[OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

[Dave F.]

On 08/09/2015 00:07, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 07/09/15 23:16, Dave F. wrote:
>> I'm not sure there's been a discussion as you've mostly ignored the
>> basic comment made - it it's deleted in the real world it gets deleted
>> in OSM.
> If there is still a trace of anything related to something being deleted
> ... it gets it's tags modified. You only remove it completely when/if it
> is replaced by an alternate structure. A forest may well get felled for
> timber, become open land until a new crop is finally established. Just
> as in some cases tracks have been lifted on a viaduct or cutting but the
> railway use for that land is still documented.

I don't believe anyone's advocating the removal of existing entities.
In your viaduct case above, keep the viaduct entity, remove the 
railway=abandoned tag, use the historical tag to describe the past of 
the viaduct (which exists) but don't use it to describe the railway 
(which doesn't).


> One of the problems we
> had was people removing the way which was actually another structure
> such as a viaduct and that was removed as well. The request was for
> people NOT to remove something if they did not understand it's reason
> for existing. Certainly some of the 'automated' editing of material
> without any personal intervention is not acceptable.

This is a separate issue & not a valid reason to encourage the addition 
of non-existing entities or their removal.

> But we still need a proper way to move perfectly valid 'old' data to an
> alternative if that is what the majority want ... I just happen to think
> that this is the wrong way of managing material that NEEDS a substantial
> amount of the existing live data to be able to manage it's complete
> display so one has to now manage two parallel versions of the same data
> :(

Unsure why you think that. If it doesn't exist it gets remove from OSM & 
if someone wishes to preserve it, they move it to a separate database - 
The viaduct remains in OSM, the railway line is transferred to OHM (or 
wherever).

> OHM can only work if it is a compete copy of the current visible
> data,

I'm not understanding why you think that. It's possible to overlay two 
separate databases.

> 'It get deleted' is the very history that someone has spent a
> lot of time previously documenting.

That someone has put time & effort into adding something is not a valid 
reason for keeping it if it's been removed. I've deleted my own data 
which to hours to add after it didn't exist in the real world. I found 
it mildly annoying, but had to be done.

Dave F.


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