[OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails

Balaco Baco balacobaco at imap.cc
Mon Aug 24 03:23:53 UTC 2015


> Are you saying if a building gets demolished & replaced with a new one, 
> you wouldn't remove the original outline from OSM?

I'm saying that simply deleting the original outline, leaving nothing in
its place is different than putting the *same quality outline* for the
newer building that should be there. And while this new data does not
exist, the old one should stay there as it is. It should, at most, be
marked with a tag such as "end date" or "demolished" or anything
similar. Simply deleting it is bad. And to justify the deletion for a
currently demolished building is silly and naive: buildings are usually
replaced much faster than maps are expected to last, and the work of
updating it twice, once for the "empty space, dem. building" and the
future "new building outline" is better done only one time. Further, in
places like OSM, where contributors for the second part cannot even be
guaranteed, it should be mandatory to follow guidelines and ideas
similar to this one.

-- 
  Balaco



On Sun, Aug 23, 2015, at 15:03, Dave F. wrote:
> On 23/08/2015 01:27, Balaco Baco wrote:
> >>> What we need is a
> >>> database that already has all the data and simply identify when some
> >>> small elements of it cease to be current.
> >> In OSM we do that by deleting the small elements ;)
> > I'm sorry. But this is just a stupid thing to do.
> 
> Are you saying if a building gets demolished & replaced with a new one, 
> you wouldn't remove the original outline from OSM?
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Access your email from home and the web




More information about the talk mailing list