Re: [Tagging] Potential proposal for more detail in old_ref=*?

2017-02-27 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 02/27/2017 10:58 PM, yo paseopor wrote: > I don't know what is your takeaway. I'm a user, I'm a mapper, I'm a man > who loves the history and I want that all my possible future work and > the others won't be lost, and will be accessible...forever. OpenStreetMap is a project with many many

Re: [Tagging] Potential proposal for more detail in old_ref=*?

2017-02-27 Thread Richard Welty
On 2/27/17 4:58 PM, yo paseopor wrote: > > OK, with new tags, with new values, with new behaviour, but not > outside OSM data because if there would be another "accident" or > unafortunate facts the information will be inside OSM and other can > start another render with these information. > if we

Re: [Tagging] Potential proposal for more detail in old_ref=*?

2017-02-27 Thread yo paseopor
> > OHM was in a position where a new hosting arrangement needed to be worked > out, when a major server crash occurred. so we were literally twisting > in the wind > until those issues were resolved. there is no real external support for > the project > so we couldn't just go out and rent a server

Re: [Tagging] Potential proposal for more detail in old_ref=*?

2017-02-27 Thread Richard Welty
just to insure that the correct facts are out there: OHM was in a position where a new hosting arrangement needed to be worked out, when a major server crash occurred. so we were literally twisting in the wind until those issues were resolved. there is no real external support for the project so w

Re: [Tagging] Potential proposal for more detail in old_ref=*?

2017-02-27 Thread yo paseopor
Humanity is so curious. We make a mistake, we "receive" the consequences and we don't learn anything, and promote the same mistake. OHM was a good project...but had a bad choice: data outside OSM. Then the project had slept...and the information is , nowadays...lost? Well, the project woke up...bu

Re: [Tagging] Potential proposal for more detail in old_ref=*?

2017-02-27 Thread Richard Welty
On 2/27/17 2:46 PM, Albert Pundt wrote: > The old_ref=* key seems to be used a lot for any previous designation > of a road, even decades before. Often a road will have had different > designations over the years. For example, I-676 in Philadelphia was > initially designated I-80S from 1957 to 1958

[Tagging] Potential proposal for more detail in old_ref=*?

2017-02-27 Thread Albert Pundt
The old_ref=* key seems to be used a lot for any previous designation of a road, even decades before. Often a road will have had different designations over the years. For example, I-676 in Philadelphia was initially designated I-80S from 1957 to 1958, followed by I-895 from 1958 to 1960, I-76 from

Re: [Tagging] Mapping freeway stub ends?

2017-02-27 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > For the above situation, I'd tag it as highway=construction, > construction=* and abandoned=yes since it was abandoned under > construction... > Hmm. I'm reluctant to use different lifecyc

Re: [Tagging] Mapping freeway stub ends?

2017-02-27 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 25 Feb 2017, at 21:08, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > I tend to favor highway=construction, construction=* and possibly > abandoned=yes if it's partially built and could be finished later, but it's > left i

Re: [Tagging] Start of a river

2017-02-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27 Feb 2017, at 02:27, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I think waterway=source is a good candidate for inclusion in the OSM Wiki where would you add this to? Typically if this is one or several ways rather than a single node, these would already have a tag like waterway =st