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

[Warin]

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 for something historic that is not there any 
more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap? Through all the years 
I have never encountered anything like this mapped in OpenStreetMap.



Way: former Buninyong line (802945258)

Way: Buninyong Line (802945251)

Way: Ballarat - Buninyong line (168429101)


Note I put these in OHM ~2 years ago.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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/way/498608783
>

As I recall, the example Warin was complaining about was part of a
relation linking sections of defunct railway in different states
(razed, abandoned, etc.)  It would certainly be possible to deal
with portions that have been converted to roads, cycleways or
footpaths by inserting them into the relation as what they are,
rather than what they were (preferably with some tag indicating
they followed the route of the former railway).  That might
get rid of some of the objections.

That doesn't get around the problem of sections where buildings or
fields or whatever have replaced the former railway.  I doubt that
argument will be settled as easily.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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
>>>
>>
>> Nope.  We'd map the portions that are existing ways like this:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236
>>
>
> 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/way/498608783
>
No. I am OK with extreme broad interpretation of what counts as
remain of railway allowing it to map.

But mapping where nothing at all is remaining is clearly out of scope of 
OSM.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jarek Piórkowski]

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 like this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236

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/way/498608783

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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 roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned
>
>
> Nope.  We'd map the portions that are existing ways like this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236
>
> If it is mapping just still existing ways, why it has "conjectural=yes"
> tag?
>

That is a non-sequitur.  The ways exist and have been mapped.  The route,
which consists of those ways, has been marked as conjectural.  How
much of it is conjectural could be a very tiny fraction of it.

>
> For mapping of just still existing ways it seems to be suspiciously
> well matching modern infrastructure like for example in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236#map=18/51.39839/0.45684
>

Yes, roads that have been improved tend to follow their old route.
Occasionally,
however, a road improvement (using machinery unavailable to the Romans)
includes a slight diversion.  Sometimes the diversion retains the name and
the original route is prefixed with "Old." Mainly, though, the routes of
roads
go back many centuries to days when they were little more than cart tracks.

>
> In other words, it seems to be a clear case of mapping guessed route of
> formerm
> historic no longer existing object.
>

It has as much (or as little) existence as a walking route.  It certainly
has more
existence than a walking route without signs, as there are plenty of street
signs
for it.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 portions that are existing ways like this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236
>
If it is mapping just still existing ways, why it has "conjectural=yes" tag?

For mapping of just still existing ways it seems to be suspiciously
well matching modern infrastructure like for example in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236#map=18/51.39839/0.45684

In other words, it seems to be a clear case of mapping guessed route of formerm
historic no longer existing object.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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/7063236

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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, can you give an example for something historic that is not there any 
> more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap? Through all the 
> years I have never encountered anything like this mapped in OpenStreetMap.
>
For example, I removed historic railway mapped where all evidence was removed 
by open pit mine.

Maybe more depending on whatever you could "old building/closed shop/dismantled 
spur railway/
closed school" as historic.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[s8evq]

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=18/51.03787/3.07420) I saw 
nothing on the ground and nothing visible in the different aerial images. Not 
even in the hillshade elevation maps available there.

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:46:24 +0200, 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 for something historic that is not there any 
> more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap? Through all the 
> years I have never encountered anything like this mapped in OpenStreetMap.
> 
> 
> Cheers Martin 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 any 
more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap? Through all the years 
I have never encountered anything like this mapped in OpenStreetMap.


Cheers Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jarek Piórkowski]

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 routes.  
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watling_Street

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

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 or not ;)


https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqnp




I, for one, have been drawing on that. If only for my own amusement.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jack Armstrong]

  

  
  
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 ;)https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqnp

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

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 wiku page 
gets completely rewritten by one of the participants in the thread 
explicitly stating that razed railways should be /removed/ from OSM.

This is basically against good practice in OSM.
In addition the statement that where roads trace razed/dismantled 
railways, the reference to the fact that they do, should be removed is 
clearly wrong. Worldwide there are many thousands of km of roads and 
cycle routes that retrace exactly former railway lines . what is wrong 
with adding railway=dismantled (orrazed)  to the ways that make up the 
road or the cycle route.


Railway installations are major sites present in our environment,



The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are gone, 
no longer here, vanished.


The one I am thinking of has visible things at one end and a few bits 
elsewhere, those I would leave on OSM as they 'exist'.


But to map it where there is nothing left.. to me that is deceptive. The 
other mapper has extended one of the things I left mapped so that an 
embankment runs over roads, through car-parks, a building and a playing 
field. That does not exist now, it may have decades ago ... but not 
today and not for quite a few years.



and there is no good reason to remove them from the map, whether they 
are actively used or only indirectly "visible".

Just two other observations to put this in context:
We have plenty of underground water courses, oil or gas pipelines 
where only few objects on the surface indicate their underground 
existence - no-one would object to having them in the map data, 
including the underground parts.


Agreed - because they exist. I know there is an underground railway near 
me because I use it, it is not viable 'on the ground'. There is a 
drainage channel near me that I can see as entry and exit places .. its 
precise route I don't know so I use the est sources to estimate its 
route. I do my best to map things that exist. I don't think OSM is the 
place for things that no longer exist in any physical way.



Another completely different indication that old stuff could be of 
interest to tourists: when I moved to the UK from continental Europe 
in 1978 I was positively surprised to see, on the standard OS maps for 
hikers, references to Roamn and Saxon sites galore, tyipiclley in the 
form of "site of ..." and of many country paths and tracks labeled 
with their Roman or Saxon names, even though the present-day structure 
is much younger - they only retrace the Roman way like the present-day 
street in the first example on the wiki page retraces a former railway..



If there is something to see there .. then map that. I would not map a 
railway as a railway if all that can be seen is a board that has 
information about the old railway, I would map it as a tourist sign only 
- not a railway.


Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, 
map it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM.




BTW I am not saying that OSM map data are incomplete without mapping 
old raylways, I am only asking to not remove those that are mapped, 
and to not write in the wiki that they should be removed.
BTW 2: wiki pages in general should not invite mappers to remove 
already mapped objects, but only correct mapping errors.



On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 05:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


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 where the original route has been
> conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
> I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former
> railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic
value and
> for that reason should be in OSM.


As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a
railway route here nothing remains of the railway.

If something remains then map the remains, not the bits that no
longer
exist.

Where an old railway route passes through private residential houses,
commercial buildings, car parking area .. I don't think that
should be
in OSM yet people map it...

A historian/archeologist may have interest in documenting the old
railway route and facilities, they can and should use OHM.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

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

[Paul Allen]

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.jpg
>
> Not sure whatever I am understanding description correctly - it is part
> of railway infrastructure for narrow gauge rail pulled by horses, right?
>

I'm not sure if I understand all of the description, either.  Stone sleepers
like that are typical of a narrow-gauge rail where horses or ponies were the
motive power: wooden sleepers would have presented an uneven surface
for them to walk on, so they walked between stones instead.  Usually
such railways were put in place for hauling minerals from workings, but
might have later been adapted for other uses.

> Also, it is common in my part of the world for older roads, bridleways,
> railways, some farm tracks and even some footpaths to have tree-lined
> hedges.  They're obvious from aerial imagery, although it may not always
> be apparent what type of way they enclose.
>
> If anyone finds image on Wikimedia Commons - please link it here (or just
> add it to a wiki)
>

If somebody wants to pay my passage on SpaceX and can loan me a P900, I'll
try to take a photo for you. :)  Alternatively, use an editor to look at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31982354#map=16/52.0511/-4.6189
especially the section south of Llwyncelyn (look at both the Bing and Maxar
imagery. one gives distinct tree-lined hedges and the other shows the
surface of
the way).

Other indications of former railways are bridges.  There is a typical
style for older railway bridges in the UK that makes them recognisable
as such: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3057076
The line that bridge once served is now the Western Approach Road in
Edinburgh and the bridge is here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=55.94094=-3.22382#map=19/55.94094/-3.22382
The first time you see what is obviously a railway bridge with road traffic
on it is
a little disconcerting (well, it was for me).

> What, in principle, are the differences between historic maps, a website
> documenting that a route has been constructed over an old railway line
>
> and a sign at the start of the route saying that it follows the path of an
> old railway line?
>
> Is it a sole indicator that route follows former railway line?
>
> Then in all cases I think it is a case of
> "feature is so gone/degraded that it is no longer identifiable based on
> survey,
> requires import of external data to identify it"
>

But aerial imagery and mapillary imagery are external data.  Armchair
mapping
is not based on a survey either.  As I understand it, the very strict
requirement
of only surveys being permitted in the early days of OSM was to prevent
people importing copyright data.  Saying that it had to be based on a survey
was simpler for some people to understand than explaining copyright to
people determined not to understand copyright (like the guy here a few
months ago determined to use copyright data to map watercourses).

>
> I would map it as a property of route (follows_former_railway=yes or
> something)
> if I would want to map that,
>

The only issue I would have with that is the impact on OpenRailwayMap.  I'm
not a railway enthusiast and I've never been a train spotter, but they're a
community that makes use of that data.  I suspect they're also a community
who do the most to maintain the active rail network in OSM,  Do we gain
more by removing a very small amount of unnecessary information, or
chaning how it is tagged, than we lose by annoying them enough that they
lose interest in mapping or move to a different solution?  I know that's not
a good argument for various reasons, but it is something we should bear
in mind.

  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 routes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watling_Street

I think that for "Here railway is gone without any clearly identifiable
> trace in
> terrain." case it is OK to have  "should not be mapped and can be deleted
> if
>
mapped." ("can be deleted" was just changed from "should be")
>

That's an improvement.  I'm tempted to say that it should suggest contacting
the original mapper before deleting, as the original mapper may be able to
provide evidence of identifiable trace.  But I'm also tempted not to,
because
I know that such a conversation is likely to degenerate into "I want it"
versus
"You're not having it."

Also - it is OK to have
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Galeria_Kazimierz.JPG
> example with
> "Location of a former railway and railway station without any
> traces whatsoever. Not mappable."
> ?
>

It's back to what you consider traces.  I wouldn't map a station building
which
has been demolished and built over.  OTOH, the razed railway 

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

[ael]

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 discussion the abandoned railway wiku page gets completely
> rewritten by one of the participants in the thread explicitly stating that
> razed railways should be *removed* from OSM.
> This is basically against good practice in OSM.
> In addition the statement that where roads trace razed/dismantled railways,
> the reference to the fact that they do, should be removed is clearly wrong.
> Worldwide there are many thousands of km of roads and cycle routes that
> retrace exactly former railway lines . what is wrong with adding
> railway=dismantled (orrazed)  to the ways that make up the road or the
> cycle route.

+1

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 you find a good photo of that on >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/>>  ?
>> I would add it to examples.
>>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Restos_del_Balastro_de_la_linea_ferrea_Cuatro_Vientos_-_Leganes.JPG
>
Added.

>
> There may be other indicators of older lines: > 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_sleepers_at_Bugsworth_basin_-_geograph.org.uk_-_450090.jpg
>
Not sure whatever I am understanding description correctly - it is part
of railway infrastructure for narrow gauge rail pulled by horses, right?

> Also, it is common in my part of the world for older roads, bridleways,
> railways, some farm tracks and even some footpaths to have tree-lined
> hedges.  They're obvious from aerial imagery, although it may not always
> be apparent what type of way they enclose.
>
If anyone finds image on Wikimedia Commons - please link it here (or just add 
it to a wiki)

>
>
>>> Erm, what about cases where a road or footpath or cycleway has been 
>>> constructed
>>> along the old line and we know that because it is mentioned on current 
>>> websites?
>>>
>>  
>>
>> Describe it as part where different mappers have different opinions? 
>>
>
> Sounds reasonable to me.
>
:)

>> I guess that some people would want to map this, for me it is case of 
>> copying maps of historic data.
>>
>
> What, in principle, are the differences between historic maps, a website 
> documenting
> that a route has been constructed over an old railway line and a sign at the 
> start of
> the route saying that it follows the path of an old railway line?
>
Is it a sole indicator that route follows former railway line?

Then in all cases I think it is a case of 
"feature is so gone/degraded that it is no longer identifiable based on survey,
requires import of external data to identify it"

I would map it as a property of route (follows_former_railway=yes or something)
if I would want to map that, but if there are no longer existing traces of 
railway
I would not map former railway itself
(similarly I would be fine with mapping cycling route following route took by 
some
ancient army and tag is as battle-related and so on, but I would not map track 
took by army
- cycleway route is verifiable, but route took by army is not)


>> (the tricky part is that both of us have strong opinion here
>>
>
> Do we?  I'm not sure that I would map a razed railway line where no trace of 
> any
> of it remains.  I'm not sure if I would map a short section of line that has 
> been
> built over and no trace remains if there were clear traces of the rest of it, 
> but
> I wouldn't remove it if somebody else had mapped it.
>
Heh, I just reverted change to Wiki that claimed that local communities may 
decide to
forbid mapping of railways with clear remains and may allow to map ones where 
all traces
were completely utterly and totally eradicated.
( 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Demolished_Railway=1998630=1998621
 )

>> and it is tricky to distinguish case of "person is representing silent 
>>
>> mappers not participating in discussion" and "person has fringe opinion 
>>
>> not shared by anybody").
>>
>
> We don't have humming.  The best we can do is note that several people
> have expressed differing opinions and that the matter is contentious.  We
> can also note that certain edge cases have been highlighted.  I'm with Volker
> on this one: at this point in the conversation it is unhelpful for the wiki to
> be changed to state that these things should be removed whenever they
> are discovered.
>
I think that for
"Here railway is gone without any clearly identifiable trace in terrain."
case it is OK to have 
"should not be mapped and can be deleted if mapped."
("can be deleted" was just changed from "should be")

Also - it is OK to have
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Galeria_Kazimierz.JPG
example with
"Location of a former railway and railway station without any
traces whatsoever. Not mappable."
?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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 would add it to examples.
>

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Restos_del_Balastro_de_la_linea_ferrea_Cuatro_Vientos_-_Leganes.JPG

There may be other indicators of older lines:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_sleepers_at_Bugsworth_basin_-_geograph.org.uk_-_450090.jpg

Also, it is common in my part of the world for older roads, bridleways,
railways, some farm tracks and even some footpaths to have tree-lined
hedges.  They're obvious from aerial imagery, although it may not always
be apparent what type of way they enclose.  Mapping the paths of
former railways indicates what those ways were (although it's possible
that some sections may have been repurposed as roads, cycleways or
footpaths).

I didn't add this former railway, but I've tweaked it.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31982354#map=14/52.0675/-4.6421

In the area shown, from Cardigan to Cilgerran it is part of National Cycle
Route 82.  Part of that is also the access road from Cilgerran to the Welsh
Wildlife Centre.  These are well documented as following the route of the
former railway.  I've only mapped the hedges lining the route at
the Cardigan end, but they're apparent elsewhere along the route.

Erm, what about cases where a road or footpath or cycleway has been
>> constructed
>> along the old line and we know that because it is mentioned on current
>> websites?
>>
>
>
Describe it as part where different mappers have different opinions?
>

Sounds reasonable to me.

I guess that some people would want to map this, for me it is case of
> copying maps of historic data.
>

What, in principle, are the differences between historic maps, a website
documenting
that a route has been constructed over an old railway line and a sign at
the start of
the route saying that it follows the path of an old railway line?

>
> (the tricky part is that both of us have strong opinion here
>

Do we?  I'm not sure that I would map a razed railway line where no trace
of any
of it remains.  I'm not sure if I would map a short section of line that
has been
built over and no trace remains if there were clear traces of the rest of
it, but
I wouldn't remove it if somebody else had mapped it.

and it is tricky to distinguish case of "person is representing silent
>
mappers not participating in discussion" and "person has fringe opinion
>
not shared by anybody").
>

We don't have humming.  The best we can do is note that several people
have expressed differing opinions and that the matter is contentious.  We
can also note that certain edge cases have been highlighted.  I'm with
Volker
on this one: at this point in the conversation it is unhelpful for the wiki
to
be changed to state that these things should be removed whenever they
are discovered.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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@openstreetmap.org>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> For example >> 
>> http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/
>> promotes much stricter verification requirements.
>>
>> I am not sure whatever I would want go so far, but mapping something
>> appearing in a single aerial imagery seem not ideal.
>>
>
> So in parts of the world where only one source of aerial imagery is available,
> we can't map from it?  That doesn't seem right.
>
I have slight trouble with things appearing in a single aerial imagery or 
single official dataset
and completely and utterly unverifiable otherwise.

I have no trouble at all with mapping for example river in region where only one
source of aerial imagery is available, as river remain verifiable by a ground 
survey.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 is clear controversial point

> In the middle of that discussion the abandoned railway wiku page gets 
> completely rewritten by one of the participants in the thread explicitly 
> stating that razed railways should be > removed>  from OSM. 
> This is basically against good practice in OSM.
>
It was not completely rewritten.

It used to contain "Most mappers follow a basic Good practice#Map what's on the 
ground principle, and would therefore regard the mapping of non-existant 
railways as incorrect data to be placing in the OpenStreetMap database."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Demolished_Railway=1625129


> In addition the statement that where roads trace razed/dismantled railways, 
> the reference to the fact that they do, should be removed is clearly wrong.
>
Given long discussion(s) on exactly this topic "is clearly wrong" seems to be 
going quite far.

> Worldwide there are many thousands of km of roads and cycle routes that 
> retrace exactly former railway lines . what is wrong with adding 
> railway=dismantled (orrazed)  to the ways that make up the road or the cycle 
> route. 
>
Because OSM is not for mapping completely gone historical objects, this is not 
verifiable
and it invites mapping further historical and even harder to verify objects and 
promotes
mapping razed railways where even such "trace" is gone.

And it makes harder to edit actually existing objects, confuses mappers 
(especially newbies).

(to be explicit: this is my opinion, I know that consensus position is more 
balanced)

> many country paths and tracks labeled with their Roman or Saxon names, even 
> though the present-day structure is much younger - they only retrace the 
> Roman way like the present-day street in the first example on the wiki page 
> retraces a former railway..
>
There is 0 opposition to mapping cycleways following course of former railway. 
Sole problematic
part is whatever old railway can be mapped and if yes - how.

> BTW I am not saying that OSM map data are incomplete without mapping old 
> raylways, I am only asking to not remove those that are mapped, and to not 
> write in the wiki that they should be removed.
>
Old existing railways - there is no problem with mapping them
Old railways removed, but with traces remaining - mapping is OK (the tricky 
part is 
what counts as remains)
Fully completely and totally removed railways/roads/buildings can and should be 
deleted
and it is improving OpenStreetMap. 

To repeat: the "100% gone object should be deleted" has clear consensus.

The discussion is whatever razed railway can remain mappable - and in many 
cases it is.
And what counts as mappable railway. 

> BTW 2: wiki pages in general should not invite mappers to remove already 
> mapped objects, but only correct mapping errors. 
>
Removing already mapped objects in many cases is correcting mapping errors or 
updating map data.

I routinely delete nonexisting shops, nonexisting buildings, nonexisting 
trees/forests, nonexisting routes,
nonexisting ref, nonexisting paths, nonexisting, roads, nonexisting tracks 
and yes, also nonexisting railways (in my region last one is typically 
happening with short and minor 
spurs that used to serve industrial areas, now often disappearing as area is 
rebuilt what erases all traces).

Such edits are improving OSM.

(and yes: where possible I retag unsigned_ref or update to current state like 
natural=tree_stump or
use demolished:building where visible on aerial images and delete nonexisting 
railways in cases
only where no identifiable traces remain)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 trace" is not mappable.
>>
>
> "Road geometry" is a little confusing.  So is the implicit requirement that 
> the
> rails remain.
>
I added explicit "even if rails are gone".
and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Demolished_Torwoodlee_Railway_Bridge_-_geograph.org.uk_-_750961.jpg
 was already present.
I will move it to the top.

>   The track bed is often visible even though the rails have been
> removed, especially where the terrain is not uniformly flat.  The rails of the
> railway may be gone, but the way remains because there is no point in going
> to the expense of removing it unless you want to put something else there
> (rails can be sold for scrap, so are worth removing).
>
> Although this video is about the construction of roadways, the principles of
> cut and fill are equally applicable to railways and give a good indication of
> the kind of remains that are visible after the track has been lifted:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIK6I6Q58Ec>   Even where the
> terrain is completely level and the rails have been removed, the way will 
> still
> be visible from the ballast that remains.
>
> In some cases, the way will also be visible in aerial imagery because it is 
> lined 
> with hedges or leaves visible gaps in woods it passes through.
>
I also added a photo of a former railway cutting.

Is there a consensus how such feature should be mapped?

"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 would add it to examples.


>>
>>
>> Would be OK to add "road geometry where it is clear that it replaced railway 
>> may make such former railway mappable (+ image link). But in a case where on 
>> old map or 
>>
>> archeological survey would be needed to identify whatever road replaces 
>> former fortification/railway/canal such object is not really identifiable
>> and mapping such historic object in OSM is a bad idea."
>>
>
> Erm, what about cases where a road or footpath or cycleway has been 
> constructed
> along the old line and we know that because it is mentioned on current 
> websites?
>
Describe it as part where different mappers have different opinions? 
I guess that some people would want to map this, for me it is case of copying 
maps of historic data.

(the tricky part is that both of us have strong opinion here and it is tricky 
to distinguish case
of "person is representing silent mappers not participating in discussion" and 
"person has fringe opinion not shared by anybody").
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/
> promotes much stricter verification requirements.
>
> I am not sure whatever I would want go so far, but mapping something
> appearing in a single aerial imagery seem not ideal.
>

So in parts of the world where only one source of aerial imagery is
available,
we can't map from it?  That doesn't seem right.

I can understand an objection to mapping an object that appears on older
imagery but not on newer imagery.  Things change.  After a survey of part
of town I rarely visit, I mapped a house (which was for sale) , but when I
happened to revisit it a couple of weeks later to check a detail nearby the
house
had been demolished.  But these are images of (intermittent) surfaces
traces created
by subsurface conditions so the feature mapped won't go away unless the site
is disturbed by, for example, construction.

Yes, official recognition (or ven better - placing information board or
> something there)
> would push it toward "lets map this".
>

There are archaeological features on Exmoor I've mapped that are officially
recognized and protected as archaeological features of national importance.
It needs an expert eye to distinguish them from naturally-occurring
features.
I'm also aware of what appear to be the same sort of feature documented
by amateurs which I have not mapped.  For all I know, the amateurs are
correct and in at least some cases the experts are wrong, but it is a
criminal offence to tamper with the features designated by the experts
(they're very easy to tamper with).

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Volker Schmidt]

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 the participants in the thread explicitly stating that
razed railways should be *removed* from OSM.
This is basically against good practice in OSM.
In addition the statement that where roads trace razed/dismantled railways,
the reference to the fact that they do, should be removed is clearly wrong.
Worldwide there are many thousands of km of roads and cycle routes that
retrace exactly former railway lines . what is wrong with adding
railway=dismantled (orrazed)  to the ways that make up the road or the
cycle route.

Railway installations are major sites present in our environment, and there
is no good reason to remove them from the map, whether they are actively
used or only indirectly "visible".
Just two other observations to put this in context:
We have plenty of underground water courses, oil or gas pipelines where
only few objects on the surface indicate their underground existence -
no-one would object to having them in the map data, including the
underground parts.
Another completely different indication that old stuff could be of interest
to tourists: when I moved to the UK from continental Europe in 1978 I was
positively surprised to see, on the standard OS maps for hikers, references
to Roamn and Saxon sites galore, tyipiclley in the form of "site of ..."
and of many country paths and tracks labeled with their Roman or Saxon
names, even though the present-day structure is much younger - they only
retrace the Roman way like the present-day street in the first example on
the wiki page retraces a former railway..

BTW I am not saying that OSM map data are incomplete without mapping old
raylways, I am only asking to not remove those that are mapped, and to not
write in the wiki that they should be removed.
BTW 2: wiki pages in general should not invite mappers to remove already
mapped objects, but only correct mapping errors.


On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 05:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 where the original route has been
> > conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
> > I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former
> > railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic value and
> > for that reason should be in OSM.
>
>
> As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a
> railway route here nothing remains of the railway.
>
> If something remains then map the remains, not the bits that no longer
> exist.
>
> Where an old railway route passes through private residential houses,
> commercial buildings, car parking area .. I don't think that should be
> in OSM yet people map it...
>
> A historian/archeologist may have interest in documenting the old
> railway route and facilities, they can and should use OHM.
>
>
>
>
> .
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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 confusing.  So is the implicit requirement that
the
rails remain.  The track bed is often visible even though the rails have
been
removed, especially where the terrain is not uniformly flat.  The rails of
the
railway may be gone, but the way remains because there is no point in going
to the expense of removing it unless you want to put something else there
(rails can be sold for scrap, so are worth removing).

Although this video is about the construction of roadways, the principles of
cut and fill are equally applicable to railways and give a good indication
of
the kind of remains that are visible after the track has been lifted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIK6I6Q58Ec  Even where the
terrain is completely level and the rails have been removed, the way will
still
be visible from the ballast that remains.

In some cases, the way will also be visible in aerial imagery because it is
lined
with hedges or leaves visible gaps in woods it passes through.


> Would be OK to add "road geometry where it is clear that it replaced
> railway may make such former railway mappable (+ image link). But in a case
> where on old map or
>
archeological survey would be needed to identify whatever road replaces
> former fortification/railway/canal such object is not really identifiable
> and mapping such historic object in OSM is a bad idea."
>

Erm, what about cases where a road or footpath or cycleway has been
constructed
along the old line and we know that because it is mentioned on current
websites?

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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-52911797
>>> Are they mappable?
>>>
>> But verifying it seems problematic at best.
>>
>
> Unless there is a requirement that anything mapped by aerial imagery must
> be compared in two independent sets of imagery, I don't see a problem.
>
For example 
http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/
promotes much stricter verification requirements.

I am not sure whatever I would want go so far, but mapping something
appearing in a single aerial imagery seem not ideal.


> have aerial imagery of these (but whether or not it is ever made available to
> us under appropriate copyright terms is another matter).  Verification is a
> matter of somebody else looking at the same imagery and reaching the
> same conclusion.
>
>>
>>
>> I see why mapping it could be exciting but It am very dubious about it and
>> would be against doing that.
>>
>
> I doubt the imagery will be released in a form we can use.  But it might be.
>
>>
>> (for reference in Poland there is now a discussion about importing index of 
>> archeological sites,decision seems to be to import ones where terrain shape 
>> remained and to not
>> import ones visible only as discoloration of vegetation visible on aerial 
>> images)
>>
>  
> I wouldn't map vegetation discolouration as indicative of anything because I
> don't have the expertise to tell what it means.  But if experts at a 
> governmental
> heritage organization determine that the discolouration is the result of a 
> particular
> historical feature and designates it as a nationally important archaeological
> site then I might map it as such (that designation would put it under legal
> protection and it would be a criminal act to dig it up).
>
Yes, official recognition (or ven better - placing information board or 
something there)
would push it toward "lets map this".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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.
>

Unless there is a requirement that anything mapped by aerial imagery must
be compared in two independent sets of imagery, I don't see a problem.  We
have aerial imagery of these (but whether or not it is ever made available
to
us under appropriate copyright terms is another matter).  Verification is a
matter of somebody else looking at the same imagery and reaching the
same conclusion.

>
> I see why mapping it could be exciting but It am very dubious about it and
> would be against doing that.
>

I doubt the imagery will be released in a form we can use.  But it might be.

>
> (for reference in Poland there is now a discussion about importing index
> of archeological sites,decision seems to be to import ones where terrain
> shape remained and to not
> import ones visible only as discoloration of vegetation visible on aerial
> images)
>

I wouldn't map vegetation discolouration as indicative of anything because I
don't have the expertise to tell what it means.  But if experts at a
governmental
heritage organization determine that the discolouration is the result of a
particular
historical feature and designates it as a nationally important
archaeological
site then I might map it as such (that designation would put it under legal
protection and it would be a criminal act to dig it up).

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 by > Mateusz Konieczny 
> 
> In particular the wording
> "Here railway is gone without any trace in terrain except possibly road 
> alignment. Its course is well documented, but such historic feature is out of 
> scope of OpenStreetMap, should not be mapped and should be deleted if mapped" 
> in the caption of the first picture is certainly something we were talking 
> about, but had not agreed upon.
> This rewrite in the middle of an inclusive discussion on the main aspect of 
> the page seems to me not correct. As far as I remember (I may not have read 
> all the contributions in all details) we did not talk about rewriting that 
> page. 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 easy 
> to travel along a historical railroad.
> I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former railways, 
> watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic value and for that reason 
> should be in OSM.
>
Sorry for missing this message - I diffed to it only now.

It is now rewritten a bit, hopefully for better.

I added explicit "Everyone agrees that overgrown railway rails remain 
mappable.",
removed explicit claim that "road geometry as sole trace" is not mappable.

Would it be OK to add "There is consensus that former railway replaced by an 
open pit mine
which removed all traces is not mappable"? Or is a claim that traces may remain 
even then?

Would be OK to add "road geometry where it is clear that it replaced railway 
may make such
former railway mappable (+ image link). But in a case where on old map or 
archeological survey would be needed
to identify whatever road replaces former fortification/railway/canal such 
object is not really identifiable
and mapping such historic object in OSM is a bad idea."

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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.
>>
> Have these objects left traces or not? > 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52911797
> Are they mappable?
>
Good question.

I would say that not mappable, but at least (extremely rarely, given that
it was just discovered) it can be visible without digging.

But I can be OK with mapping it, at least it is visible. Very rarely.

But verifying it seems problematic at best.

I see why mapping it could be exciting but It am very dubious about it and
would be against doing that.

And in case of mapping - make 100% clear what is this and how its existence
can be verified.

(for reference in Poland there is now a discussion about importing index of 
archeological sites,
decision seems to be to import ones where terrain shape remained and to not
import ones visible only as discoloration of vegetation visible on aerial 
images)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52911797
Are they mappable?

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 
>>> <>>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>>> >:
>>>
 On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt < vosc...@gmail.com > 
 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
>
 Add I have no problem with removal of them.

>>>
>>>
>>> this is fine, we do not have to share opinions on everything. But we should 
>>> be cautious to not misrepresent community consensus in the wiki. It doesn't 
>>> appear to be an universally shared conviction that you can remove these 
>>> objects of which the traces are less evident than of other things.
>>>
>> Can you edit wiki or link problematic page and quote text that should be 
>> changed?
>>
>
>
> the reference is Volker 6/6/2020, 0:04:
>
>> Nevertheless the wiki page >> Demolished_Railway 
>> >>  was completely 
>> rewritten on 07:17, 27 May 2020 by >> Mateusz Konieczny 
>> 
>> In particular the wording
>> "Here railway is gone without any trace in terrain except possibly road 
>> alignment. Its course is well documented, but such historic feature is out 
>> of scope of OpenStreetMap, should not be mapped and should be deleted if 
>> mapped" 
>> in the caption of the first picture is certainly something we were talking 
>> about, but had not agreed upon.
>>

I changed it now to 
"Here railway is gone without any clearly identifiable trace in terrain. Its 
course is well
documented, but such historic feature is out of scope of OpenStreetMap, should 
not be
mapped and should be deleted if mapped."

now, without taking position on road alignment issue. Is it OK? If not, how it 
should be changed
to reflect general opinion?


>
> Lets say that there was a castle and was replaced by a sport pitch, and place 
> looks like
>
>> this nowadays (a theoretical example):
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Tehelne_pole-pitch_and_stand.JPG
>>
>> Castle is remembered. Is such castle mappable? In my opinion would not be as 
>> there are
>> no identifiable traces (possibility of archeological excavations are not 
>> really changing this).
>>
>
>
>
> I do not know if this is a real example (you say it is theoretical)
>
This specific is 100% theoretical, I searched for "football pitch" and taken 
the first image.

> So even if this would be the only reason, there would have clearly been 
> traces of the castle, although not visible on the ground (but below). 
>
I am 100% OK with mapping such traces as visible on the photo, but mapping 
building 
as it existed in the past seems wrong to me.

Mapping underground remains seems terrible idea to me - older cities have 
entire layers,
meters of them of such traces.

In extreme cases so many remain were accumulated to change a geography:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_(archaeology) is an entire hill of
"accumulated remains of mudbricks and other refuse of generations of people 
living on
the same site for hundreds or thousands of years (...) can be up to 30 metres 
high."

Opening gates to mapping all such former objects is a bad idea.

> But there are other, less direct, traces. For example the castle left traces 
> in the urban structure, the main arterial road bends in front of the castle, 
> and it did so also during the time when the castle wasn't there. And some 
> buildings around it have always been referring to the castle, e.g. the 
> building for the imperial guards and horses. Also the name of the bridge 
> (castle bridge / Schloßbrücke) was always referring to the castle. 
>
And if we decide that mapping objects with this kind of traces can be mappable 
then we de facto
allow to map any historic objects.

Mapping object just because it left any trace at all, or related name remained 
is a bit too much.

I am OK with mapping if there are still identifiable trace (even road alignment 
if it is actually clearly
recognizable as former railway).

But if there is road and one is unable to distinguish between
"former canal" and "former railway", "destroyed fortifications"
 and "not constructed along geometry of a former object"
then mapping such canal/railway/wall is mapping of something so gone that out 
of scope of OSM.

BTW, thanks to this discussion I learned something about history of my city 
what was interesting.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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:
>
>
> 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
>
> Add I have no problem with removal of them.
>
>
>
> this is fine, we do not have to share opinions on everything. But we
> should be cautious to not misrepresent community consensus in the wiki. It
> doesn't appear to be an universally shared conviction that you can remove
> these objects of which the traces are less evident than of other things.
>
> Can you edit wiki or link problematic page and quote text that should be
> changed?
>


the reference is Volker 6/6/2020, 0:04:

> Nevertheless the wiki page Demolished_Railway
>  was completely
> rewritten on 07:17, 27 May 2020 by Mateusz Konieczny
> 
> In particular the wording
> " Here railway is gone without any trace in terrain except possibly road
> alignment. Its course is well documented, but such historic feature is out
> of scope of OpenStreetMap, should not be mapped and should be deleted if
> mapped"
> in the caption of the first picture is certainly something we were talking
> about, but had not agreed upon.
>



Lets say that there was a castle and was replaced by a sport pitch, and
place looks like

> this nowadays (a theoretical example):
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Tehelne_pole-pitch_and_stand.JPG
>
> Castle is remembered. Is such castle mappable? In my opinion would not be
> as there are
> no identifiable traces (possibility of archeological excavations are not
> really changing this).
>



I do not know if this is a real example (you say it is theoretical), but
according to what I experience every day, you can find many traces of
former things, which do not exist as such any more, but are still
detectable. Objects like castles hardly ever vanish completely without
leaving any traces.

Take the Berlin castle for example, here a sequence of different states:

around 1900, at its "top"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Berlin_Nationaldenkmal_Kaiser_Wilhelm_mit_Schloss_1900.jpg/1280px-Berlin_Nationaldenkmal_Kaiser_Wilhelm_mit_Schloss_1900.jpg

tearing it down 1950:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-08687-0010%2C_Berlin%2C_Stadtschloss%2C_Abriss.jpg

new building atop in 1981 (from the seventies):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-Z0602-323%2C_Berlin%2C_Palast_der_Republik%2C_Fernsehturm.jpg

>From the last picture you would not expect that anything remained, but when
they tore down the seventies building around the year 2000, some parts of
the old castle surfaced:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Berlin_Berliner_Stadtschloss_Keller_001.JPG

So even if this would be the only reason, there would have clearly been
traces of the castle, although not visible on the ground (but below). But
there are other, less direct, traces. For example the castle left traces in
the urban structure, the main arterial road bends in front of the castle,
and it did so also during the time when the castle wasn't there. And some
buildings around it have always been referring to the castle, e.g. the
building for the imperial guards and horses. Also the name of the bridge
(castle bridge / Schloßbrücke) was always referring to the castle.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 remove the 
 razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been 
 replaced by roads with the same geometry.

>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>> Add I have no problem with removal of them.
>>
>
>
> this is fine, we do not have to share opinions on everything. But we should 
> be cautious to not misrepresent community consensus in the wiki. It doesn't 
> appear to be an universally shared conviction that you can remove these 
> objects of which the traces are less evident than of other things.
>
Can you edit wiki or link problematic page and quote text that should be 
changed?
I am not sure is it referring to Wiki in general or one of my edits (and yes, 
some of my edits
on Wiki/OSM make them worse - it is not really possible to completely avoid 
mistakes).

>> I see the point in cases of ones where there are no traces
>> but road geometry makes 100% clear that railway was there
>> and probably would not delete them.
>>
>> I see point in cases where track of former railway is marked/
>> memorialized/etc and that info is mentioned on OSM object.
>>
>> But for cases where new road is matching geometry but shape 
>> is not recognizable at all as track of former railroad, and
>> historic maps are needed to recognize it?
>>
>
>
> there aren't only written/drawn sources by the way. Oral tradition can also 
> be relevant. Your grandpa told your dad and your dad told you, why not? 
>
I am not against oral sources for a current data! Mapping housenumbers, street 
names,
peak names based on an a trustworthy oral source is perfectly fine.

But remembering about object is not changing whatever it is mappable.

Lets say that there was a castle and was replaced by a sport pitch, and place 
looks like
this nowadays (a theoretical example):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Tehelne_pole-pitch_and_stand.JPG

Castle is remembered. Is such castle mappable? In my opinion would not be as 
there are
no identifiable traces (possibility of archeological excavations are not really 
changing this).
 

>> Deletion should happen, OSM is not for objects that are gone.
>>
>
>
> we were discussing objects which left traces. "are gone" is not very precise, 
> do you intend to include things which aren't operational but traces are 
> there? Or does is mean "left not traces whatsoever"?
>
Obviously, we can map railway that are not operational and left clear traces.

We are generally OK with mapping things where some traces remained.
It is accepted that thing totally and completely gone are not mappable.

"left not traces whatsoever" seems to step - if you look sufficiently carefully
many things left some sort of traces (see historical ocean cases where I thing
everyone agrees to be not mappable in OSM - and there are clear traces of 
them!).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Weiche_der_ehemaligen_Bahnstrecke_Herzberg%E2%80%93Siebertal.jpg
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Live_Oak_Perry_and_Gulf_Railroad_overgrown_abandoned_tracks.JPG
are clearly mappable 

But mapping railway in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Daewoo-FSO_Polonez_Atu_Plus_on_Zygmunta_Krasi%C5%84skiego_avenue_in_Krak%C3%B3w_(1).jpg
would be too far for me and I would delete it as a historic mapping if mapped 
(example
from my city so I know that former railway there is not identifiable without 
access to old maps).


>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Ocean
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance_Sea
>> and other >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_oceans
>> also left traces and are not mappable in OSM
>>
>
>
> I agree that these are not very compatible with OSM, similar to current 
> geological features, and even current oceans aren't very well represented in 
> OSM. They aren't good examples for discussing dismantled railways though. 
> They are former natural features, of millions and billions years ago (i.e. 
> all the coastlines were completely different), while railways are man made 
> features.
>
I intended them as example of something that is not mappable
despite leaving indentifiable traces. 

I agree that it is a bit mixed with poor mappability as a large scale 
geological feature.

I think that mapping former moat/canal in my city would be a better example

- it is 100% gone (replaced by a road)
- some traces remained (road follows course of a former moat)
- it is not recognizable as a former canal based on a current state
- though archeological/geological works would allow to prove that it was there
- well documented as a former canal in historic sources

Is this former, gone, not recognizable canal that left some traces still 
mappable in 

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 roads with the same geometry.
>
> +1
>
> Add I have no problem with removal of them.
>


this is fine, we do not have to share opinions on everything. But we should
be cautious to not misrepresent community consensus in the wiki. It doesn't
appear to be an universally shared conviction that you can remove these
objects of which the traces are less evident than of other things.



>
> I see the point in cases of ones where there are no traces
> but road geometry makes 100% clear that railway was there
> and probably would not delete them.
>
> I see point in cases where track of former railway is marked/
> memorialized/etc and that info is mentioned on OSM object.
>
> But for cases where new road is matching geometry but shape
> is not recognizable at all as track of former railroad, and
> historic maps are needed to recognize it?
>


there aren't only written/drawn sources by the way. Oral tradition can also
be relevant. Your grandpa told your dad and your dad told you, why not?



>
> Deletion should happen, OSM is not for objects that are gone.
>


we were discussing objects which left traces. "are gone" is not very
precise, do you intend to include things which aren't operational but
traces are there? Or does is mean "left not traces whatsoever"?



>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Ocean
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance_Sea
> and other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_oceans
> also left traces and are not mappable in OSM
>


I agree that these are not very compatible with OSM, similar to current
geological features, and even current oceans aren't very well represented
in OSM. They aren't good examples for discussing dismantled railways
though. They are former natural features, of millions and billions years
ago (i.e. all the coastlines were completely different), while railways are
man made features.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 geometry.
>>
>
>
> +1
>
Add I have no problem with removal of them.

I see the point in cases of ones where there are no traces
but road geometry makes 100% clear that railway was there
and probably would not delete them.

I see point in cases where track of former railway is marked/
memorialized/etc and that info is mentioned on OSM object.

But for cases where new road is matching geometry but shape 
is not recognizable at all as track of former railroad, and
historic maps are needed to recognize it?

Deletion should happen, OSM is not for objects that are gone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Ocean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance_Sea
and other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Historical_oceans
also left traces and are not mappable in OSM
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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, the distinction is not 
how difficult to find or hard to access something is, but whether “it exists”


> 
> Where something has been demolished and replaced with something else, should 
> the old thing remain in OSM? 
> 


If nothing at all has remained, usually no, eventually for some time yes (e.g. 
to avoid someone reputting it from aerial imagery). 
> 
> And yes I am thinking of old railway routes that have gone and been replaced 
> with roads/rail trails etc. 
> 
> 
> 
> To me - the old thing is no longer there, the new thing has overlay-ed it and 
> replaces it. If people want to map old things .. well their place should be 
> in OHM not OSM.


we were discussing things which have been removed or have decayed but of which 
something has remained. These can be very sparse, small and hard to find 
traces, but something must be observable. It does not mean everybody must be 
able to identify and correctly interpret it, even without additional knowledge.

Cheers Martin 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jack Armstrong]

>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 rail.This should be removed from OSM

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Alan Mackie]

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 standardised tagging for roads where
construction started, but never finished and have been (mostly) abandoned
for years (existing as mostly usable tracks).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jarek Piórkowski]

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 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 ?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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: 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

Cheers Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

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 railway.

OSM is not *only* for general tourist.

I bet even a general tourist would be interested if they could be assured that 
a route was flat :)

And didn't have buildings or factories built on it ;)


Home owners would not be happy with tourists walking through lunch because OSM 
has a tourist/railline line through their house.

Factory OH people would be very upset with tourists walking through the 
factory because OSM has a tourist/railline line through the factory.
The tourists would not be impressed with the 'railway' either if there was 
nothing 'railway' to see, even if the route is flat.

A general tourist walking along a road that has no sign of a railway would not 
be impressed if it were shown as a railway on OSM.
Other road users would be perplexed if the road were shown as a railway...



If it's a recognized route that's signposted as something like
"Historical Railway Trail" then it can be a relation.


As a walking route, yes. It is no longer a railway, that is in the past.


  If it's not
signposted and there's no trace of it left on the ground, what exactly
is being mapped?


History?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

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 of a previous railroad, then 
it can be mapped in some way. If there is /*nothing* *remaining*/ of 
what used to be a railroad, it should be out-of-scope.




whether you find traces might depend how hard you look for them. In 
most cases there will be something left of a railroad, but you might 
not be able to recognize it or you will simply not see it because the 
traces are rare.



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?



Where something has been demolished and replaced with something else, 
should the old thing remain in OSM?



And yes I am thinking of old railway routes that have gone and been 
replaced with roads/rail trails etc.



To me - the old thing is no longer there, the new thing has overlay-ed 
it and replaces it. If people want to map old things .. well their place 
should be in OHM not OSM.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 mapped in some 
> way. If there is nothing remaining of what used to be a railroad, it should 
> be out-of-scope.



whether you find traces might depend how hard you look for them. In most cases 
there will be something left of a railroad, but you might not be able to 
recognize it or you will simply not see it because the traces are rare.

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jarek Piórkowski]

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* for general tourist.
>
> I bet even a general tourist would be interested if they could be assured 
> that a route was flat :)

And didn't have buildings or factories built on it ;)

If it's a recognized route that's signposted as something like
"Historical Railway Trail" then it can be a relation. If it's not
signposted and there's no trace of it left on the ground, what exactly
is being mapped?

--Jarek

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Andy Townsend]

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.

I bet even a general tourist would be interested if they could be 
assured that a route was flat :)


Best Regards,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Phake Nick]

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 same geometry. To the contrary this is one
> > of the more fortunate cases where the original route has been
> > conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
> > I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former
> > railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic value and
> > for that reason should be in OSM.
>
>
> 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.

> If something remains then map the remains, not the bits that no longer
> exist.
>

As repeatedly covered in this thread with examples being cited, a
razed/dismantled railway could still leave indication for its railroad
alignment on the ground.

Where an old railway route passes through private residential houses,
> commercial buildings, car parking area .. I don't think that should be
> in OSM yet people map it...
>

You can have rows of private houses and blocks of factories building over
former railway yet the railway remain can still be visible on the ground.

A historian/archeologist may have interest in documenting the old
> railway route and facilities, they can and should use OHM.
>

They're not historical, they're currently existing as remain, and is of
interest for anyone trying to understand or utilize such area.

>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

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 where the original route has been 
conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former 
railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic value and 
for that reason should be in OSM.



As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a 
railway route here nothing remains of the railway.


If something remains then map the remains, not the bits that no longer 
exist.


Where an old railway route passes through private residential houses, 
commercial buildings, car parking area .. I don't think that should be 
in OSM yet people map it...


A historian/archeologist may have interest in documenting the old 
railway route and facilities, they can and should use OHM.





.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jack Armstrong]

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 easy to travel along a historical railroad.
The wiki page seems reasonable to me.The last sentences, "Overall, mapping such features is acceptable where some remains like embankments, remains of bridges etc remain. Where it was replaced by new buildings and roads the mapping of such features becomes out of scope for OpenStreetMap."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 mapped in some way. If there is nothing remaining of what used to be a railroad, it should be out-of-scope.A historian will see the world as it used to exist.An OSM user should see the world as it is today.- Jack Armstrongchachafish

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Volker Schmidt]

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

In particular the wording
" Here railway is gone without any trace in terrain except possibly road
alignment. Its course is well documented, but such historic feature is out
of scope of OpenStreetMap, should not be mapped and should be deleted if
mapped"
in the caption of the first picture is certainly something we were talking
about, but had not agreed upon.
This rewrite in the middle of an inclusive discussion on the main aspect of
the page seems to me not correct. As far as I remember (I may not have read
all the contributions in all details) we did not talk about rewriting that
page. 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 easy to travel along a historical railroad.
I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former
railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic value and for
that reason should be in OSM.

Volker

On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 16:56, Cornelis via Tagging 
wrote:

> 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 parts so you can easily recognize it. There still
> are several bridges crossing it. Short parts of the railway are named as
> „Strategischer Bahndamm“ (using highway=track and a name tag), but there
> is no complete relation for it or even the part between Neuss and
> Rommerskirchen from which the name is derived.
> For further information you may consult this wiki artice:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Railway_Embankment
>
> 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?
>
> Best regards
> Cornelis
>
> Am 04.06.20 um 06:19 schrieb Mark Wagner:
> > 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 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 we have documented knowledge of where they once were.
> >>   > The entire thing makes sense only with all its parts. These
> >>   > things be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and
> >>   > hence, if someone has gone to the length of mapping them,
> >>   > should find space in OSM. In my view a general rule that any
> >>   > mapper can erase any object from the map, when he does not
> >>   > see any trace of it, is certainly not correct , he may be
> >>   > removing parts of the thing thsat only with all its
> >>   > partsmakes sense.
> >>
> >>
> >>   Where an old railway line has been built over by houses,
> >> factories, shops and roads I see no reason to retain the
> >> (historical) information in OSM.
> >>
> >>   The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but
> >> where there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
> >>
> > Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain
> > visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop,
> > road) have been made on top of their original site. So that
> > cabnot be used as a criteria to determine whether that should be
> > removed or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each
> > individual cases.
>  Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was
>  constructed over former railway and this section of railway
>  remains somehow mappable in OSM?
> 
>  With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I
>  can also imagine special cases of this remaining true.
> 
>  But entire factory?
> 
> >>> It's not a factory, but how about a car dealership, two storage
> >>> rental facilities, a school bus parking lot, a sports park, and
> >>> about forty city blocks of other 

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

[Cornelis via Tagging]

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 parts so you can easily recognize it. There still
are several bridges crossing it. Short parts of the railway are named as
„Strategischer Bahndamm“ (using highway=track and a name tag), but there
is no complete relation for it or even the part between Neuss and
Rommerskirchen from which the name is derived.
For further information you may consult this wiki artice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Railway_Embankment

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?

Best regards
Cornelis

Am 04.06.20 um 06:19 schrieb Mark Wagner:

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 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 we have documented knowledge of where they once were.
  > The entire thing makes sense only with all its parts. These
  > things be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and
  > hence, if someone has gone to the length of mapping them,
  > should find space in OSM. In my view a general rule that any
  > mapper can erase any object from the map, when he does not
  > see any trace of it, is certainly not correct , he may be
  > removing parts of the thing thsat only with all its
  > partsmakes sense.


  Where an old railway line has been built over by houses,
factories, shops and roads I see no reason to retain the
(historical) information in OSM.

  The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but
where there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.


Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain
visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop,
road) have been made on top of their original site. So that
cabnot be used as a criteria to determine whether that should be
removed or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each
individual cases.

Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was
constructed over former railway and this section of railway
remains somehow mappable in OSM?

With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I
can also imagine special cases of this remaining true.

But entire factory?


It's not a factory, but how about a car dealership, two storage
rental facilities, a school bus parking lot, a sports park, and
about forty city blocks of other things?

https://imgur.com/a/5YObPTP


Very interesting one. While I see point about part of the route, I
would disagree about vertical segment where it is no longer
recognizable - even from indirect effects like building arrangements
(based on this aerial images! - maybe something is visible on the
ground or on higher quality aerial images).

I admit that it is something that while stretching "there is something
on the ground" case is also having something on the ground.

Do you have maybe photos from the ground? Or info where it is located?
I want to add it to the wiki article, it would be a good case of
something borderline.

It's in Spokane, Washington, north of the Spokane River between
Division and Market streets.  The railway was removed in the 1970s as
part of the redevelopment of the city center.

The north-south segement on the west side of the image still has
evidence on the ground.  I don't have pictures of it, but the asphalt
on many of the minor roads there still has patches where the railroad
crossings were removed.  (The major roads have all been re-paved).
Additionally, only two buildings cross that part of the old rail route.
Everything else is parking lots, driveways, or just unused land.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mark Wagner]

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 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 we have documented knowledge of where they once were.
> >> >>  > The entire thing makes sense only with all its parts. These
> >> >>  > things be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and
> >> >>  > hence, if someone has gone to the length of mapping them,
> >> >>  > should find space in OSM. In my view a general rule that any
> >> >>  > mapper can erase any object from the map, when he does not
> >> >>  > see any trace of it, is certainly not correct , he may be
> >> >>  > removing parts of the thing thsat only with all its
> >> >>  > partsmakes sense.   
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >>  Where an old railway line has been built over by houses,
> >> >> factories, shops and roads I see no reason to retain the
> >> >> (historical) information in OSM.
> >> >> 
> >> >>  The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but
> >> >> where there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
> >> >>   
> >> >
> >> > Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain
> >> > visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop,
> >> > road) have been made on top of their original site. So that
> >> > cabnot be used as a criteria to determine whether that should be
> >> > removed or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each
> >> > individual cases.   
> >>
> >> Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was
> >> constructed over former railway and this section of railway
> >> remains somehow mappable in OSM?
> >>
> >> With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I
> >> can also imagine special cases of this remaining true.
> >>
> >> But entire factory?
> >>  
> >
> > It's not a factory, but how about a car dealership, two storage
> > rental facilities, a school bus parking lot, a sports park, and
> > about forty city blocks of other things?
> >
> > https://imgur.com/a/5YObPTP
> >  
> Very interesting one. While I see point about part of the route, I
> would disagree about vertical segment where it is no longer
> recognizable - even from indirect effects like building arrangements
> (based on this aerial images! - maybe something is visible on the
> ground or on higher quality aerial images).
> 
> I admit that it is something that while stretching "there is something
> on the ground" case is also having something on the ground.
> 
> Do you have maybe photos from the ground? Or info where it is located?
> I want to add it to the wiki article, it would be a good case of
> something borderline.

It's in Spokane, Washington, north of the Spokane River between
Division and Market streets.  The railway was removed in the 1970s as
part of the redevelopment of the city center.

The north-south segement on the west side of the image still has
evidence on the ground.  I don't have pictures of it, but the asphalt
on many of the minor roads there still has patches where the railroad
crossings were removed.  (The major roads have all been re-paved).
Additionally, only two buildings cross that part of the old rail route.
Everything else is parking lots, driveways, or just unused land.

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

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 in my area (possibly more). Even though the
rail part of those railways has mostly been removed, the way part of those
railways is still mostly in evidence.  Apart from embankments, 
cuttings, bridges
and tunnels there are the green corridors - either tree-lined hedges 
or trails cut
through woods. Some sections have been repurposed as footpaths and/or 
cycle
paths.  A few short sections have been resurrected as heritage 
railways.  The places
where all traces have been removed and build over are very few and far 
between.


I could delete those tiny sections of ex-railway that somebody spent time
mapping, but then it loses the coherence that aids understanding (unless I
shove the pieces into some sort of relation).

I understand the perspective of the purists, and one day a purist may come
along and remove sections where all traces have gone. But I have other 
things

I could be mapping so I won't bother doing it myself.

--
Paul




Here is an entry by some one who thinks it should be in OSM ...

Way: former Ballarat - Buninyong line (802945247)

  Tags:
    "name"="former Ballarat - Buninyong line"
    "embankment"="yes"
    "railway"="razed"
    "ruined:railway"="rail"


If you look you will see that this 'embankment' does not EXIST ... there 
are two car parks over it that show no sign of any embankment. There is 
a building over it ... roads ... it does not exist.


Yet the person 'maps' it.

Note I put it into OHM some 2 years ago and removed it from OSM. Should 
I report them to DWG?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Volker Schmidt]

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 saying that we should map every single
ex-railway, I am only asking do not remove them, where someone has inserted
them.
Ex-railway corridors are often major landscape objects, in that sense they
are part of the geography. The argument has been made in this discussion
here; to map an ex-railway, only by mapping every remaining trace of it
(embankments,  roads; buildings only) but "seeing the e-railway is often
far easier on aerial photographs than on maps that's why it is helpful to
sometimes to add in the map even completely razed bits of ex.railways to
tie the visible bits together.

I invite you all to have a look at the excellent web site "
bahntrassenradwege.de ". Has nothing to
do with OSM, but illustrates why documenting ex.railways is important and
can also have a big impact on the economy when converted to a bicycle
tourist attraction.





Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 07:05, Mark Wagner  wrote:

> 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 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. These things
> > >>  > be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and hence, if
> > >>  > someone has gone to the length of mapping them, should find
> > >>  > space in OSM. In my view a general rule that any mapper can
> > >>  > erase any object from the map, when he does not see any trace
> > >>  > of it, is certainly not correct , he may be removing parts of
> > >>  > the thing thsat only with all its partsmakes sense.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  Where an old railway line has been built over by houses,
> > >> factories, shops and roads I see no reason to retain the
> > >> (historical) information in OSM.
> > >>
> > >>  The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but
> > >> where there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain
> > > visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop,
> > > road) have been made on top of their original site. So that cabnot
> > > be used as a criteria to determine whether that should be removed
> > > or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each individual
> > > cases.
> >
> > Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was constructed
> > over former railway and this section of railway remains somehow
> > mappable in OSM?
> >
> > With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I
> > can also imagine special cases of this remaining true.
> >
> > But entire factory?
>
> It's not a factory, but how about a car dealership, two storage rental
> facilities, a school bus parking lot, a sports park, and about forty
> city blocks of other things?
>
> https://imgur.com/a/5YObPTP
>
> --
> Mark
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 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 thing makes sense only with all its parts. These things
>> >>  > be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and hence, if
>> >>  > someone has gone to the length of mapping them, should find
>> >>  > space in OSM. In my view a general rule that any mapper can
>> >>  > erase any object from the map, when he does not see any trace
>> >>  > of it, is certainly not correct , he may be removing parts of
>> >>  > the thing thsat only with all its partsmakes sense. 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>  Where an old railway line has been built over by houses,
>> >> factories, shops and roads I see no reason to retain the
>> >> (historical) information in OSM.
>> >> 
>> >>  The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but
>> >> where there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
>> >> 
>> >
>> > Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain
>> > visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop,
>> > road) have been made on top of their original site. So that cabnot
>> > be used as a criteria to determine whether that should be removed
>> > or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each individual
>> > cases. 
>>
>> Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was constructed
>> over former railway and this section of railway remains somehow
>> mappable in OSM?
>>
>> With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I
>> can also imagine special cases of this remaining true.
>>
>> But entire factory?
>>
>
> It's not a factory, but how about a car dealership, two storage rental
> facilities, a school bus parking lot, a sports park, and about forty
> city blocks of other things?
>
> https://imgur.com/a/5YObPTP
>
Very interesting one. While I see point about part of the route, I would
disagree about vertical segment where it is no longer recognizable -
even from indirect effects like building arrangements (based on
this aerial images! - maybe something is visible on the ground or
on higher quality aerial images).

I admit that it is something that while stretching "there is something
on the ground" case is also having something on the ground.

Do you have maybe photos from the ground? Or info where it is located?
I want to add it to the wiki article, it would be a good case of something
borderline.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mark Wagner]

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 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. These things
> >>  > be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and hence, if
> >>  > someone has gone to the length of mapping them, should find
> >>  > space in OSM. In my view a general rule that any mapper can
> >>  > erase any object from the map, when he does not see any trace
> >>  > of it, is certainly not correct , he may be removing parts of
> >>  > the thing thsat only with all its partsmakes sense.  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  Where an old railway line has been built over by houses,
> >> factories, shops and roads I see no reason to retain the
> >> (historical) information in OSM.
> >>  
> >>  The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but
> >> where there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
> >>  
> >
> > Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain
> > visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop,
> > road) have been made on top of their original site. So that cabnot
> > be used as a criteria to determine whether that should be removed
> > or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each individual
> > cases. 
> 
> Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was constructed
> over former railway and this section of railway remains somehow
> mappable in OSM?
> 
> With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I
> can also imagine special cases of this remaining true.
> 
> But entire factory?

It's not a factory, but how about a car dealership, two storage rental
facilities, a school bus parking lot, a sports park, and about forty
city blocks of other things?

https://imgur.com/a/5YObPTP

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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 has mostly been removed, the way part of those
railways is still mostly in evidence.  Apart from embankments, cuttings,
bridges
and tunnels there are the green corridors - either tree-lined hedges or
trails cut
through woods. Some sections have been repurposed as footpaths and/or cycle
paths.  A few short sections have been resurrected as heritage railways.
The places
where all traces have been removed and build over are very few and far
between.

I could delete those tiny sections of ex-railway that somebody spent time
mapping, but then it loses the coherence that aids understanding (unless I
shove the pieces into some sort of relation).

I understand the perspective of the purists, and one day a purist may come
along and remove sections where all traces have gone.  But I have other
things
I could be mapping so I won't bother doing it myself.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Volker Schmidt]

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?
>
> I would think contacting the author and/or past editors of the item in OSM
> is enough.
>
I am asking even less work, I am asking to leave an object that is tagged
as razed railway in the database and not remove it without contacting the
mapper who inserted it.

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.

The same argument applies also to ex-roads. A thing which springs to mind
would be tagging the ex-Route 66, of which huge stretches still exist in
different forms. (I rode it on bicycle) This would be a very interesting
and pertinent job in OSM.

Volker


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 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. These things be of interest for some 
>>  > end users of OSM data, and hence, if someone has gone to the length of 
>>  > mapping them, should find space in OSM.
>>  > In my view a general rule that any mapper can erase any object from 
>>  > the map, when he does not see any trace of it, is certainly not 
>>  > correct , he may be removing parts of the thing thsat only with all 
>>  > its partsmakes sense.
>>  
>>  
>>  Where an old railway line has been built over by houses, factories, 
>>  shops and roads I see no reason to retain the (historical) information 
>>  in OSM.
>>  
>>  The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but where 
>>  there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
>>
>
> Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain visible even 
> after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop, road) have been made on top 
> of their original site. So that cabnot be used as a criteria to determine 
> whether that should be removed or not although the exact situation varies a 
> lot in each individual cases.
>

Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was constructed over 
former railway
and this section of railway remains somehow mappable in OSM?

With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I can also 
imagine special cases of
this remaining true.

But entire factory?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jack Armstrong]

>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-way intersection is changed into a traffic circle, I will change it. I won't ask ask previous editors about something that only existed in the past. I will update the map to reflect the current situation. There's no need to keep the old intersection and the new roundabout on the map in the same place.If old, industrial buildings have been torn down completely and new apartment buildings have been built on the site, if there is absolutely nothing left of the old buildings, I will remove the non-existent buildings from OSM and replace them with the new construction. It's not necessary to consult with other users if I'm certain my edits are correct.If a tree has been removed to make way for a parking lot, I will remove the tree and replace it with a parking lot. There is no need to consult with anyone nor is there any need to keep the old tree in the middle of a new parking lot. The tree no longer exists.- Jack Armstrong(chachafish)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

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 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. These things be of interest for some
> end users of OSM data, and hence, if someone has gone to the
length of
> mapping them, should find space in OSM.
> In my view a general rule that any mapper can erase any object from
> the map, when he does not see any trace of it, is certainly not
> correct , he may be removing parts of the thing thsat only with all
> its partsmakes sense.


Where an old railway line has been built over by houses, factories,
shops and roads I see no reason to retain the (historical)
information
in OSM.

The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but where
there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.


Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain 
visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop, road) 
have been made on top of their original site.


In the case I am thinking of it is not one house, one factory, one shop, 
one road ... there are many. There is no sign left in this area. Gone. 
Totally vanished.



So that cabnot be used as a criteria to determine whether that should 
be removed or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each 
individual cases.


> Anyway i am against removing apparently useless data without
> consultation with the author, with the exception of clear errors.



Disagree.

Once the data is in OSM it is no longer the 'property' of the
author or
following editors.

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.

If you are not sure of the use or validity of something then it would 
also be a good idea to ask those who might know about it.



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?

I would think contacting the author and/or past editors of the item in 
OSM is enough.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Phake Nick]

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 we have
> > documented knowledge of where they once were. The entire thing makes
> > sense only with all its parts. These things be of interest for some
> > end users of OSM data, and hence, if someone has gone to the length of
> > mapping them, should find space in OSM.
> > In my view a general rule that any mapper can erase any object from
> > the map, when he does not see any trace of it, is certainly not
> > correct , he may be removing parts of the thing thsat only with all
> > its partsmakes sense.
>
>
> Where an old railway line has been built over by houses, factories,
> shops and roads I see no reason to retain the (historical) information
> in OSM.
>
> The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but where
> there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
>

Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain visible
even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop, road) have been made
on top of their original site. So that cabnot be used as a criteria to
determine whether that should be removed or not although the exact
situation varies a lot in each individual cases.

> Anyway i am against removing apparently useless data without
> > consultation with the author, with the exception of clear errors.
>
>
>
> Disagree.
>
> Once the data is in OSM it is no longer the 'property' of the author or
> following editors.
>
> 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.
>
If you are not sure of the use or validity of something then it would also
be a good idea to ask those who might know about it.

>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

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 thing makes 
sense only with all its parts. These things be of interest for some 
end users of OSM data, and hence, if someone has gone to the length of 
mapping them, should find space in OSM.
In my view a general rule that any mapper can erase any object from 
the map, when he does not see any trace of it, is certainly not 
correct , he may be removing parts of the thing thsat only with all 
its partsmakes sense.



Where an old railway line has been built over by houses, factories, 
shops and roads I see no reason to retain the (historical) information 
in OSM.


The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but where 
there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.



Anyway i am against removing apparently useless data without 
consultation with the author, with the exception of clear errors.




Disagree.

Once the data is in OSM it is no longer the 'property' of the author or 
following editors.


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.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Volker Schmidt]

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. These
things be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and hence, if someone
has gone to the length of mapping them, should find space in OSM.
In my view a general rule that any mapper can erase any object from the
map, when he does not see any trace of it, is certainly not correct , he
may be removing parts of the thing thsat only with all its partsmakes sense.
Anyway i am against removing apparently useless data without consultation
with the author, with the exception of clear errors.

Volker

Volker

On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 00:46, Clifford Snow  wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>> recognisable"). Do you have some good images showing both?
>>>
>>
>> I didn't map it (somebody else did), but I can observe the path of a
>> former railway
>> because some of the route has the tree-lined hedges typical in this part
>> of the world.
>> Often between such hedges is a farm track, or a road, occasionally a
>> footpath, but
>> there is no highway along this route.  It is an otherwise inexplicable
>> pair of tree-lined
>> hedges, or gaps in woodland.  With the occasional bridge, embankment and
>> cutting.
>>
>> Yes, you need historical knowledge to figure out what the route was, but
>> you
>> can identify it from aerial imagery.  See if you can figure out which bit
>> on the
>> map it is: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0496/-4.6166
>>
>> Is the existence of those actual, verifiable features sufficient to
>> justify
>> mapping an abandoned railway as explanation and to deter other mappers
>> from guessing there is a footpath or track where one doesn't exist?  Is it
>> sufficient to justify mapping the whole abandoned line, even though it is
>> less obvious along much of the route?
>>
>> I might not map such a line myself, but I'd be very reluctant to remove
>> it.
>> Especially as I suspect there are bridges, culverts, cuttings and
>> embankments
>> along it that still exist but have not yet been mapped.
>>
>
> I concur with Paul. I've helped do some preliminary work for a new bike
> route. The preliminary plan was to use the road for the bike route. When
> looking at OSM, next to the road was an abandoned railway. The tracks
> appear to be gone, but the raised bed is visible. Without the existence of
> the abandoned railway it most likely would have been missed. If this bike
> route ever comes into existence, the planners can now consider using the
> old railway. They may not due to cost, but at least they have the option.
> And they wouldn't have found the old railway from Google or local
> county/city drawings, just OSM.
>
> With no artifacts left, I agree it can and should be removed. But I'm
> really cautious with railway lines because they can be repurposed easily.
>
> Best,
> Clifford
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Clifford Snow]

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
>> recognisable"). Do you have some good images showing both?
>>
>
> I didn't map it (somebody else did), but I can observe the path of a
> former railway
> because some of the route has the tree-lined hedges typical in this part
> of the world.
> Often between such hedges is a farm track, or a road, occasionally a
> footpath, but
> there is no highway along this route.  It is an otherwise inexplicable
> pair of tree-lined
> hedges, or gaps in woodland.  With the occasional bridge, embankment and
> cutting.
>
> Yes, you need historical knowledge to figure out what the route was, but
> you
> can identify it from aerial imagery.  See if you can figure out which bit
> on the
> map it is: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0496/-4.6166
>
> Is the existence of those actual, verifiable features sufficient to justify
> mapping an abandoned railway as explanation and to deter other mappers
> from guessing there is a footpath or track where one doesn't exist?  Is it
> sufficient to justify mapping the whole abandoned line, even though it is
> less obvious along much of the route?
>
> I might not map such a line myself, but I'd be very reluctant to remove it.
> Especially as I suspect there are bridges, culverts, cuttings and
> embankments
> along it that still exist but have not yet been mapped.
>

I concur with Paul. I've helped do some preliminary work for a new bike
route. The preliminary plan was to use the road for the bike route. When
looking at OSM, next to the road was an abandoned railway. The tracks
appear to be gone, but the raised bed is visible. Without the existence of
the abandoned railway it most likely would have been missed. If this bike
route ever comes into existence, the planners can now consider using the
old railway. They may not due to cost, but at least they have the option.
And they wouldn't have found the old railway from Google or local
county/city drawings, just OSM.

With no artifacts left, I agree it can and should be removed. But I'm
really cautious with railway lines because they can be repurposed easily.

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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?
>

I didn't map it (somebody else did), but I can observe the path of a former
railway
because some of the route has the tree-lined hedges typical in this part of
the world.
Often between such hedges is a farm track, or a road, occasionally a
footpath, but
there is no highway along this route.  It is an otherwise inexplicable pair
of tree-lined
hedges, or gaps in woodland.  With the occasional bridge, embankment and
cutting.

Yes, you need historical knowledge to figure out what the route was, but you
can identify it from aerial imagery.  See if you can figure out which bit
on the
map it is: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0496/-4.6166

Is the existence of those actual, verifiable features sufficient to justify
mapping an abandoned railway as explanation and to deter other mappers
from guessing there is a footpath or track where one doesn't exist?  Is it
sufficient to justify mapping the whole abandoned line, even though it is
less obvious along much of the route?

I might not map such a line myself, but I'd be very reluctant to remove it.
Especially as I suspect there are bridges, culverts, cuttings and
embankments
along it that still exist but have not yet been mapped.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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, preferably both with absolute number and 
percentage going down.

> There are plenty of historical "things" in OSM of which large parts still 
> exist today, like the Colosseum in Rome or  the Great Wall of China, just to 
> name two big ones.
>
Noone proposed deleting objects such as Colosseum and you know that.

Colosseum is not completely gone - neither as building nor as tourism 
attraction and you know this 
well.

> One extreme example that springs to mind is > The Ridgeway 
> >  on the Berkshire Downs in 
> Southern England, believed to be Europe's oldest long-distance road.  Even if 
> it's exact course has been lost over the millennia it is today a major 
> tourist attraction for hikers and MTB fans as the prehistoric monuments are 
> aligned  on its course like the pearls on a necklace. Most of it is today a  
> National Trail, but bits are missing, and no longer visible in the landscape, 
> mainly due to human intervention. I have not checked on OSM how it is mapped 
> - I know it from walking it in pre-OSM times.
>
National trail is (almost certainly) mappable but guessed route of the Ridgeway 
is not
something that can be mapped in OSM. 

It is not a place to discuss which historian has a better guess or store all 
known versions
proposed as possible route.


> There was a > railway form Ostiglia on the Rover Po to Treviso in Veneto 
> > , Italy, built in 
> the early 20th century and abandoned in 1987. No rails remain, but nearly all 
> station buildings and other ancillary buildings and many bridges are still 
> there (or have been restored). More than half of it has been converted so far 
> into a foot-cycle route, one of the busiest in the country. The entire course 
> is still visible in the landscape, easily spotted from satellite imagery. > 
> This >  is the OSM bicycle 
> route relation of the (existing) foot-cycleway and this is the > site 
> relation of the original railway 
> >  course and (most of) the 
> buildings and some other artefacts. Planning work is under way to complete 
> the entire foot-cycle route from Treviso to Ostiglia. I will obtain the 
> planing material with the aim of inserting it in OSM as proposed cycling 
> route.
>
Proposed features are separate can of worms but at least check copyright status 
of this plans.

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?
Preferably something on Wikimedia Commons. Or on a matching license.

> And if an OSM mapper has inserted that context information, in the extreme 
> case in the form of razed railway tags on a hedge, or similar trivial 
> objects, this information is a valid contribution to OSM, and I would 
> consider removing it as vandalism.
>
Vandalism is typically reserved for edits that damage OSM database and are 
deliberately malicious.

Mapping razed railway where it is actually clearly recognizable is OK.

Mapping razed railway where it is no longer recognizable and requires old map 
or memory 
to map it? Out of scope.

> On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 06:12, Skyler Hawthorne <> o...@dead10ck.com> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 25, 2020 15:35:44 Jack Armstrong <>> jacknst...@sprynet.com>> > 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 what was once there, it can be removed.
>>>
>>> I don't see the need to map something that does not actually exist.
>>>
>>> - Jack Armstrong
>>> chachafish
>>>
>>
>> I agree. OSM is not a historical object database. If it doesn't exist, it 
>> shouldn't be in the data.
>> --
>> Skyler
>> ___
>>  Tagging mailing list
>>  >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Volker Schmidt]

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, like the Colosseum in Rome or  the Great Wall of China, just
to name two big ones.
But many of the smaller bits you still see today are part of historical
artefacts, the remaining parts of which have disappeared, and then there
are those in.between cases where bits are still indirectly "visible" on the
ground.

One extreme example that springs to mind is The Ridgeway
 on the Berkshire Downs in
Southern England, believed to be Europe's oldest long-distance road.  Even
if it's exact course has been lost over the millennia it is today a major
tourist attraction for hikers and MTB fans as the prehistoric monuments are
aligned on its course like the pearls on a necklace. Most of it is today a
National Trail, but bits are missing, and no longer visible in the
landscape, mainly due to human intervention. I have not checked on OSM how
it is mapped - I know it from walking it in pre-OSM times.

Fast forward in history..

There was a railway form Ostiglia on the Rover Po to Treviso in Veneto
, Italy, built in
the early 20th century and abandoned in 1987. No rails remain, but nearly
all station buildings and other ancillary buildings and many bridges are
still there (or have been restored). More than half of it has been
converted so far into a foot-cycle route, one of the busiest in the
country. The entire course is still visible in the landscape, easily
spotted from satellite imagery. This
 is the OSM bicycle route
relation of the (existing) foot-cycleway and this is the site relation of
the original railway 
course and (most of) the buildings and some other artefacts. Planning work
is under way to complete the entire foot-cycle route from Treviso to
Ostiglia. I will obtain the planing material with the aim of inserting it
in OSM as proposed cycling route.

Another frequent situation is city walls that have been incorporated in
more recent buildings.

Yet another example in my own city, Padova. We have three Roman bridges two
of which are completely interred, a third one is interred, but partially
excavated, Also the canal (formerly a river) theay are spanning, has ben
interred completely, but its course is perfectly visible and the road it
has been converted to is aptly named "Riviera dei Ponti Romani".

I think that in all these cases we are talking about more or less important
attractions which need the historic context.
And if an OSM mapper has inserted that context information, in the extreme
case in the form of razed railway tags on a hedge, or similar trivial
objects, this information is a valid contribution to OSM, and I would
consider removing it as vandalism.

Thanks for having read to the end.

