[OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails

Dave F. davefox at madasafish.com
Mon Aug 24 12:34:53 UTC 2015

On 24/08/2015 04:23, Balaco Baco wrote:
>> 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.

No. If it's gone, it's gone. If there's no new structure to replace it, 
then leave the area empty. If it's becomes a construction site, tag it 
as that. If it becomes a brownfield site, tag it as that. Please base 
your editing on facts & evidence.

>   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.

I've read this a few times & I'm struggling to comprehend. You're saying 
I shouldn't remove a building from OSM that's already been demolished in 
the real world because... ? <& that's where you lost me>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the talk mailing list