brad.neuhauser at gmail.com
Mon Jun 29 20:58:14 UTC 2015
I think there's also this? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303225395
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net>
> 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
> 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
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us