[OSM-talk] Import guidelines proposal update

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Sep 21 09:47:48 BST 2012


2012/9/20 Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk>:
> My own interest here is more historic than current and I was looking for the
> development of areas relating to my family tree, but there seems to be a
> general consensus that once an object ceases to exist it should be deleted
> from the database.


there is not this general consensus in the community for completely
removing former objects (but it might be a majority who doesn't want
them, not sure). Have a look at abandoned and disused features, some
"historic" features and also objects to be expected in the future
("proposed" and "construction").

Just a few days ago someone proposed on the German ML to agree on a
standard way for tagging these by applying the status as a prefix
(e.g. disused:amenity=pub). There is some well established objects
that work differently though (railway=abandoned, etc.)

cheers,
Martin



More information about the talk mailing list