehammer is disturbing.
>
> Have I missed something here?  It seems like we were discussing the
> conditions for including a "just barely visible from hints" feature
> like railway=abandoned/dismantled.  And it seems like there is broad
> agreement that such an object with no such visible hints is currently
> not appropriate for the OSM db.  Right?
>
> So how did this turn into,"Hey, here's a whole bunch of abandoned
> railways covering five states" ?
>
> I would expect that any addition of objects that are known to be
> marginal, like railway=abandoned, would need verification from another
> source that such object meets our minimum criteria.  Can we agree on
> that?
>
> Also, "NE2", these edits have all the hallmarks of mass / bulk edits.
> 1) Large in volume and extent.  2) Unlikely to be verified or
> reconciled with other sources.  3) No supporting local knowledge.

4) uselessly vague changeset comment

Guess that one isn't restricted to bulk edits.  But isn't this
actually an import? Where are you getting geometry for 150 year old
railways from? And why isn't the source mentioned in your changeset?

Toby



More information about the Talk-us mailing list