[OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails

[Dave F.]

On 29/08/2015 05:03, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Dave F. writes:
>   > 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 is also a strawman argument. Stop it.
How can it be a straw man when it's a question? I genuinely didn't 
understand the previous comment so asked for clarification. This is a 
perfectly acceptable thing to do in reasoning & discussion.



> Instead, I and others have said that since you can see a railway at
> point A, and you can see a railway at point B, it only makes sense
> to map it between those points for several reasons:
>    o Chances are good that there are artifacts between point A and B
> that further investigation will reveal.
Then map those artefacts, not the non-existent rail track


>    o Mappable entities exist between those points which can only be
> understood by including the dismantled railways (e.g. bridges, roads,
> or buildings).

Rubbish. A bridge is still recognisable as a bridge without stating its 
history.

>    o It's possible that cadastral data would reveal the presence of a
> right-of-way, and (I think, but correct me if I'm wrong) everybody
> agrees that there is way too much cadastral data to include in OSM,
> and it's something that must be imported because it only exists in a
> real property office's database.
Please clarify what you mean by cadastre.

> I can point to examples of all of the above. Please don't doubt
> me. You don't want me to have more facts on my side.
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus