[OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at gmail.com
Fri Aug 14 06:23:40 UTC 2015


On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:33:11 +1000
Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13/08/2015 11:24 PM, Ruben Maes wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 August 2015 15:10:14 Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 21:54:39 +1000
> >> Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> For example a demolished building .. may have a new building
> >>> built on the same spot .. with the same outline.
> >>> Leave the node data in OSM, change the tag building=yes to
> >>> building=demolished (may not be rendered nor official OSM tagging)
> >>> add a note as to who/why ..
> >>> and then if rebuilt change the tag back to building=yes... with a
> >>> source tag please.
> >>> If the site has a different shaped building then the nodes will
> >>> have to be changed, or the site gets used for something else ..
> >>> then change it. But untill then leave the old data there.
> >> This is a bad idea. Maybe [note=this building is demolished] to
> >> protect against mapping from outdated aerial images may be OK.
> >>
> >> But expecting data consumers displaying buildings to filter out
> >> building=demolished, building=razed, building=proposed etc etc is a
> >> really bad idea.
> > Or you use demolished:building=yes as I said an hour ago.
> >
> > This is clearer than a note IMO,
> > allows to retain all tags of the demolished building for reference
> > and caters for potential data consumers interested in demolished
> > buildings.
> >
> 
> I like it Ruben. demolished: it is.
> 
> Not just for use on buildings, but bridges, poles .. any structure
> that could be rebuilt to the same dimensions, especially any with
> foundations that could be reused.

Note that features that are completely gone should not be mapped. This
is OK for features that are no longer a building or a bridge but
something is still left.



More information about the talk mailing list