[OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
moltonel 3x Combo
moltonel at gmail.com
Sat Aug 29 21:04:57 UTC 2015
Sorry in advance, this mail just rehases arguments that I made before,
but it seemed polite to reply.
On 29/08/2015, Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
> moltonel 3x Combo writes:
> > One can often assert that something was here even when nothing is left
> > of that thing. And is nothing is left of that thing, it shouldn't be
> > mapped.
> What about point A? What about point B? The *endpoints* do indeed
> continue to exist, so "nothing is left of that thing" is not true
> about most dismantled railways.
That's precisely it, point A and B continue to exist, they can be
mapped as abandoned/disused. What's between A and B did not continue
to exist, and should not be mapped. We know perfectly where New York's
World Trade Center used to be but there's no tower=dismantled at that
> Should the map look like this (A)? ___ __ ____
> Or should it look like this (B)? ___---__-____
> Some people are arguing for A. I argue that B is a better
> representation of what is there (the underscores) because it includes
> the dismantled portions (the dashes).
And unsurprisingly, I argue for A. Because it reflects the current
state of the railroad.
I do understant the appeal of being able to create a relation where
each member follow the previous one without holes. But if reality has
holes, so should the relation.
More information about the talk