Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[me]

On 04/08/17 at 09:20am, SK53 wrote:
>Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished:
>building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active
>mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions.

This is exactly what we try and do in Edinburgh. An example is here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372571074

When something new is build then these will get deleted. We have had
occasions where building have been re-added based on imagery.

We work a similar plan on shops or businesses that close, rather than delete
we would mark as disused:shop= or shop=vacant 

Cheers
Chris


>On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox" <[1]davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 
>  Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground.
>  Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being
>  reversed.
> 
>  On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <[2]61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  How different is the footprint of the new building?
> 
>  I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old
>  one - given the planing permissions.
> 
>  So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it
>  alone - that gives at least an indication that there is a building
>  there.
> 
>  Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?
> 
>  On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
>  > [3]https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:
>  >
>  > (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
>  > of editing, I suggest)
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black
>  <[4]andrewdbl...@googlemail.com>:
>  >> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down
>  and
>  >> rebuilt.
>  >> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back
>  and add
>  >> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
>  >> I have added a note  #1077006
>  >>
>  >> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
>  >>
>  >> ___
>  >> Talk-GB mailing list
>  >> [5]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>  >> [6]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>  >>
>  > ___
>  > Talk-GB mailing list
>  > [7]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>  > [8]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
>  ___
>  Talk-GB mailing list
>  [9]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>  [10]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>  ___
>  Talk-GB mailing list
>  [11]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>  [12]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> References
> 
>Visible links
>1. mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com
>2. mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com
>3. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished
>4. mailto:andrewdbl...@googlemail.com
>5. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>6. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>7. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>8. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>9. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>   10. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>   11. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>   12. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[SK53]

Dave,

I would be very grateful if you did not talk about me (or David Earl, for
that matter) in such an off-hand way on this mailing list. I find it really
offensive.

This is nothing to do with historical mapping: it's retaining an element to
avoid erroneous re-mapping of a non-existent building. They get deleted
when imagery is updated. In the past considerable work has been created by
people mapping from aerial imagery when someone has gone to the trouble of
updating stuff from a survey. Keeping a small number of elements in OSM for
this purpose is I believe entirely reasonable.


Jerry

On 4 August 2017 at 12:45, Dave F  wrote:

>
> On 04/08/2017 12:11, Dan S wrote:
>
>> 2017-08-04 12:04 GMT+01:00 Dave F :
>>
>>> I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out
>>> OSM is
>>> not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed
>>> from
>>> OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History Map.
>>>
>> Yes I thought so too. I tried to search the talk-gb archive for it but
>> I couldn't find the thread. Shame it isn't easier to find things in
>> our previous threads.
>>
> This is the welcome screen shown to all new users:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome.html
>
>
>
>> Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat
>>> 'Around
>>> here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when compare
>>> with
>>> elsewhere.
>>>
>> Don't worry too much about that, I'm sure it's just about awareness,
>> not exceptionalism!
>>
>
> From his previous posts, regrettably I don't believe that to be true. And
> he's not alone. See Cambridge University where a mapper has knowingly
> misinterpreted well defined tags to suit his custom rendering, (every uni
> building is tagged amenity=university & recreation grounds are tagged as
> pitches).
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.20114/0.12167
>
> https://map.cam.ac.uk/#52.199657,0.117062,16
>
> DaveF
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[SK53]

This happens to be a local convention which has evolved. I have no idea how
it is done in other places as I don't tend to keep track of changes in
buildings and am less likely to be in the position of regularly seeing a
building & then not being aware of it being demolished. So I'm not offering
it as a general solution and that needs to be said.'

I always say where to place it in context: not everyone reading these
emails will want to trawl through a whole list. So I try and provide enough
information for the casual reader as well as the regular reader.

Different parts of the UK have evolved quite different ways of mapping
certain features. Often a local consensus emerges because mappers encounter
each others work and probably copy a particular approach: either, if they
haven't seen such things mapped before, or if they didn't know any suitable
tags. This is not a bad thing: it ensures that data does get captured, and
usually it only pertains to fairly rare tags or situations.

Jerry

On 4 August 2017 at 12:04, Dave F  wrote:

> I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM
> is not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed
> from OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History
> Map.
>
> Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat
> 'Around here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when
> compare with elsewhere.
>
> On 04/08/2017 09:20, SK53 wrote:
>
> Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished:
> building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active
> mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions.
>
> On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox"  wrote:
>
>> Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground.
>> Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being reversed.
>>
>> On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How different is the footprint of the new building?
>>
>> I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old
>> one - given the planing permissions.
>>
>> So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone
>> - that gives at least an indication that there is a building there.
>>
>> Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?
>>
>>
>> On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:
>> >
>> > (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
>> > of editing, I suggest)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black :
>> >> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down
>> and
>> >> rebuilt.
>> >> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back
>> and add
>> >> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
>> >> I have added a note  #1077006
>> >>
>> >> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Talk-GB mailing list
>> >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> >>
>> > ___
>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[Dave F]

On 04/08/2017 12:11, Dan S wrote:

2017-08-04 12:04 GMT+01:00 Dave F :

I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM is
not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed from
OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History Map.

