[Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects

Mike N niceman at att.net
Sun Apr 5 02:41:45 UTC 2015


On 4/3/2015 9:17 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
> i think the long term future of OSM will probably involve more
> OHM like projects to supplement OSM. my question is how will
> the core OSM community treat them? right now it seems very
> mixed.

  I think it's a great idea.   There may be some definition about when 
to add things to OHM.  For Ghost tracks for example, should it be added 
when -

  The track is not operational?
  The bleachers are dismantled?
  The track is torn up?
  When the banked oval no longer leaves a depression in the terrain?
  When the variation in tree growths no longer take the shape of the oval?
  When an archeologist digging in the area would not reasonably expect 
to find any racing artifacts?

   OHM would be something to get used to.  Now I'm all too happy to 
obliterate all items in a construction zone when the bulldozers and 
wrecking ball arrive on site.   I'm not sure any random buildings would 
be of interest to OHM unless they had some special significance.

   I can see Russ's point that even if the dismantled tracks are moved 
to OHM, it breaks the relation and continuity of railroad track 
analysis.   I hope that we can postpone railway deletions until we have 
had a chance to explore the issues and come up with some solutions.




More information about the Talk-us mailing list