[OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Jo]

Here in Belgium many of these are repurposed as cycling highway
infrastructure. I wouldn't mind having highway=cycleway, railway=razed on
them.

Polyglot

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 1:47 PM Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> May 25, 2020, 06:37 by jacknstacy at sprynet.com:
>
> Greetings.
>
>
> Recently, a user mapped “razed” railways inside a construction zone (link
> below). These rails had been removed by our local mappers since they don’t
> exist anymore. Using the latest imagery (Maxar), you can see the rails have
> been completely removed from “Project 70”, a $1.2 billion Denver-area
> transportation corridor construction project.
>
>
> I think this mapper has good intentions, but what is the point of mapping
> something that does not exist? Doesn’t this clearly contradict the OSM Good
> Practice wiki in regards the sections, “Verifiability”, “Map what's on the
> ground” and “Don't map historic events and historic features”? The last
> section states, "*Do not map objects if they do not exist currently*."
>
> Rails were removed - but is there embankment or something similar that
> makes clear
> that railway line was there?
>
> In cases of still present embankment it is a bit tricky what is border
> between "present" and "gone".
>
> Note also that recently gone objects may be temporarily keep to prevent
> them from accidental
> remapping - for example based on old memory or old aerial images.
>
> But yes, something completely gone can and should be deleted from
> OpenStreetMap
> (temporarily kept in way that marks it as gone if likely to be
> accidentally remapped).
>
> Should we leave (invisible) destroyed buildings in place, tag them as
> razed and then create new buildings on top of them?
>
> I do this to make people using outdated aerial images less confused. And
> delete them
> once aerial images are updated.
>
> I deleted object where people were either importing old objects,
> nonexisting objects unlikely
> to be remapped by accident, supposedly existing old objects that were
> unverifiable.
>
>
> > Should we map things that do not exist?
>
> No, but remapping existing objects as "this is gone now" (building=yes ->
> demolished:building=yes)
> is often a good idea.
>
> But someone adding nonexisting railways, nonexisting buildings, historic
> boundaries and so on
> should stop, and such additions be reverted.
>
> (note that ruined buildings, ruined railways are mappable, just completely
> gone are not).
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200525/f14a93d1/attachment-0001.htm>