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

On 9/6/20 6:46 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM Warin, can you give an example f

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

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 13:44, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Could we do similar with torn-up railways? > > Then the parts where rails or railbed are actually remaining could be > railway=abandoned or whatever, and parts with nothing remaining could > be plain ways in a relation like https://osm.org/

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

Jun 9, 2020, 14:42 by ja...@piorkowski.ca: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 07:56, Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: >> >>> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as >>> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned >

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

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 07:56, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: >> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as >> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned > > Nope. We'd map the portions that are existing ways li

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

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 13:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Jun 9, 2020, 13:55 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > > Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as > roman_road=demolished nor ro

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

Jun 9, 2020, 13:55 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski <> ja...@piorkowski.ca> > wrote: > >> >> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as >> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned >> > > Nope.  We'd map the po

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

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as > roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned > Nope. We'd map the portions that are existing ways like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/70

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

Jun 9, 2020, 10:46 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map >> it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM >> > > > Warin,

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

Here's another historic object no longer visible: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/297086978 I have to be honest, I didn't check the whole traject for possible visible remains. But in the fields east and west of approximately this point (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/297086978#map=18/51.037

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

sent from a phone > On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map > it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not there

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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:51, Paul Allen wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 15:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: >> cycleway route is verifiable, but route took by army is not) > > Quite a few motor roads in the UK follow those "unverifiable" routes. Some > are even named after those rout

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

On 9/6/20 12:10 pm, Jack Armstrong wrote: On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote: The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are gone, no longer here, vanished. At times this discussion reminds me of a heated argument over whether a thing was a dead parrot o

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

On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote: The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are gone, no longer here, vanished.  At times this discussion reminds me of a heated argument over whether a thing was a dead parrot or not ;)

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

On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote: Warin, Jack, your comments are really off my main point. We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different opinions on whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in OSM. In the middle of that discussion the abandoned railway

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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 15:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Jun 8, 2020, 16:11 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > > There may be other indicators of older lines: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_sleepers_at_Bugsworth_basin_-_geograph.org.uk_-_450090.jp

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

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 02:57:29PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Warin, Jack, > > your comments are really off my main point. > We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different opinions > on whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in OSM. In the > middle of that dis

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

Jun 8, 2020, 16:11 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: >   > >> I added explicit "even if rails are gone". >> > > Thank you. > > >> "the way will still be visible from the ballast that remains." >> >> Can

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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I added explicit "even if rails are gone". > Thank you. "the way will still be visible from the ballast that remains." > > Can you find a good photo of that on https://commons.wikimedia.org/ ? > I w

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

Jun 8, 2020, 15:02 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> Jun 8, 2020, 14:28 by >> pla16...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>>> >>> tagging@openstreet

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

Jun 8, 2020, 14:57 by vosc...@gmail.com: > Warin, Jack, > > your comments are really off my main point. > We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different opinions on > whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in OSM. > This discussion appeared multiple times and

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

Jun 8, 2020, 14:45 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> I added explicit "Everyone agrees that overgrown railway rails remain >> mappable.", >> removed explicit claim that "road geometry as sole tr

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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Jun 8, 2020, 14:28 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > For example > http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-a

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

Warin, Jack, your comments are really off my main point. We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different opinions on whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in OSM. In the middle of that discussion the abandoned railway wiku page gets completely rewritten by one of

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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I added explicit "Everyone agrees that overgrown railway rails remain > mappable.", > removed explicit claim that "road geometry as sole trace" is not mappable. > "Road geometry" is a little confusi

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

Jun 8, 2020, 14:28 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> Jun 8, 2020, 13:18 by >> pla16...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> Have these objects left traces or not? >>> >>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-529

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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Jun 8, 2020, 13:18 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > Have these objects left traces or not? > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52911797 > Are they mappable? > > But verifying it seems problematic at best

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

Jun 6, 2020, 00:02 by vosc...@gmail.com: > I need to reopen this thread. > > We have not arrived at a consensus so far in this talk, > Nevertheless the wiki page > Demolished_Railway > > was completely > rewritten on 07:17, 27 May 2020

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

Jun 8, 2020, 13:18 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 11:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> We are generally OK with mapping things where some traces remained. >> It is accepted that thing totally and completely gone are not mappable.

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

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 11:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > We are generally OK with mapping things where some traces remained. > It is accepted that thing totally and completely gone are not mappable. > > Have these objects left traces or not? https://www.bb

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

Jun 8, 2020, 12:50 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 12:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <> > matkoni...@tutanota.com> >: > >> >> Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >>> <>>> tagg

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

Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 12:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > > Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt wrote:

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

Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> >: > >> On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt <>> vosc...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> I do object strongly to the invitation to remov

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

Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the > razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been > replaced by roa

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

Jun 7, 2020, 23:36 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >> I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the >> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been >> replaced by roads with the same geo

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

sent from a phone > On 7. Jun 2020, at 03:32, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How hard you look for them? I would hope that does not extend to ground > penetrating radar that is used to find old buildings that used to exist > ultimately things under the surface would be included, th

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

sent from a phone > On 7. Jun 2020, at 23:54, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Do you also object when the geometry of the railway and the road is a > straight line? yes Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.op

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

>From: Jarek Piórkowski >>Do you also object when the geometry of the railway and the road is a>straight line? Do you think we should keep>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676191068 ?>This rail company apparently went out of business 72 years ago? Mapillary images don't seem to show any trace of r

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

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 22:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > this is about a different topic: projects that have been started but have > never been completed and the fragments are now either: > repurposed > or > left to decay > or > waiting to be completed > > I would be quite interested in standa

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

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 17:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the > > razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been > > replaced by roads with the same geometry. > > +1 Do

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

sent from a phone > On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the razed/dismantled-railway > tag in the case of railway tracks have been replaced by roads with the same > geometry. +1 Cheers Martin ___

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

sent from a phone > On 4. Jun 2020, at 16:56, Cornelis via Tagging > wrote: > > Maybe this one even serves as example for an old railway that in fact > should be mapped to explain these clearly visible features that > otherwise would lack an explanation? this is about a different topic: pro

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

On 7/6/20 1:31 am, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 11:23, Andy Townsend wrote: On 06/06/2020 16:18, Phake Nick wrote: 在 2020年6月6日週六 11:03，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道： As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a railway route here nothing remains of the

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

On 7/6/20 1:52 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 6. Jun 2020, at 03:58, Jack Armstrong wrote: The wiki permits the mapping of reality, on-the-ground, as it is in the world today. OSM should reflect what exists today, not decades ago. If there is something that remains o

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

sent from a phone > On 6. Jun 2020, at 03:58, Jack Armstrong wrote: > > > The wiki permits the mapping of reality, on-the-ground, as it is in the world > today. OSM should reflect what exists today, not decades ago. If there is > something that remains of a previous railroad, then it can be

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

On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 11:23, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 06/06/2020 16:18, Phake Nick wrote: > 在 2020年6月6日週六 11:03，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道： >>> As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a >>> railway route here nothing remains of the railway. >> >> OSM is not *only* f

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

On 06/06/2020 16:18, Phake Nick wrote: 在 2020年6月6日週六 11:03，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > 寫道： As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a railway route here nothing remains of the railway. OSM is not *only* for general tourist.

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

在 2020年6月6日週六 11:03，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道： > On 6/6/20 8:02 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I need to reopen this thread. > > > > I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the > > razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been > > replaced by roads with the s

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

On 6/6/20 8:02 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: I need to reopen this thread.  I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this is one of the more fortunate cases w

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

From: Volker Schmidt  I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this is one of the more fortunate cases where the original route has been conserved, and it is ea

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

I need to reopen this thread. We have not arrived at a consensus so far in this talk, Nevertheless the wiki page Demolished_Railway was completely rewritten on 07:17, 27 May 2020 by Mateusz Konieczny

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

I would like to add another interesting one. A railway that never has been finished completely, but you can clearly see it on the map, nonetheless: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/51.0885/6.6486 Most of it is still visible, not only in the bigger picture. It's build as embarkment in large pa

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

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 12:24:45 +0200 (CEST) Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > Jun 3, 2020, 07:03 by mark+...@carnildo.com: > > > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST) > > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > > > >> Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > 在

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

On 2/6/20 9:44 pm, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 12:23, Volker Schmidt > wrote: Anyway the examples you find in OSM are few and in all cases I know the completely erased bits are a tiny part of the overall ex-railway. There are three ex-railways

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

Mark, can you tell us the place? The photo seems to show a US city, but which one? Even at thrìe small scale of the image I can see several traces that look very much like ex-railway tracks (it's easy in US cities as they do not follow the block structure). Please don't forget that I am not sayin

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

Jun 3, 2020, 07:03 by mark+...@carnildo.com: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST) > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com: >> >> > >> > >> > 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com> > 寫道： >> > >> >> On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmi

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

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST) Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com: > > > > > > > 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com> > 寫道： > > > >> On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> > My main point is that out there are thi

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

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 12:23, Volker Schmidt wrote: Anyway the examples you find in OSM are few and in all cases I know the > completely erased bits are a tiny part of the overall ex-railway. > There are three ex-railways in my area (possibly more). Even though the rail part of those railways ha

