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

Mark Bradley ethnicfoodisgreat at gmail.com
Sat Sep 19 19:19:42 UTC 2015



> -----Original Message-----
> From: moltonel 3x Combo [mailto:moltonel at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 6:54 PM
> To: EthnicFood IsGreat <ethnicfoodisgreat at gmail.com>
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject
> 
> On 14/09/2015, EthnicFood IsGreat <ethnicfoodisgreat at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I guess we're asking that an exception to the "verifiable features
> > only" rule be made for these features.
> 
> IMHO the exception that you are asking for is not to the "verifyable only" rule but to the
> "presently existing" rule. All the abandoned/dismantled railroads I've seen in OSM were
> verifyably "previously existing" but also (where the conflict arrises as far as I'm
> concerned) verifyably "no longer present".
> 
> This is not a rejection of your plea, just trying to make sure of what we are talking about.
> 
> > Simply confining abandoned railroad
> > features to OHM is not a good solution, because without being able to
> > view them in the context of existing features, they lose a lot of
> > their value.
> 
> Agreed, OHM is currently not very usable.
> 
> 
> 
> I've suggested that early on, and again in my latest reply to Russ : I think that maping the
> past in OSM would be acceptable, if done properly. Some kind of "OHM done right".
> Doing things really right might require a modification of the data model, a cross-db
> synbchronisation tool, or some other cool technology... But that's just too far off, too
> hypothetical. The next best thing is a tagging system for the past.
> 
> 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. Consumers, editors and
> tools should be able to filter out historical data with a simple rule. I've suggested using
> "past:" as a key prefix, with an optional " @ date - range" as a value suffix.
> Didn't see any reply, what do people think ?
> 
> As for opening the floodgates of historical mapping, I do not like it from a very personal
> POV, but I can recognise that there is a need, that OSM might be the best tool to fill that
> need, and that it might ultimately strengthen the poject. I just hope (and believe and
> work to make it true) that it won't be too much of a nuisance to my usecase.
> And if we do open up to maping the past, I don't think that it should be reserved to
> railroads.
> 
> I've argued against maping no-longer existing railroads in way too many emails at this
> stage, but I suggested this escape route early on.
> Nobody picked it up but I think that's the only thing that currently stands a chance of
> reaching consensus. EthnicFoodIsGreat, can you see the working compromise that Russ
> cannot ?
> 


I would be for any compromise that allows the historical railroads to remain, including your idea.  In the meantime, I am coordinating with a mapper who wishes to delete selected abandoned railroads that he encounters.  He notifies me first when he encounters such a railroad, and then I copy it to OHM, so that the information will not be lost after he deletes it.


> That's it for me, bye bye railroad thread, I hope. Of course I'm only one contributor, not a
> highly prolific or influential one, not an authority, just a voice. Others have been less noisy
> but more dogmatic than me on the subject. The community as a whole must decide
> wether "we map the present" is still a hard OSM rule.




More information about the talk mailing list