[Talk-us] Question?

[Brad Neuhauser]

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>
wrote:

> 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
> actually
> 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
> start_date
> 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.
>
> richard
>
> --
> 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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150629/61a6c1a0/attachment.html>