[OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Aug 24 10:19:28 UTC 2015

On 24/08/2015 7:25 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> On 24/08/2015, Balaco Baco <balacobaco at imap.cc> wrote:
>> 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.
> It's nice to avoid unecessary version churn, but if a mapper keeps up
> with the real-world changes there's nothing wrong with updating OSM
> too. If you search the archives you'll find plenty of discussions on
> "mapping temporary features" and how ephemeral a feature needs to be
> before it loses its mapworthyness. For example a road closed during a
> weekend is a clear no-map, but construction work is usually considered
> mappable if it'll last a few months and there is a local mapper to
> keep track of the updates.
> "how long a map is expected to last" is a tricky question especially
> for OSM. Paper maps are often updated yearly but kept for decades in
> people's homes.

I have an old map passed down though the family .. 1860s .. still has features present today.
Some features have gone, some replaced with new structures, a few moved.

While the intention was a map ... back then there was little though given to how long it would last .. well worn and folded many times it has lasted well.
The scale varies, hand drawn and then printed on a printing press.
Would I map its features into OSM? No, most would not be interested, some would be confused by them, some would not believe some features.

More information about the talk mailing list