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

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 05:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > How much time do you think I should spend searching for these people who > might know of it? And then once found how much time should I spend trying > to contact them? > > Think about what you are asking an unpaid mapper to do? >

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

Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com: > > > 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com> > 寫道： > >> On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> > My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible >> > objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also

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

>From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>>If I am not certain of something I'll ask the author/flowing editors but where I know something is wrong I'll change it without consultation.Agreed. There is no need to consult with other users if something is clearly incorrect and needs to be changed. If a four

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

On 2/6/20 11:52 am, Phake Nick wrote: 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > 寫道： On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: > My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible > objects plus objects which have left visibl

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

在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道： > On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible > > objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some > > pieces that have been completely erased, but of which

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

On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some pieces that have been completely erased, but of which we have documented knowledge of where they once were. The entire

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

My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some pieces that have been completely erased, but of which we have documented knowledge of where they once were. The entire thing makes sense only with all its parts. The

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

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:29 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >> I agree that it is good example of something on a boundary (assuming that >> both "rails completely gone" and "track of former railway is >

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

On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I agree that it is good example of something on a boundary (assuming that > both "rails completely gone" and "track of former railway is > recognisable"). Do you have some good images showing both?

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

May 28, 2020, 23:42 by vosc...@gmail.com: > This is a "problem" that is being exaggerated, in my view. There are very > small percentage of historic "things" in the OSM database that really do not > exist anymore in the sense that they are truly invisible. > And it should stay the same, prefe

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

This is a "problem" that is being exaggerated, in my view. There are very small percentage of historic "things" in the OSM database that really do not exist anymore in the sense that they are truly invisible. There are plenty of historical "things" in OSM of which large parts still exist today, li

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

On May 25, 2020 15:35:44 Jack Armstrong wrote: I agree with Mateusz Konieczny. If there is some vestige of the object remaining, then mapping it in some way seems reasonable. But, if the railway, building, highway, etc., are completely removed and there are absolutely no visible remains of wha

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

e the need to map something that does not actually exist.- Jack Armstrongchachafish-Original Message- From: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging Sent: May 25, 2020 4:15 PM To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Cc: Mateusz Konieczny Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Shoul

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

May 25, 2020, 23:50 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > then it depends > on whether the former railway has significance in some other less > obvious way (e.g. being part of an administrative boundary) > This is going too far. Glaciers left clear marks in many countries, but mapping glaciers of la

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

If there is any detectable sign that there was a rail there one day, surely it could be mapped - and especially so if the locals still remember and/or refer to it. If it has been completely removed, with other things built on top of it, or the area completely remodeled so that there is no trace of

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

在 2020年5月25日週一 19:35，Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> 寫道： > > > > May 25, 2020, 09:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > > sent from a phone > > On 25. May 2020, at 08:54, Colin Smale wrote: > > 1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not be > y

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

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:12:34PM +0800, Phake Nick wrote: > > So - To quote from Postels Law - On of the inventors of the Internet: > > > > "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others" > > Your email initially sound like you thinl they shouldn't be deleted but > th

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

在 2020年5月25日週一 16:12，Florian Lohoff 寫道： > > Hola, > > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 08:52:21AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: > > 1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not > > be your hobby, but it is their's. The bar to actively deleting other > > people's work should be set v

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

May 25, 2020, 09:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 25. May 2020, at 08:54, Colin Smale wrote: >> >> >> 1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not be >> your hobby, but it is their's. The bar to actively deleting other people's >> wor

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

Hola, On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 08:52:21AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: > 1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not > be your hobby, but it is their's. The bar to actively deleting other > people's work should be set very high indeed. I subscribe to this aswell. As long

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

sent from a phone > On 25. May 2020, at 08:54, Colin Smale wrote: > > 1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not be > your hobby, but it is their's. The bar to actively deleting other people's > work should be set very high indeed. > +1 I completely subscribe t

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

sent from a phone > On 25. May 2020, at 07:06, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > It is still considered acceptable to map abandoned railways, where the old > railway grade remains, even though the metal rails have been removed. As a side note these are “dismantled” railways, while abandoned r

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

I personally think such should still be tagged as long as the space, or the right of way, still remain, but not when it have been completely removed, integrated into surrounding area, and redeveloped, unless traces or marks of either the remain of the rail system itself or the space previous used b

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

On 2020-05-25 07:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > This was originally sent to the Talk mailing list, but it is better if it is > discussed on the Tagging mailing list: > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > I agree that razed, completely demolished railways, where all traces of th

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

This was originally sent to the Talk mailing list, but it is better if it is discussed on the Tagging mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I agree that razed, completely demolished railways, where all traces of the former track-bed have been removed, should be removed fro