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

Marc Gemis marc.gemis at gmail.com
Fri Apr 17 06:55:40 UTC 2015

Sorry, but I'm not trolling. I just want to understand why the railway
people should get a different treatment.
If you're argument is to better understand why the landscape is like it is
now, then that is also true for razed streets [1]  where the road used to
come closer to the buildings in the north of it,
or razed buildings [2] where the open area in the forest used to be a
holiday center.



[1] http://osm.org/go/0EpMcxF19--?m=&way=36566343
[2] http://osm.org/go/0Esv3v5q?m=&relation=2718260

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com>
>> wrote:
>>> The razed sections of the abandoned railway need not confuse anybody.
>> Will you allow razed buildings and razed streets as well in OSM ( just
>> curious) ?
>> What about previous swamps, forest, etc. that are now turned into ... ?
>> Or are you requesting a exception for railways ?
> I thought that was perfectly clear: railways are an exception.
> Or maybe you're just trolling.
> There's very little else that's like an abandoned railway.
> Though if a airelway or pipeline were dug up in parts, I'd have the same
> conclusion:
> keep the man made linear feature intact until it's completely gone.
> -----
> Editors can be MUCH smarter about hiding clutter.  I see nothing at all
> wrong with hiding by default
> razed railroads, boundary relations, and even land use polygons.  Anyone
> who needs/wants to edit
> those features could turn them on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150417/ca6d26f5/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list