[Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects
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  where the road used to
come closer to the buildings in the north of it,
or razed buildings  where the open area in the forest used to be a
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>
>>> 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
> 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...
More information about the Talk-us