[OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
davefox at madasafish.com
Sat Aug 29 22:03:51 UTC 2015
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
> 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.
More information about the talk