Yes I thought so too. I tried to search the talk-gb archive for it but
I couldn't find the thread. Shame it isn't easier to find things in
our previous threads.

This is the welcome screen shown to all new users:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome.html





Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat 'Around
here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when compare with
elsewhere.

Don't worry too much about that, I'm sure it's just about awareness,
not exceptionalism!


From his previous posts, regrettably I don't believe that to be true. 
And he's not alone. See Cambridge University where a mapper has 
knowingly misinterpreted well defined tags to suit his custom rendering, 
(every uni building is tagged amenity=university & recreation grounds 
are tagged as pitches).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.20114/0.12167

https://map.cam.ac.uk/#52.199657,0.117062,16

DaveF


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[Dan S]

2017-08-04 12:04 GMT+01:00 Dave F :
> I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM is
> not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed from
> OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History Map.

Yes I thought so too. I tried to search the talk-gb archive for it but
I couldn't find the thread. Shame it isn't easier to find things in
our previous threads.

> Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat 'Around
> here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when compare with
> elsewhere.

Don't worry too much about that, I'm sure it's just about awareness,
not exceptionalism!

Dan


> On 04/08/2017 09:20, SK53 wrote:
>
> Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished:
> building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active
> mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions.
>
> On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox"  wrote:
>>
>> Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground.
>> Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being reversed.
>>
>> On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How different is the footprint of the new building?
>>
>> I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old
>> one - given the planing permissions.
>>
>> So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone
>> - that gives at least an indication that there is a building there.
>>
>> Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?
>>
>>
>> On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:
>> >
>> > (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
>> > of editing, I suggest)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black :
>> >> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down
>> >> and
>> >> rebuilt.
>> >> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back
>> >> and add
>> >> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
>> >> I have added a note  #1077006
>> >>
>> >> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Talk-GB mailing list
>> >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> >>
>> > ___
>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[Dave F]

I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out 
OSM is not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be 
removed from OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to 
Open History Map.


Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat 
'Around here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when 
compare with elsewhere.


On 04/08/2017 09:20, SK53 wrote:
Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished: 
building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several 
active mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions.


On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox" > wrote:


Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the
ground. Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits
being reversed.

On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> wrote:

How different is the footprint of the new building?

I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to
the old one - given the planing permissions.

So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave
it alone - that gives at least an indication that there is a
building there.

Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?


On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished
:
>
> (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the
middle
> of editing, I suggest)
>
>
>
> 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black
>:
>> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked
down and
>> rebuilt.
>> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come
back and add
>> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
>> I have added a note  #1077006
>>
>> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital
grounds!
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[Michael Booth]

Do you mean https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/445288438 is no longer 
there, and has been rebuilt into a rectangular building?


If so, have a look at the newer DigitalGlobe imagery, and also OS 
OpenData StreetView to see the new building. Mind and check imagery 
alignment as there's normally an offset to Bing.


On 03/08/2017 16:39, Andrew Black wrote:
What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down 
and rebuilt.
Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back 
and add them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.

I have added a note  #1077006

I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[SK53]

Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished:
building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active
mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions.

On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox"  wrote:

> Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground.
> Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being reversed.
>
> On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How different is the footprint of the new building?
>
> I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old
> one - given the planing permissions.
>
> So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone
> - that gives at least an indication that there is a building there.
>
> Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?
>
>
> On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:
> >
> > (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
> > of editing, I suggest)
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black :
> >> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down and
> >> rebuilt.
> >> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back
> and add
> >> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
> >> I have added a note  #1077006
> >>
> >> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Talk-GB mailing list
> >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >>
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[David Fox]

Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground. Please 
don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being reversed.

On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

How different is the footprint of the new building?

I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old one - 
given the planing permissions.

So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone - 
that gives at least an indication that there is a building there.

Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?


On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:
>
> (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
> of editing, I suggest)
>
>
>
> 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black :
>> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down and
>> rebuilt.
>> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back and add
>> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
>> I have added a note  #1077006
>>
>> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[Warin]

How different is the footprint of the new building?

I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old one - 
given the planing permissions.

So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone - 
that gives at least an indication that there is a building there.

Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar?


On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:

(your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
of editing, I suggest)



2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black :

What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down and
rebuilt.
Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back and add
them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
I have added a note  #1077006

I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[Dan S]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished:

(your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle
of editing, I suggest)



2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black :
> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down and
> rebuilt.
> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back and add
> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
> I have added a note  #1077006
>
> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

[Andrew Black]

What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down and
rebuilt.
Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back and
add them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary.
I have added a note  #1077006

I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds!
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb