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

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

May 27, 2020, 17:31 by etcomma...@gmail.com:

>>  I know I can use JOSM to copy data from OHM to OSM, but for a large 
>> geographic area I don't think that would not be practical.
>>
I would JOSM to download OHM and save it as an .osm file and process it further.

I wanted to link OHM planet files but...

but based on https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/about

"This site and many other related services are formally operated by the
OpenStreetMap Foundation  (OSMF)"

And content at https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/help

I decided to stop looking for their documentation as it appears to be not 
existing.

I opened 
https://github.com/OpenHistoricalMap/ohm-website/issues/62
https://github.com/OpenHistoricalMap/ohm-website/issues/63
https://github.com/OpenHistoricalMap/ohm-website/issues/64
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[ET Commands]

Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 14:02:47 +1000
From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On 27/5/20 9:40 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote:

then why are there tags ?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway
and if the platform posts are still there ?


Those tags are for things that are still there, if what remains is still
identifiable as a building/railway/road/bridge then that should be
mapped in OSM.


Historic things should be mapped into OHM, even if they are no longer
there or still remain ( a start and end date are usefull in OHM as a
date slider can be used to revel what is there at that date).



 Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:52 PM -05:00 from Jack Armstrong
 :
 Thanks. I'll try that.

 From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
 >

 Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any
 historic object for that matter. This satisfies them that the
 object is mapped and frees OSM from it.



I like to download portions of  the OSM database from Geofabrik and make 
custom maps for my GPS.  I also understand we're not supposed to map 
historic objects in OSM, and why some people don't want to see 
dismantled/razed railroads in the OSM database.  Being a railfan, I am 
one of those that do want them.    Assuming all the dismantled railroads 
in OSM were transferred to OHM, is there a way to take my OSM extracts 
from Geofabrik and add in the dismantled railroads from OHM, so that the 
resulting map would contain what I want?  I know I can use JOSM to copy 
data from OHM to OSM, but for a large geographic area I don't think that 
would not be practical.


Mark



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

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

[Warin]

On 27/5/20 9:40 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote:

then why are there tags ?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway
and if the platform posts are still there ?



Those tags are for things that are still there, if what remains is still 
identifiable as a building/railway/road/bridge then that should be 
mapped in OSM.



Historic things should be mapped into OHM, even if they are no longer 
there or still remain ( a start and end date are usefull in OHM as a 
date slider can be used to revel what is there at that date).




Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:52 PM -05:00 from Jack Armstrong
:
Thanks. I'll try that.

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
>

Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any
historic object for that matter. This satisfies them that the
object is mapped and frees OSM from it.






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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

(1) sorry for an empty email send earlier

(2) we have plenty of things that should not be added
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/mapper - single paid
 mapping group produced 800 000+ instances of an unwanted tag
(they promised recently to fix it)

(3) sometimes this tags are used to describe still existing remains
that is OK, though I would tag it differently
(map existing embankment rather that railway that used to
be located on still existing embankment)

(4) Wiki documents used tags, not just desirable ones
In some cases it documents tags as a very bad idea.

(5) Some people thought/think that mapping completely
gone objects in OSM is OK. AFAIK they used to be more
prominent in the past.

May 27, 2020, 01:40 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

> then why are there tags ?
>  
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway
>  
> and if the platform posts are still there ?
>  
>
>> Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:52 PM -05:00 from Jack Armstrong 
>> :
>>  
>> Thanks. I'll try that.
>>  
>>
>>> From: Warin <>>> 61sundow...@gmail.com >>> >
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any historic 
>>> object for that matter. This satisfies them that the object is mapped and 
>>> frees OSM from it.
>>>
>>>
>>  
>>  
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

May 27, 2020, 01:40 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

> then why are there tags ?
>  
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway
>  
> and if the platform posts are still there ?
>  
>
>> Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:52 PM -05:00 from Jack Armstrong 
>> :
>>  
>> Thanks. I'll try that.
>>  
>>
>>> From: Warin <>>> 61sundow...@gmail.com >>> >
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any historic 
>>> object for that matter. This satisfies them that the object is mapped and 
>>> frees OSM from it.
>>>
>>>
>>  
>>  
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[80hnhtv4agou--- via talk]

then why are there tags ?
 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway
 
and if the platform posts are still there ?
  
>Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:52 PM -05:00 from Jack Armstrong 
>:
> 
>Thanks. I'll try that.
>  
>>From: Warin < 61sundow...@gmail.com >
>> 
>>Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any historic object 
>>for that matter. This satisfies them that the object is mapped and frees OSM 
>>from it. 
> 
> 
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
 
 
 
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Jack Armstrong]

Thanks. I'll try that.From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>


Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any
  historic object for that matter. This satisfies them that the
  object is mapped and frees OSM from it. 

  



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

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

[Warin]

On 25/5/20 2:37 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




Advise them to enter the historic railway into OHM ... or any historic 
object for that matter. This satisfies them that the object is mapped 
and frees OSM from it.


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

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

[80hnhtv4agou--- via talk]

i would delete what i did, expanding on someone else edit,  but what about 
something like a road 
 
that was never built and was mapped 7 years ago, with an edit 1 year ago ?
  
>Sunday, May 24, 2020 11:39 PM -05:00 from Jack Armstrong 
>:
> 
>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
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
 
 
 
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[steve . barkto]

On Mon, 25 May 2020 08:20:03 -0600 (GMT-06:00), Jack Armstrong
 wrote:

>Why are railways given a special status?

  One possible view is that railways were an early OSM data consumer.   In
many cases, OSM became the best resource to know current and previous rail
lines, and useful for cases to track down related historical artifacts,
plan for reuse based on slope, etc.
 OSM did render all rail lines for a time (including razed), then stopped
rendering historical items.   OpenRailwayMap has taken over rendering, but
I'm not sure if they've started transitioning to OpenHistoricalMap as a
source of purely historical items.   
  It would be handy if there was a way to delete an OSM object "into
OpenHistoricalMap" with a checkbox.


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

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

[80hnhtv4agou--- via talk]

it was tagged ( proposed ), and asphalt.
 
  
>Monday, May 25, 2020 11:56 AM -05:00 from Mateusz Konieczny via talk 
>:
> 
>I would say that anyone has right to remove such objects.
> 
>I am also unsure what would even be a correct tagging. never_existed:highway=*?
> 
>(sole reason for possible keeping would be danger of accidental mapping it, but
>given that it never existed it should not appear on any aerial images)
> 
>May 25, 2020, 17:32 by talk@openstreetmap.org:
>>? should a highway never built in 2011, mapped, that goes through a farm 
>>still be there even if tagged 
>> 
>>right, and if not who has a right to remove it ?
>> 
>>>Monday, May 25, 2020 10:10 AM -05:00 from Mateusz Konieczny via talk < 
>>>talk@openstreetmap.org >:
>>> 
>>>May 25, 2020, 16:48 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
On 2020-05-25 16:20, Jack Armstrong wrote:
>Why are railways given a special status?
Nobody gives anything a status in OSM. Nothing is "approved" so nothing is 
"forbidden" either.
>>>It is not really accurate - there is plenty of forbidden things (like running
>>>imports without discussion, we have tags that are silently removed by
>>>editors like iD and JOSM).
>>> 
>>>We have voted on tags that are described as "approved".
>>> 
>>>Even if " Nothing is "approved" " is true it does not mean that nothing is 
>>>forbidden.
>>> 
>>>And other ways of giving various things various kinds of status.
It is not even "forbidden" to use tags that someone has declared 
"deprecated".
>>>This is true.
 
Is there any case of a whole class of objects being removed from OSM on the 
grounds
that they "do not belong"? Who would burn their fingers on that?
>>>Depends on what you mean by "whole class of objects".
 
If we are looking to set a precedent for that it would probably be wiser to 
pick on a less controversial and emotive subject.
 
>>>We have precedent that entire classes and types of things are
>>>out of scope.
>>>___
>>>talk mailing list
>>>talk@openstreetmap.org
>>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
 
 
 
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-25 18:52, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

> Even if "Nothing is "approved"" is true it does not mean that nothing is 
> forbidden. 
> Can you name one tag that is "forbidden"? Does that mean a standing 
> instruction to all mappers to remove it whenever it is found, or a license to 
> do a seek-and-destroy across the whole database? Or does "forbidden" not 
> quite mean "may not appear in OSM"? "Frowned upon" possibly.

I would say that 

"Does that mean a standing instruction to all mappers to remove it
whenever it is found, 
or a license to do a seek-and-destroy across the whole database?" 

applies to several things (listed below). 

>> Is there any case of a whole class of objects being removed from OSM on the 
>> grounds  
>> that they "do not belong"? Who would burn their fingers on that? 
>> Depends on what you mean by "whole class of objects".
> 
> Class, category, whatever... A subset of the objects in the OSM data with 
> common characteristics. 
> 
>> If we are looking to set a precedent for that it would probably be wiser to 
>> pick on a less controversial and emotive subject. 
>> 
>> We have precedent that entire classes and types of things are 
>> out of scope.
> 
> Where is that written down? What classes and types of things have been 
> declared out of scope?

For example things that I immediately remember 

- fictional objects 
- blatantly subjective things like reviews, ratings 
- mapping of private objects (location of my bed) 
- mapping of moving objects (location of myself or a moving ship or
plane) 
- completely gone objects (for railways the question is when railway is
fully gone) 
- personal detail (ties into subjective ones) like "my favorite trees",
or "towns I visited" 
- objects on Moon/Mars and other locations outside Earth 

Objects with these characteristics cannot be (easily) identified in the
data - they would need a human to judge on a case-by-case basis (except
for the extra-terrestrial things, but you might have trouble defining
their location in terms of WGS84 lat/lon anyway...) 

Subjective data is by definition not independently verifiable, so that
can go. Ratings are sometimes awarded by a recognised body (rather than
by customers), and those ratings would IMHO qualify as independently
verifiable.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

I would say that anyone has right to remove such objects.

I am also unsure what would even be a correct tagging. never_existed:highway=*?

(sole reason for possible keeping would be danger of accidental mapping it, but
given that it never existed it should not appear on any aerial images)

May 25, 2020, 17:32 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

> ? should a highway never built in 2011, mapped, that goes through a farm 
> still be there even if tagged 
>  
> right, and if not who has a right to remove it ?
>  
>
>> Monday, May 25, 2020 10:10 AM -05:00 from Mateusz Konieczny via talk 
>> :
>>  
>> May 25, 2020, 16:48 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
>>
>>>
>>> On 2020-05-25 16:20, Jack Armstrong wrote:
>>>
>>>
 Why are railways given a special status?

>>> Nobody gives anything a status in OSM. Nothing is "approved" so nothing is 
>>> "forbidden" either.
>>>
>> It is not really accurate - there is plenty of forbidden things (like running
>> imports without discussion, we have tags that are silently removed by
>> editors like iD and JOSM).
>>  
>> We have voted on tags that are described as "approved".
>>  
>> Even if ">> Nothing is "approved">> " is true it does not mean that nothing 
>> is forbidden.
>>  
>> And other ways of giving various things various kinds of status.
>>
>>> It is not even "forbidden" to use tags that someone has declared 
>>> "deprecated".
>>>
>> This is true.
>>
>>>  
>>> Is there any case of a whole class of objects being removed from OSM on the 
>>> grounds
>>> that they "do not belong"? Who would burn their fingers on that?
>>>
>> Depends on what you mean by "whole class of objects".
>>
>>>  
>>> If we are looking to set a precedent for that it would probably be wiser to 
>>> pick on a less controversial and emotive subject.
>>>  
>>>
>> We have precedent that entire classes and types of things are
>> out of scope.
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

May 25, 2020, 17:34 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> On 2020-05-25 17:08, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
>
>
>> May 25, 2020, 16:48 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
>>
>>>
>>> On 2020-05-25 16:20, Jack Armstrong wrote:
>>>
>>>
 Why are railways given a special status?

>>> Nobody gives anything a status in OSM. Nothing is "approved" so nothing is 
>>> "forbidden" either.
>>>
>> It is not really accurate - there is plenty of forbidden things (like running
>> imports without discussion, we have tags that are silently removed by
>> editors like iD and JOSM).
>>
> Doing imports without discussion more about the process, and less about the 
> details of the result. An import can be declared "bad" for many reasons.
>  
> If iD and JOSM remove certain tags when they are encountered, that is 
> different from removing whole objects.
>
OK, though that is much narrower than "Nothing is "approved" so nothing is 
"forbidden" either."
claim.

>> We have voted on tags that are described as "approved".
>>  
>> Even if ">> Nothing is "approved">> " is true it does not mean that nothing 
>> is forbidden.
>>
> Can you name one tag that is "forbidden"? Does that mean a standing 
> instruction to all mappers to remove it whenever it is found, or a license to 
> do a seek-and-destroy across the whole database? Or does "forbidden" not 
> quite mean "may not appear in OSM"? "Frowned upon" possibly.
>
I would say that

"Does that mean a standing instruction to all mappers to remove it whenever it 
is found,
or a license to do a seek-and-destroy across the whole database?"

applies to several things (listed below).

>> Is there any case of a whole class of objects being removed from OSM on the 
>> grounds 
>> that they "do not belong"? Who would burn their fingers on that?
>> Depends on what you mean by "whole class of objects".
>>
> Class, category, whatever... A subset of the objects in the OSM data with 
> common characteristics.
>  
>
>>  
>> If we are looking to set a precedent for that it would probably be wiser to 
>> pick on a less controversial and emotive subject.
>>  
>> We have precedent that entire classes and types of things are
>> out of scope.
>>
> Where is that written down? What classes and types of things have been 
> declared out of scope? 
>
For example things that I immediately remember

- fictional objects
- blatantly subjective things like reviews, ratings
- mapping of private objects (location of my bed)
- mapping of moving objects (location of myself or a moving ship or plane)
- completely gone objects (for railways the question is when railway is fully 
gone)
- personal detail (ties into subjective ones) like "my favorite trees", or 
"towns I visited"
- objects on Moon/Mars and other locations outside Earth

there is more of that - listed here is what I immediately remembered.

> Any record of a transparent process that led to that?

Not sure if there was any formal process to establish that for
example we are not mapping fictional objects.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-25 17:08, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

> May 25, 2020, 16:48 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: 
> 
> On 2020-05-25 16:20, Jack Armstrong wrote: 
> 
> Why are railways given a special status? 
> 
> Nobody gives anything a status in OSM. Nothing is "approved" so nothing is 
> "forbidden" either.

It is not really accurate - there is plenty of forbidden things (like
running 
imports without discussion, we have tags that are silently removed by 
editors like iD and JOSM). 
Doing imports without discussion more about the process, and less about
the details of the result. An import can be declared "bad" for many
reasons. 

If iD and JOSM remove certain tags when they are encountered, that is
different from removing whole objects. 

> We have voted on tags that are described as "approved". 
> 
> Even if "Nothing is "approved"" is true it does not mean that nothing is 
> forbidden.

Can you name one tag that is "forbidden"? Does that mean a standing
instruction to all mappers to remove it whenever it is found, or a
license to do a seek-and-destroy across the whole database? Or does
"forbidden" not quite mean "may not appear in OSM"? "Frowned upon"
possibly. 

> Is there any case of a whole class of objects being removed from OSM on the 
> grounds  
> that they "do not belong"? Who would burn their fingers on that? 
> Depends on what you mean by "whole class of objects".

Class, category, whatever... A subset of the objects in the OSM data
with common characteristics. 

> If we are looking to set a precedent for that it would probably be wiser to 
> pick on a less controversial and emotive subject. 
> 
> We have precedent that entire classes and types of things are 
> out of scope.

Where is that written down? What classes and types of things have been
declared out of scope? Any record of a transparent process that led to
that?___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[80hnhtv4agou--- via talk]

? should a highway never built in 2011, mapped, that goes through a farm still 
be there even if tagged 
 
right, and if not who has a right to remove it ?
  
>Monday, May 25, 2020 10:10 AM -05:00 from Mateusz Konieczny via talk 
>:
> 
>May 25, 2020, 16:48 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
>>On 2020-05-25 16:20, Jack Armstrong wrote:
>>>Why are railways given a special status?
>>Nobody gives anything a status in OSM. Nothing is "approved" so nothing is 
>>"forbidden" either.
>It is not really accurate - there is plenty of forbidden things (like running
>imports without discussion, we have tags that are silently removed by
>editors like iD and JOSM).
> 
>We have voted on tags that are described as "approved".
> 
>Even if " Nothing is "approved" " is true it does not mean that nothing is 
>forbidden.
> 
>And other ways of giving various things various kinds of status.
>>It is not even "forbidden" to use tags that someone has declared "deprecated".
>This is true.
>> 
>>Is there any case of a whole class of objects being removed from OSM on the 
>>grounds 
>>that they "do not belong"? Who would burn their fingers on that?
>Depends on what you mean by "whole class of objects".
>> 
>>If we are looking to set a precedent for that it would probably be wiser to 
>>pick on a less controversial and emotive subject.
>> 
>We have precedent that entire classes and types of things are
>out of scope.
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
 
 
 
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

May 25, 2020, 16:48 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> On 2020-05-25 16:20, Jack Armstrong wrote:
>
>
>> Why are railways given a special status?
>>
> Nobody gives anything a status in OSM. Nothing is "approved" so nothing is 
> "forbidden" either.
>
It is not really accurate - there is plenty of forbidden things (like running
imports without discussion, we have tags that are silently removed by
editors like iD and JOSM).

We have voted on tags that are described as "approved".

Even if "Nothing is "approved"" is true it does not mean that nothing is 
forbidden.

And other ways of giving various things various kinds of status.

> It is not even "forbidden" to use tags that someone has declared "deprecated".
>
This is true.

>  
> Is there any case of a whole class of objects being removed from OSM on the 
> grounds 
> that they "do not belong"? Who would burn their fingers on that?
>
Depends on what you mean by "whole class of objects".

>  
> If we are looking to set a precedent for that it would probably be wiser to 
> pick on a less controversial and emotive subject.
>  
>
We have precedent that entire classes and types of things are
out of scope.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-25 16:20, Jack Armstrong wrote:

> Why are railways given a special status?

Nobody gives anything a status in OSM. Nothing is "approved" so nothing
is "forbidden" either. It is either used, or it is not used. It is not
even "forbidden" to use tags that someone has declared "deprecated". 

Is there any case of a whole class of objects being removed from OSM on
the grounds that they "do not belong"? Who would burn their fingers on
that? 

If we are looking to set a precedent for that it would probably be wiser
to pick on a less controversial and emotive subject.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Jack Armstrong]

25 years ago, the Denver Stapleton Airport was closed and a new airport was built further from the city. Over 5,000 new homes were built, including schools, a library, a recreation center, over 150 shops, service businesses, restaurants and open spaces.The opinion of some users is that if nothing had been built in place of the airport, if every trace of the airport had been removed and plowed under, then OSM users should not remove anything, but simply tag all buildings, runways, service roads, parking lots, etc., with the razed tag and leave it all on the map?Why are railways given a special status? Why not tag sidewalks, buildings, and trees with the razed tag and leave them on the map? Why only keep railways as part of a historical database alongside reality-based mapping? Perhaps everything from the past that used to exist should be kept on the current map.If something has been removed and there is still something on the ground remaining, then it makes sense to map what is actually there. But, mapping something in OSM that does not exist, except in someone's mind...why should it be on a map that is supposed to reflect the current situation? As the wiki states, "Do not map objects if they do not exist currently". In the given example in Denver the (well-meaning) mapper not only mapped non-existent rails, but non-existent switches as well. The switches do not exist. The rails do not exist. It's all imaginary.

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

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

[Jo]

Here in Belgium many of these are repurposed as cycling highway
infrastructure. I wouldn't mind having highway=cycleway, railway=razed on
them.

Polyglot

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 1:47 PM Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> May 25, 2020, 06:37 by jacknst...@sprynet.com:
>
> 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*."
>
> Rails were removed - but is there embankment or something similar that
> makes clear
> that railway line was there?
>
> In cases of still present embankment it is a bit tricky what is border
> between "present" and "gone".
>
> Note also that recently gone objects may be temporarily keep to prevent
> them from accidental
> remapping - for example based on old memory or old aerial images.
>
> But yes, something completely gone can and should be deleted from
> OpenStreetMap
> (temporarily kept in way that marks it as gone if likely to be
> accidentally remapped).
>
> Should we leave (invisible) destroyed buildings in place, tag them as
> razed and then create new buildings on top of them?
>
> I do this to make people using outdated aerial images less confused. And
> delete them
> once aerial images are updated.
>
> I deleted object where people were either importing old objects,
> nonexisting objects unlikely
> to be remapped by accident, supposedly existing old objects that were
> unverifiable.
>
>
> > Should we map things that do not exist?
>
> No, but remapping existing objects as "this is gone now" (building=yes ->
> demolished:building=yes)
> is often a good idea.
>
> But someone adding nonexisting railways, nonexisting buildings, historic
> boundaries and so on
> should stop, and such additions be reverted.
>
> (note that ruined buildings, ruined railways are mappable, just completely
> gone are not).
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

May 25, 2020, 06:37 by jacknst...@sprynet.com:

>
> 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> ."
>
>
Rails were removed - but is there embankment or something similar that makes 
clear 
that railway line was there? 

In cases of still present embankment it is a bit tricky what is border between 
"present" and "gone".

Note also that recently gone objects may be temporarily keep to prevent them 
from accidental
remapping - for example based on old memory or old aerial images.

But yes, something completely gone can and should be deleted from OpenStreetMap
(temporarily kept in way that marks it as gone if likely to be accidentally 
remapped).

>
> Should we leave (invisible) destroyed buildings in place, tag them as razed 
> and then create new buildings on top of them?
>
>
I do this to make people using outdated aerial images less confused. And delete 
them
once aerial images are updated.

I deleted object where people were either importing old objects, nonexisting 
objects unlikely
to be remapped by accident, supposedly existing old objects that were 
unverifiable.


> Should we map things that do not exist?

No, but remapping existing objects as "this is gone now" (building=yes -> 
demolished:building=yes)
is often a good idea.

But someone adding nonexisting railways, nonexisting buildings, historic 
boundaries and so on 
should stop, and such additions be reverted.

(note that ruined buildings, ruined railways are mappable, just completely gone 
are not).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Jack Armstrong]

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
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk