[OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Aug 15 23:58:06 UTC 2015


On 16/08/2015 1:29 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Warin writes:
>   > On 15/08/2015 3:46 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>   > > Railway=dismantled. Doesn't get rendered except where it should be,
>
>   >   do you still want railway=disused to remain?
>
> Are we even talking about the same thing? Let's assume that you made a
> s mple t po.

No .. just two things at once. Sorry .. should have been

Where the railway has completely gone, do you still want

Railway=dismantled to be used.

And your answer is yes (I think).


>
> Lookit, I'm also a fan of unfinished
> railroads. http://russnelson.com/unfinished-railroads.html You don't
> see me insisting that the unbuilt sections of these railroads get
> mapped, do you? No, because they never existed, and you can't see any
> evidence that they did. W

There is also proposed, planned... and under construction.

Proposed and planned I cannot verify .. many things get 'proposed' or 'planned' by politicians .. and there is no sight of them for many decades if at all.

Under construction I should be able to verify.

>
> Now, I'm sure somebody will, at some point say, "Russell, just go off
> to OpenHistoricalMap and put your data there." That's fine, except for
> those pesky implementation details where THEY ARE IN TWO DISPARATE
> DATABASES, UNCONNECTED. How, exactly, do you make a relation that
> shows the entire route of a railroad when half of it is off in a
> different corner?

Good question. Pose it on OpenHistoricalMap ? Maybe they have a solution.

>
> I don't understand why we're having this argument.

Discussion. Well as far as I'm concerned.

>
> I WILL BE HAPPY AND GO AWAY WITH AN EXCEPTION. Don't you want me to be
> happy? Don't you want me to go away?
>

No I, for one, don't want you to go away. Quite the contrary!

I do take your point...
You want old things that may no longer be present in any shape or form 
to be represented ?

within OSM?

I sympathise. But is OSM the place for these? (I'd call them 'ghosts', 
visions of things past.)

However ...
Why stop with railways? Roads and buildings have history too.
Some OSM people mantra on about verification. How are these things to be 
verified?

Umm the old 'Tank Stream' in Sydney ... that was a fresh water source 
for the establishment of Sydney.
Most, if not all, of it is underground. Should that be mapped as
demolished:waterway=stream
and then other tags to reflect what it is now ..
? Probably. But I would have problems with verifying its' location. Humm..

So I'd not let 'us' (as in OSM) off with some exception just for 
railways, other things should have the same consideration.

You have raised a good issue. An it is a policy issue .. and OSM is not 
good with policy. Hence this lengthy thread heading off in may directions.




More information about the talk mailing list