[OSM-talk] Historical Data in OSM database

[Lester Caine]

Peter Wendorff wrote:
>> As I have already said, simply adding a starT_date to a way is all
>> that is needed for probably 99% of historic mapping ....
>>
> If it would be as simple....
> I fear, it is not.
>
> Historic data is often targeted to single properties of an entity: A
> track being paved at a certain point in time, a mid-age hollow way
> changing to a asphalt highway with four lanes - or vice versa to simple
> grassland with a line shaped lower part, a church abandoned at war and
> rebuild later (e.g. Frauenkirche, Dresden, often jewish synagogues
> especially in Germany burned down by the Nazis, too few of them rebuild
> - like the one in Berlin Oranienburger Straße[1]).
> Big churches are often build over a time of several hundred years,
> changing shape and importance, even name - not to mention denomination
> or more than that religion) - think about Notre Dame in Paris [2] with a
> build time of nearly 200 years.
>
> That in mind as examples - far from complete - neither start_date nor
> start_date and end_date are enough to describe historical data in a good
> way to be useful.
>
> It's much more work to build timelined values to OSM and the API in a
> useful manner.

As with ALL of the mapping data, adding a lot more fine detail is a matter of 
discussion. Micromapping the current footprint of buildings and and adding 
additional detail like the location of each of the graves and other POI's still 
does not have a common method of working, but adding at least just the 
start_date where that information is available is at least a move in the right 
direction. I have no doubt that over time a lot more detail WILL be added, but 
simply adding the data we DO have now is much better than throwing it away?

As I said ... adding the dates on which the new roads appeared around the 
Olypmic village, or a new motorway spur or residential road was opened will be 
history in 100 years time but costs nothing to add today? In the UK we are 
tracing from 50+ year old maps ... it provides a nice comparison with the 
current state of play on the ground.

In the past we have been told "If you want it - Add it - other people do not 
have to use it". I just think this is another case of that which we need to 
agree methods for since at least a few people DO want to share the information.
If I'm mapping on some historic side port of the data why would I then bother 
adding current stuff back to the main one ... I'd just be happy with the one I 
was using ...

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php