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

[Lester Caine]

On 08/09/15 12:58, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> The historical tag can be used to indicate that the viaduct was 
>> > previously used as a railway. It should be used in conjunction with 
>> > other tags such as man_made.
> Is there anything **currently** making clear (or at least indicating)
> that it is constructed as a railway bridge? Is there any difference?
> 
> Historical data should not be added and if present - removed.

This is perhaps the sticking point?
A structure exists due to the previous construction of say a railway and
it gets 're-tasked' to something else. If it's called 'the old railway
viaduct' then that is acceptable, but if it's just called 'the viaduct'
one is not allowed to add in some way 'formally the xxx railway'?

Having to dig back through change log data to establish that was
previously mapped while it was a something else when many locals will be
looking for 'the old xxx' is wrong. If the object being mapped has an
historical aspect there should be no objection to adding that data and
no one has a right to remove it.

Even 'site of xxx' has a precedent to map it if there is some marker
visible on the ground but no other indication it ever existed.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk