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

[Lester Caine]

On 15/09/15 08:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> If it wasn't clear already, railway=dismantled, end_date, or any
>> > system that mixes past and present in the same namespace is IMHO not
>> > acceptable.
> 
> I agree that end_date is not a desirable way to add stuff. 
> 
> railway=dismantled on the other hand is not a past feature, it is a dismantled railway now, in the present. In the past it was a railway=rail etc.

The crux of the problem here is 'end_date' and if it is to be supported
or not. I'm perfectly happy that features which exist on the ground need
to be documented, and even having removed the tracks, a rail bed is
still a substantial structure which can be reused or robbed out. The use
of the name 'Abandoned Railway' on a cycle track is an alternate
compromise, so it is just breaks which we are discussion here.

If OHM WAS usable as an alternate source of data in parallel with the
main database I would not have a problem, but the discussions there are
at a tangent to the main problem of retaining material that has been
accurately mapped already and for which 'end_date' is the perfect tag.
The difficulty here is distinguishing data that has been deleted or
changed because it was simply wrong and changes that result from
re-tasking or redeveloping areas.

I've already given a good practical example in the case of Tollbar
improvements which are still work in progress, but the current data is
not as accurate as it could be because elements are mapped that do not
yet exist and elements which have been realigned do not actually follow
the current state on the ground. The full scheme started life back in
1998 and the various phases were well documented showing what was to be
added and deleted at each stage, so careful mapping taking note of both
start and end dates COULD have done a better job, and this IS about
mapping the present! It shows what is planned so drivers know of the
disruption and while dates will change updating them builds the very
history *I* am talking about, so ALL we are discussing is what happens
to the bits as the forthcoming end_date is reached? And what is shown
for sections for which a 'start_date' is still to be achieved.

ARCHIVING material is the question here while keeping it available to
view in conjunction with the current state on the ground along with the
future planned state. History is an inherent part of the current
'namespace'!

-- 
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