On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> But what if hikers still refer to the spot? Like "Let's go to the burnt
> alpine hut, and then go left". That is a pretty important landmark, even if
> there is no sign of the hut any more. Maybe we can tag it as place=locality.
>
Clearly, t
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 04:53:03PM +0100, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> 2015-01-28 19:25 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm :
>
> >
> > If there used to be a building but all that is left is a clearing in the
> > forest, then the clearing will be in OSM, and not a building with a
> > lifecycle tag of "removed".
> >
2015-01-28 19:25 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm :
>
> If there used to be a building but all that is left is a clearing in the
> forest, then the clearing will be in OSM, and not a building with a
> lifecycle tag of "removed".
>
But what if hikers still refer to the spot? Like "Let's go to the burnt
alp
On 30.01.2015 17:17, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
> The goal was to describe an allready in use practice about the removed:
> prefix which I thought defered from the destroyed: prefix which was intended
> for features that once were, but were destroyed, while the removed: prefix
> is a more generic
Hi,
dieterdreist wrote
> thank you all for your comments, user:RicoZ, the creator of that page also
> agreed and has changed the description.
In fact, the creator of the above mentionned wiki page copy/pasted the page
I originally created to document the removed: prefix here :
http://wiki.openst
Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Yes, feature that does not exist anymore (or even never existed!) or
> is only proposed has no place in OSM.
+1. No place on rendered map and apps. +/-1. No place on DB.
> With possible caveat that features that are extremely likely to be added
> (recently destroyed bu
Richard Z. wrote:
> thank you all for the unexpected attention, the problematic text snippet
> was cut&paste from [[Comparison of life cycle concepts]] where it must
> have been lurking for some time.
[[Comparison of life cycle concepts]] is meant as an overview.
I approve very much your edit for
"If the proposal was from between 1960 and 1969, "within 25 years" would
have been no later than the end of 1994, possibly as early as 1985"
Every few year local government releases new plans - so in 1994 it was
planned
to start around 2020. Currently there are plans to start construction in
2030
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> removed:
>> (features that do not exist anymore but may still be seen on other
>> sources)
>> [@Martin: leave a mention to the other sources]
>
> I see no harm in leaving them in OSM. Untill something is built there or the
> landuse/cover changes. Leave it th
2015-01-29 8:43 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
> OSM should map current situation - not what was there or what will be.
>
what was there and what will be is part of the current situation.
>
> "after it is obvious the proposed road will never be built" sounds nice but
> always there will be som
2015-01-28 19:25 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm :
>
> If there used to be a castle and now there's a ruin, then we tag that as
> a ruin (with potential add-on info about its former castle status).
>
> If there used to be a building but all that is left is a clearing in the
> forest, then the clearing wil
On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 08:43 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Yes, my opinion is that all highway=proposed should be removed.
I think this is an absolutely awful idea.
> "after it is obvious the proposed road will never be built" sounds
> nice but
> always there will be somebody convinced that pr
Yes, my opinion is that all highway=proposed should be removed.
OSM should map current situation - not what was there or what will be.
"after it is obvious the proposed road will never be built" sounds nice but
always there will be somebody convinced that proposal is real. For example
my city has
On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 22:42 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Yes, feature that does not exist anymore (or even never existed!) or
> is only proposed has no place in OSM.
So you want to get rid of proposed roads, too?
Having a proposed road on the map is good to see what has been planned
for the
On 28/01/2015 21:57, John F. Eldredge wrote:
Well, you also have the status "proposed, but no start date set",
which would fit some subdivision maps I have seen. I am not sure how
one would tag that.
Again, I probably wouldn't add that, until it has got a projected start
date (and a budget!
On 29/01/2015 12:28 AM, althio wrote:
removed:
(features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly seen
on other sources)
I propose to remove the part "or never existed but are commonly seen on
other sources", because this has nothing to do with "removed". If people want
to t
On January 28, 2015 7:09:01 AM CST, SomeoneElse wrote:
> On 28/01/2015 13:05, Richard Welty wrote:
> >
> > i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so
> > that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later.
> >
>
> I guess that that makes sense here in a "fix
Yes, feature that does not exist anymore (or even never existed!) or
is only proposed has no place in OSM.
With possible caveat that features that are extremely likely to be added
(recently destroyed building visible on aerial images etc) element with note
explaining situations makes sense.
But n
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 03:22:51PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> thank you all for your comments, user:RicoZ, the creator of that page also
> agreed and has changed the description.
thank you all for the unexpected attention, the problematic text snippet
was cut&paste from [[Comparison of li
Several freeways that were designed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the
Baghdad, IQ area got tagged similarly to that (highway=unbuilt or
similar). No idea if they were later built by some authority. Also didn't
know if it was inside knowledge by a returning soldier past the end of
whatever app
Hi,
On 01/28/2015 01:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> *removed:*
>
> * (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are
> commonly seen on other sources)
>
> I propose to remove the part "or never existed but are commonly seen on
> other sources", because this has nothing t
thank you all for your comments, user:RicoZ, the creator of that page also
agreed and has changed the description.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> removed:
>
> (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly seen
> on other sources)
>
> I propose to remove the part "or never existed but are commonly seen on
> other sources", because this has nothing to do with "removed". If people want
> to tag easter eggs or errors
>
On 1/28/15 8:09 AM, SomeoneElse wrote:
On 28/01/2015 13:05, Richard Welty wrote:
i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so
that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later.
I guess that that makes sense here in a "fix the mapper" kind of way
(I've ce
On 28/01/2015 13:05, Richard Welty wrote:
i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so
that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later.
I guess that that makes sense here in a "fix the mapper" kind of way
(I've certainly done similar things), but genera
On 1/28/15 7:51 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
maybe "fiction:" and an explanation in the note tag.
back in the 1960s, there were a bunch of proposals for motorways
in the Albany, NY area that were never built (for good reason). a mapper
added those as proposed maybe two years ago, which wasn't good
bec
maybe "fiction:" and an explanation in the note tag.
Richard Welty wrote on 2015-01-28 13:46:
On 1/28/15 7:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I just stumbled over this in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
*removed:*
* (features that do not exist anymore or never e
On 1/28/15 7:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I just stumbled over this in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
*removed:*
* (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are
commonly seen on other sources)
I propose to remove the part "or never exis
I just stumbled over this in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
*removed:*
- (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly
seen on other sources)
I propose to remove the part "or never existed but are commonly seen on
other sources", beca
29 matches
Mail list logo
