[Talk-us] Question?

Richard Welty rwelty at averillpark.net
Mon Jun 29 20:24:33 UTC 2015

On 6/29/15 3:58 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
> Is there any feature on the ground that can be surveyed? From the
> image it doesn't appear that the site has any historical markers that
> can be mapped. If so, I would say it doesn't belong in OSM.  You'l'
> have to ask OHM if they think it belongs there. 
> You should also contact the editor. I'm sure she would be happy to
> explain why she felt it belongs in OSM.
> Clifford
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Hans De Kryger
> <hans.dekryger13 at gmail.com <mailto:hans.dekryger13 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     Would this be better in OpenHistoricalMap?
>     http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/33.44692/-112.09043

the canal, you mean?

it's probably appropriate for OHM, although i'd be interested in what is
surveyable on the ground. the existence of something surveyable
determines if
anything should be in OSM in, perhaps, the disused: namespace.

it were to go into OHM, of course, we like it if it's documented and
and end_date tags are provided. but then we'd prefer the whole canal system,
or at least major chunks of it, instead of this fragment.

so the answer is definitely maybe.


rwelty at averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150629/88639cf6/attachment.sig>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list