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

2017-02-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2017-02-27 23:21 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm : > For OpenStreetMap, one key component of "conflict avoidance" is our rule > of on-the-ground verifiability. With some very well defined exceptions > (e.g. administrative boundaries), we only map things that yuo can verify > by going there and looking. So

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

2017-02-28 Thread Richard
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 02:46:45PM -0500, 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

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