On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Andrew Chadwick (lists)
a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com wrote:
iii. We should not in general be mapping features which are no
longer physically relevant. Demolished items by their very nature are
not relevant, and are potentially not verifiable. OSM a map of the
On 28/giu/2013, at 12:29, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Mmmm...not quite. You're driving home from work. The bridge you
normally drive over has been demolished. I'd say that's pretty
physically relevant to you right now. And tomorrow. And probably for
a few weeks. Maybe months.
On 28 June 2013 11:29, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Andrew Chadwick (lists)
a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com wrote:
Mmmm...not quite. You're driving home from work. The bridge you
normally drive over has been demolished. I'd say that's pretty
On 28 June 2013 12:04, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
think about stuff like the castle of Berlin, demolished in 1953, the whole
city evolved around it for hundreds of years (obviously still noticeable in
the urban structure), and when the socialist palace was demolished
I've just been reminded of the existence of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished
which nobody is using very much, and which nobody seems to be
maintaining. I hope nobody will start using it, for it seems to me
that this tag will generate bad data:
i. If an object is demolished,
On 27/06/2013 19:23, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote:
iii. We should not in general be mapping features which are no
longer physically relevant. Demolished items by their very nature are
not relevant, and are potentially not verifiable. OSM a map of the the
world as it is in reality, verifiably
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Disagree. There are reasons to keep objects in the DB after they have ceased
to exist.
Objects deleted in OSM are not deleted in the database.
And like disused=yes, it is a mistake to believe that all data
consumers will