Volker

On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 06:12, Skyler Hawthorne  wrote:

> 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 what was once there, it can be removed.
>>
>> I don't see the need to map something that does not actually exist.
>>
>> - Jack Armstrong
>> chachafish
>>
>
> I agree. OSM is not a historical object database. If it doesn't exist, it
> shouldn't be in the data.
> --
> Skyler
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Skyler Hawthorne]

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 what was once there, it can be removed.



I don't see the need to map something that does not actually exist.

- Jack Armstrong
chachafish


I agree. OSM is not a historical object database. If it doesn't exist, it 
shouldn't be in the data.

--
Skyler
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Jack Armstrong]

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 what was once there, it can be removed.I don't see 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] Should we map things that do not exist?


  

  
  
May 25, 2020, 23:50 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com:then it dependson whether the former railway has significance in some other lessobvious way (e.g. being part of an administrative boundary)This is going too far. Glaciers left clear marks in many countries, butmapping glaciers of last glacial maximum[1] is out of scope of OSM.If sole trace of railway is that administrative boundary matches its course,then it should be deleted.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum  



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 last glacial maximum[1] is out of scope of OSM.

If sole trace of railway is that administrative boundary matches its course,
then it should be deleted.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Fernando Trebien]

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 the
former railway and no expectation of reconstruction, then it depends
on whether the former railway has significance in some other less
obvious way (e.g. being part of an administrative boundary). If not,
it should probably be removed, moved elsewhere [1], or changed into
something else (what's actually there now).

[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_historic_events_and_historic_features

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 2:06 AM 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 the 
> former track-bed have been removed, should be removed from OpenStreetMap.
>
> It is still considered acceptable to map abandoned railways, where the old 
> railway grade remains, even though the metal rails have been removed.
>
> However, note that there are some people who are very committed to mapping 
> historical and abandoned railways, so there may be resistance to removing 
> these features.
>
> See the long discussions about rendering railway=abandoned at 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 and 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/586 for example.
>
> Also see the previous discussion at 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#Abandoned_railways_where_all_evidence_has_been_removed
>
> – Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 9:40 PM Jack Armstrong  wrote:
>>
>> Greetings.
>>
>>
>> Recently, a user mapped “razed” railways inside a construction zone (link 
>> below). These rails had been removed by our local mappers since they don’t 
>> exist anymore. Using the latest imagery (Maxar), you can see the rails have 
>> been completely removed from “Project 70”, a $1.2 billion Denver-area 
>> transportation corridor construction project.
>>
>>
>> I think this mapper has good intentions, but what is the point of mapping 
>> something that does not exist? Doesn’t this clearly contradict the OSM Good 
>> Practice wiki in regards the sections, “Verifiability”, “Map what's on the 
>> ground” and “Don't map historic events and historic features”? The last 
>> section states, "Do not map objects if they do not exist currently."
>>
>>
>> Should we tag (invisible) razed sidewalks? Should we leave (invisible) 
>> destroyed buildings in place, tag them as razed and then create new 
>> buildings on top of them?
>>
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/39.78016/-104.94562
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> t...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Phake Nick]

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
> 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 to this
>
> +1, but something that is 100% gone can be deleted.
>
> I have seen railway=abandoned mapped across open-pit mine that was there
> for 20 years.
>
> There was zero chance of mappers recreating it (as oldest aerials will
> show open pit mine),
> it was 100% gone (like embankments, railway station and dirt 20 m below).
>
> I deleted it.
>
> Something that is fully, completely and totally gone can be deleted. If
> there are buildings
> across former track of the railway and embankment is leveled then it can
> and should
> be deleted.
>
> If there are no traces whatsoever and you need old maps to map it then it
> is out of
> scope of OSM and deleting it improves OpenStreetMap.
>
> There was railway here:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:National_Museum_in_Krakow-Main_Building,_1,_3Maja_Av,_Krakow,Poland.jpg
>
> There are no traces whatsoever. It is not mapped, should not be mapped and
> should be deleted if mapped.
>
> I have more doubts about cases where only earthworks remain (and are used
> for
> cycleway/road/path). You can plausibly guess that railway was there but it
> is just a
> guess and typically you need old maps to confirm that it was there.
>
> And in some cases such features look like former railway but that is not
> really true.
>
> But something that is totally gone should be gone from OpenStreetMap (with
> exceptions
> for objects marked as gone and temporarily not deleted to prevent
> incorrect remapping).
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


To add on it, I think something like
https://minkara.carview.co.jp/smart/userid/177050/blog/43940205/ should
still be included in the OpenStreetMap since some of their trace still
exists on the ground and that it's still more or less possible to locate
the alignment of the abandoned rail route.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Florian Lohoff]

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
> then it sound like you think they shouldn't be kept?

Its a matter of common sense. No we dont want to delete everything
immediatly - but for the sake of common ground for decisions we should
try to stick near the "On the ground" rule.

So be liberal but in case of dispute we need to stick with "On the
ground"

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Phake Nick]

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 very high indeed.
>
> I subscribe to this aswell. As long as it does not collide with stuff
> in use we should be able to tolerate data of historic or special purpose
> most of us probably do not aim for.
>
> The broad scope of your subject must otherwise be answered with: "No"
>
> It IS Best Common Practice to follow the "On the ground" rule with only
> very few exceptions.
>
> And IMHO we cant lift that. OSM needs to have a common ground to discuss
> matters and sometimes reality is already pretty hard to agree on. If we
> now add stuff in history or in the minds of mappers we open a pretty
> difficult can of worms.
>
> 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"
>
> Flo
> --
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
> UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Your email initially sound like you thinl they shouldn't be deleted but
then it sound like you think they shouldn't be kept?

>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

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 
>> work should be set very high indeed.
>>
>>
>
> +1
> I completely subscribe to this 
>
+1, but something that is 100% gone can be deleted.

I have seen railway=abandoned mapped across open-pit mine that was there for 20 
years.

There was zero chance of mappers recreating it (as oldest aerials will show 
open pit mine),
it was 100% gone (like embankments, railway station and dirt 20 m below).

I deleted it.

Something that is fully, completely and totally gone can be deleted. If there 
are buildings
across former track of the railway and embankment is leveled then it can and 
should
be deleted.

If there are no traces whatsoever and you need old maps to map it then it is 
out of
scope of OSM and deleting it improves OpenStreetMap.

There was railway here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:National_Museum_in_Krakow-Main_Building,_1,_3Maja_Av,_Krakow,Poland.jpg

There are no traces whatsoever. It is not mapped, should not be mapped and
should be deleted if mapped.

I have more doubts about cases where only earthworks remain (and are used for
cycleway/road/path). You can plausibly guess that railway was there but it is 
just a
guess and typically you need old maps to confirm that it was there.

And in some cases such features look like former railway but that is not really 
true.

But something that is totally gone should be gone from OpenStreetMap (with 
exceptions
for objects marked as gone and temporarily not deleted to prevent incorrect 
remapping).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Florian Lohoff]

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 as it does not collide with stuff
in use we should be able to tolerate data of historic or special purpose
most of us probably do not aim for.

The broad scope of your subject must otherwise be answered with: "No"

It IS Best Common Practice to follow the "On the ground" rule with only
very few exceptions.

And IMHO we cant lift that. OSM needs to have a common ground to discuss
matters and sometimes reality is already pretty hard to agree on. If we
now add stuff in history or in the minds of mappers we open a pretty
difficult can of worms.

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"

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 to this 

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 railways have 
the metal rails still more or less in place

Cheers Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Phake Nick]

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
by the rail can still be found despite redevelopment.

在 2020年5月25日週一 13:06，Joseph Eisenberg  寫道：

> 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 from
> OpenStreetMap.
>
> It is still considered acceptable to map abandoned railways, where the old
> railway grade remains, even though the metal rails have been removed.
>
> However, note that there are some people who are very committed to mapping
> historical and abandoned railways, so there may be resistance to removing
> these features.
>
> See the long discussions about rendering railway=abandoned at
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 and
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/586 for
> example.
>
> Also see the previous discussion at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#Abandoned_railways_where_all_evidence_has_been_removed
>
> – Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 9:40 PM Jack Armstrong 
> wrote:
>
>> Greetings.
>>
>>
>> Recently, a user mapped “razed” railways inside a construction zone (link
>> below). These rails had been removed by our local mappers since they don’t
>> exist anymore. Using the latest imagery (Maxar), you can see the rails have
>> been completely removed from “Project 70”, a $1.2 billion Denver-area
>> transportation corridor construction project.
>>
>>
>> I think this mapper has good intentions, but what is the point of mapping
>> something that does not exist? Doesn’t this clearly contradict the OSM Good
>> Practice wiki in regards the sections, “Verifiability”, “Map what's on the
>> ground” and “Don't map historic events and historic features”? The last
>> section states, "*Do not map objects if they do not exist currently*."
>>
>>
>> Should we tag (invisible) razed sidewalks? Should we leave (invisible)
>> destroyed buildings in place, tag them as razed and then create new
>> buildings on top of them?
>>
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/39.78016/-104.94562
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> t...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Colin Smale]

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 the 
> former track-bed have been removed, should be removed from OpenStreetMap. 
> 
> It is still considered acceptable to map abandoned railways, where the old 
> railway grade remains, even though the metal rails have been removed.  
> 
> However, note that there are some people who are very committed to mapping 
> historical and abandoned railways, so there may be resistance to removing 
> these features.

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. 

2. In the present, it IS a former trackbed, even if you can't see it. In
the past it was an active rail line. 

3. In terms of database bloat, abandoned/razed rails have a completely
insignificant impact. 

4. Downstream consumers/renderers have always been able to ignore things
as they see fit, they can quite easily ignore razed tracks as well.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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 from OpenStreetMap.

It is still considered acceptable to map abandoned railways, where the old
railway grade remains, even though the metal rails have been removed.

However, note that there are some people who are very committed to mapping
historical and abandoned railways, so there may be resistance to removing
these features.

See the long discussions about rendering railway=abandoned at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 and
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/586 for example.

Also see the previous discussion at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#Abandoned_railways_where_all_evidence_has_been_removed

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 9:40 PM Jack Armstrong 
wrote:

> Greetings.
>
>
> Recently, a user mapped “razed” railways inside a construction zone (link
> below). These rails had been removed by our local mappers since they don’t
> exist anymore. Using the latest imagery (Maxar), you can see the rails have
> been completely removed from “Project 70”, a $1.2 billion Denver-area
> transportation corridor construction project.
>
>
> I think this mapper has good intentions, but what is the point of mapping
> something that does not exist? Doesn’t this clearly contradict the OSM Good
> Practice wiki in regards the sections, “Verifiability”, “Map what's on the
> ground” and “Don't map historic events and historic features”? The last
> section states, "*Do not map objects if they do not exist currently*."
>
>
> Should we tag (invisible) razed sidewalks? Should we leave (invisible)
> destroyed buildings in place, tag them as razed and then create new
> buildings on top of them?
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/39.78016/-104.94562
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging