Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

sent from a phone > Am 29.08.2015 um 12:42 schrieb Richard Fairhurst : > > OSM would be a better, and nicer, place if people went out and did mapping, > rather than staying at home and doing deleting. +1, deletionism and relevance discussions have seriously harmed Wikipedia by shooing away c

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Therefore I will delete any object that no longer exists or never > existed (after communication with mapper or other method to > verify whatever I am mistaken, with exception of highway= > proposed). OSM would be a better, and nicer, place if people went out and did ma

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

This is your opinion, which you are seeking to impose on everybody. Somewhat selectively it would appear, as you are not going to burn your fingers on highway=proposed. I guess you will be deleting the HS2 (proposed UK high speed rail line) route as well, right? If you would like to, you will fi

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:18:17 -0400 Russ Nelson wrote: > But what gives them the right to delete things that other people CAN > see and DO want to have in OSM? Because mapping thoroughly destroyed objects that no longer exist (like rail lines where even earthworks are levelled and houses are bui

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Pieren writes: > There is a large consensus on that in the community. Why are you > insisting ? If you like, check the OHM project which is dedicated > for historical maps. We've been through this before. You're just insisting on your view and claiming that everyone agrees with you. There is no

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

* Martin Koppenhoefer [2015-08-21 09:22 +0200]: > railway=dismantled means there is no railway currently but there are clear > traces / remains of a railway (because if there weren't we would not put it > in Osm). Just for clarity: railway=abandoned (per the wiki and my understanding of things

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On Tue Aug 25 09:12:15 2015 GMT+0100, Jo wrote: > For what it's worth, I'm in favour of tagging dismantled railways as > > railway=dismantled +1 > > Even if it does pass through newly built buildings. -1 I passionately believe dismantled railways should both be in openstreetmap and be rendered

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

For what it's worth, I'm in favour of tagging dismantled railways as railway=dismantled Even if it does pass through newly built buildings. Polyglot 2015-08-25 9:52 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson : > On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 6:09 PM, moltonel 3x Combo > wrote: > >> On 22/08/2015, John Eldredge wrote:

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 6:09 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 22/08/2015, John Eldredge wrote: > > So, if you are looking for a route without steep grades, a former > > railway is a natural choice. > > Do people actually do this ? Yes, I do. > It sounds like a strawman argument to me. > I d

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 23/08/2015, mick wrote: > On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:09:43 +0100 > moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> Do people actually do this ? It sounds like a strawman argument to me. >> I do a fair bit of walking and cycling, and when planing a trip I look >> at the global topographic data but it never occured to

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:09:43 +0100 moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 22/08/2015, John Eldredge wrote: > > So, if you are looking for a route without steep grades, a former > > railway is a natural choice. > > Do people actually do this ? It sounds like a strawman argument to me. > I do a fair bit o

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 22/08/2015, John Eldredge wrote: > So, if you are looking for a route without steep grades, a former > railway is a natural choice. Do people actually do this ? It sounds like a strawman argument to me. I do a fair bit of walking and cycling, and when planing a trip I look at the global topogr

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Not precisely flat, but with very shallow grades, by definition. Regular railroad engines (as opposed to cog railway engines) can't climb steep slopes. So, if you are looking for a route without steep grades, a former railway is a natural choice. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Dar

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 21/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Am 20.08.2015 um 14:59 schrieb Pieren : >> >> where is the railway here ? were are the rails ? > > there aren't any rails, but there is a railbed, this cutting wouldn't make > sense for a cycleway, would it? (inappropriate effort) IMHO (and I've been a

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

sent from a phone > Am 20.08.2015 um 14:59 schrieb Pieren : > > where is the railway here ? were are the rails ? there aren't any rails, but there is a railbed, this cutting wouldn't make sense for a cycleway, would it? (inappropriate effort) > why should we keep > any mention about "rails

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 02:59:34PM +0200, Pieren wrote: > I got some examples from the net: > > [1] > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dunstable,_Dismantled_railway_and_National_Cycle_Network_Route_6_-_geograph.org.uk_-_146322.jpg > > where is the railway here ? were are the rails ? why

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 20/08/15 14:06, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 19/08/2015, Lester Caine wrote: >> 98% of the history that we are looking to manage properly is currently >> existing in OSM. All that is needed is to add start dates to the bulk of >> the existing data. > > What do you do when a road gets upgraded

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 19/08/2015, Lester Caine wrote: > 98% of the history that we are looking to manage properly is currently > existing in OSM. All that is needed is to add start dates to the bulk of > the existing data. What do you do when a road gets upgraded, widened, straightened, renamed, or some combination

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Frederik Ramm writes: > The trouble is that I'm being > threatened with having my contributions deleted! > > DELETED! > > Why incentive do I have to correctly tag, when people are saying "Go > ahead, I'm just going to delete it anyway and I'm

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 20/08/2015, Russ Nelson wrote: > moltonel writes: > When they show up, we can have a discussion. In the meantime, I'm > here, and many other mappers map abandoned and dismantled railways, > and we would like to NOT HAVE YOU FRICK WITH OUR STUFF. Please don't shout and curse, it just kills the

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 20/08/2015, Russ Nelson wrote: > moltonel 3x Combo writes: > > But it's equally annoying and tiring to repeatedly encounter the > > ludicrous kind of railway=abandoned, > > Then tag it as railway=dismantled. You won't find me defending > incorrect tagging of anything. If 'dismantled' is mean

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 20/08/2015, Russ Nelson wrote: > moltonel 3x Combo writes: > > The demolished: prefix only makes sense when there is something left > > of the former feature, typically rubble (useful for example to alert > > boattripers of the hazard). When there is nothing left in reality, > > there shoul

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

sent from a phone > Am 19.08.2015 um 20:06 schrieb Glenn Powers : > > For the record, I deleted an abandoned railway that leads through a new > housing development, because it didn't make any sense to leave it there. > > Satellite images clearly show ground gradings indicating an abandoned > r

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

moltonel writes: > The existence of ohm is a strong aknowlegement that osm is only for > the present. Russ, you're an expert in old railroads, but think of > all the other old things you could be an expert of. If all the > niche experts When they show up, we can have a discussion. In the meant

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Frederik Ramm writes: > Also I have the impression that, contrary to what you're saying, at > least some proponents of abandoned railway mapping find it totally ok to > map an abandoned railway that "leads through" a modern day housing > development. "Abandoned"? No. Dismantled? Yes. Now, I mu

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

moltonel 3x Combo writes: > I do empathise with Russ being angered at his work being deleted > without discussion. Not any happier if it gets deleted after discussion either. I brought my data (I started mapping railways in 2004) to OSM because I thought that the community was friendly to abando

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

moltonel 3x Combo writes: > To me the distinguishing criteria between disused and abandoned is > wether the rails are still present or not. Indeed. disused means the rails are still there. Abandoned means that the rails are gone. Dismantled (or some people use razed) is when a section of the rai

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

moltonel 3x Combo writes: > The demolished: prefix only makes sense when there is something left > of the former feature, typically rubble (useful for example to alert > boattripers of the hazard). When there is nothing left in reality, > there should be nothing left in OSM. Question: should w

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Glenn Powers writes: > For the record, I deleted an abandoned railway that leads through a new > housing development, because it didn't make any sense to leave it there. > > Satellite images clearly show ground gradings indicating an abandoned > railway. IIRC, it was also featured in century-

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 08/16/2015 03:11 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Also I have the impression that, contrary to what you're saying, at > least some proponents of abandoned railway mapping find it totally ok to > map an abandoned railway that "leads through" a modern day housing > development. For the record, I delet

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 19/08/15 01:36, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > Be carefull not to mix up database history and real-world history. > Database history keeps track of the mapping process, as geometry gets > refined, details get added, and blunders get reverted. World history > tracks what the world was like at a speci

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 18/08/2015, Lester Caine wrote: > On 18/08/15 13:04, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> Remember that deleted osm objects *are* kept in the osm history and >> can even be undeleted (finding the old object id is currently a pain, >> but I certainly hope that this'll become easyer someday). Deleting an

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 03:27:14PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/18/2015 03:21 PM, Richard wrote: > > Especially as many railways come with more or less dense key:ele tagging > > they are much more reliable to derive height profile information than any > > other data we have. > >

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 18/08/15 13:04, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > Remember that deleted osm objects *are* kept in the osm history and > can even be undeleted (finding the old object id is currently a pain, > but I certainly hope that this'll become easyer someday). Deleting an > object is hardly different from editing

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Hi, On 08/18/2015 03:21 PM, Richard wrote: > Especially as many railways come with more or less dense key:ele tagging > they are much more reliable to derive height profile information than any > other data we have. Do I understand you correctly: We should map abandoned railways because we lack

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:07:05PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/11/2015 07:09 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > Now, you might think "Goddamnit, does Russell have to start again?" > > Yes, I have to start again. I was in north-western Pennsylvania last > > weekend looking for the Corry Jun

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 18/08/2015, Russ Nelson wrote: > Serge Wroclawski writes: > > TIGER wasn't what I was referring to. > > > > Please don't speak on my behalf. > > Very well. Feel free to point to anything anywhere that people are > afraid to delete. I want to see 1) something that obviously doesn't > belong t

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 18/08/2015, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17/08/2015 10:48 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: >> On 17/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 17.08.2015 um 02:39 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo : * A broken bridge with just a few meters left on both riverbanks >>> I surely wouldn

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

2015-08-18 2:30 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Retag the middle bit demolished:bridge=yes would be a better solution? > Retains all the data. If the bridge were rebuilt then it could simply be > retagged back. > Features that are gone from world should be also removed from OSM. There

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

sent from a phone > Am 18.08.2015 um 04:46 schrieb Nicolás Alvarez : > > They are easy to survey and verify: shops either have them in a sign visible > from outside, or in a sign inside near the point of sale around here they don't have these signs but they have to be on the receipt and you

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 2015-08-18 02:13, Warin wrote: > On 17/08/2015 11:13 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > >> ...which IMHO is part of the bigger picture of data quality. Quality is not >> the same as perfection. It is about agreeing things, complying with what has >> been agreed, the ability to measure the complia

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Absolutely agreed. I am trying to ignite a constructive debate here, not to get a specific answer to a rhetorical question. I have been around OSM long enough to know how it "works." On 2015-08-18 01:49, Warin wrote: > On 17/08/2015 11:54 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, > > On 08/17/2015 03:13

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

2015-08-17 6:04 GMT-03:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > sent from a phone > > > Am 17.08.2015 um 08:28 schrieb Colin Smale : > > > > OSM IDs are too volatile, and IIRC there were objections to putting > "foreign keys" (like shop branch numbers) into OSM on the grounds that > someone would need to ma

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Serge Wroclawski writes: > TIGER wasn't what I was referring to. > > Please don't speak on my behalf. Very well. Feel free to point to anything anywhere that people are afraid to delete. I want to see 1) something that obviously doesn't belong there, 2) which isn't TIGER and 3) evidence that s

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 17/08/2015 10:48 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: On 17/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 17.08.2015 um 02:39 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo : * A broken bridge with just a few meters left on both riverbanks I surely wouldn't have removed this one. Isn't this a significant feature to many peop

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 17/08/2015 11:13 PM, Colin Smale wrote: On 2015-08-17 13:37, Warin wrote: On 17/08/2015 4:28 PM, Colin Smale wrote: Will the free-tagging laissez-faire camp win, or will the curated/managed tagging camp win? I'm in the 'systematised free tagging' camp .. I want a structure that has a

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 17/08/2015 11:54 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 08/17/2015 03:13 PM, Colin Smale wrote: So if I think something is useful to me, and I am prepared to maintain it to my own satisfaction, I can feel free add it I'd think it should be documented in the wiki .. so others can 'see' what it is

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Hi, On 08/17/2015 03:13 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > So if I think something is useful to me, and I am prepared to maintain > it to my own satisfaction, I can feel free add it ... to a file on your local computer where it will continue to please you for years to come ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ra

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 2015-08-17 13:37, Warin wrote: > On 17/08/2015 4:28 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > >> If only all this energy were directed at helping OSM forwards. We haven't >> had a lot of progress in the last few years (I am not talking about mapping >> as such, but about the OSM framework itself). >>

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 17/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Am 17.08.2015 um 02:39 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo : >> >> * A broken bridge with just a few meters left on both riverbanks > > I surely wouldn't have removed this one. Isn't this a significant feature to > many people? In only deleted the middle bit, no

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 17/08/2015 4:28 PM, Colin Smale wrote: If only all this energy were directed at helping OSM forwards. We haven't had a lot of progress in the last few years (I am not talking about mapping as such, but about the OSM framework itself). There are still periodical discussions about how to li

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

sent from a phone Am 17.08.2015 um 02:53 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo : >> http://www.dieter-kloessing.de/Berlin/Berlin-Zehlendorf3.html#Anchor-Stammbahn-47857 > > That actually looks like disused rather than abandoned to me. these are clearly abandoned, have been there (although the linked pag

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

sent from a phone > Am 17.08.2015 um 02:39 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo : > > * A broken bridge with just a few meters left on both riverbanks I surely wouldn't have removed this one. Isn't this a significant feature to many people? cheers Martin __

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

sent from a phone > Am 17.08.2015 um 08:28 schrieb Colin Smale : > > OSM IDs are too volatile, and IIRC there were objections to putting "foreign > keys" (like shop branch numbers) into OSM on the grounds that someone would > need to maintain that link. Some people are adding tax identifica

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Russ, TIGER wasn't what I was referring to. Please don't speak on my behalf. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

If only all this energy were directed at helping OSM forwards. We haven't had a lot of progress in the last few years (I am not talking about mapping as such, but about the OSM framework itself). There are still periodical discussions about how to link OSM with other data sources - OSM IDs are

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Richard Fairhurst writes: > Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Inferring from that that there must have been a railway there is a > > step too far. We are mappers, not trappers. > > Tell me again you can't infer there must have been a railway there. I dare > you. I double dare you. Nobody is asking

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Warin writes: > On 16/08/2015 1:35 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > Seriously? THIS is your line of reasoning? There's a simple way to > > empower them: If it's got TIGER tags and you don't see it, delete it. > > TIGER tags? > > Don't they only occur in one area of the world? Rather a small view

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 16/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > it really depends, this is an example for an abandoned railway where reading > the traces is quite easy, and which is tagged (IMHO correctly) as abandoned > railway in osm: > http://www.dieter-kloessing.de/Berlin/Berlin-Zehlendorf3.html#Anchor-Stammbahn-

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 16/08/2015, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Frederik Ramm wrote: >> What everybody can see is a clearing or change in the surface >> of something. That's fine to map. >> >> Inferring from that that there must have been a railway there is a >> step too far. We are mappers, not trappers. > > Ok, let's

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

sent from a phone > Am 16.08.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Frederik Ramm : > > What everybody can see is a clearing or change in the surface of > something. That's fine to map. > > Inferring from that that there must have been a railway there is a step > too far. We are mappers, not trappers. it rea

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Frederik Ramm wrote: > What everybody can see is a clearing or change in the surface > of something. That's fine to map. > > Inferring from that that there must have been a railway there is a > step too far. We are mappers, not trappers. Ok, let's try an experiment. Go to http://cycle.travel/m

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Hi, On 08/16/2015 08:55 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > this thread as far as I have understood is not about "things that have > disappeared without any traces" but it is about "things that might not > be recognized by everybody but are there, on the ground" What everybody can see is a clearing

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

2015-08-16 11:03 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm : > Data that is not verifiable on the ground is the absolute *exception* in > OSM, and needs a very strong reason for being there. > this thread as far as I have understood is not about "things that have disappeared without any traces" but it is about "t

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Colin, it is a very common fallacy in OSM to claim that out of some sense of "fairness", the fact that there is already some data in OSM that violates some rules (e.g. boundaries being in OSM even though hardly verifiable on the ground) is an automatic enabler of any and all other content viola

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 16/08/2015 1:29 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: Warin writes: > On 15/08/2015 3:46 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > Railway=dismantled. Doesn't get rendered except where it should be, > do you still want railway=disused to remain? Are we even talking about the same thing? Let's assume that you made

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 15/08/2015 10:08 PM, Lester Caine wrote: On 15/08/15 12:55, Colin Smale wrote: Good question. We assume they were not entered from sources without a suitable licence. Should we delete them? I certainly don't need to know where the gas pipelines are. But someone buying a house close by may be

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 16/08/2015 1:35 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: Serge Wroclawski writes: > Our project's policy thusfar has been in contrast to other projects in that > each and every one of us is empowered to make changes to anything we see. You're starting to understand! You should make changes to things you se

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 15 August 2015 16:29:56 GMT+01:00, Russ Nelson wrote: >Are we even talking about the same thing? Let's assume that you made a >s mple t po. > >Don't those last two words look a little weird with missing bits? >Shouldn't those letters be there? Shouldn't the dismantled bits of a >railroad be i

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 15/08/15 16:29, Russ Nelson wrote: > Now, I'm sure somebody will, at some point say, "Russell, just go off > to OpenHistoricalMap and put your data there." That's fine, except for > those pesky implementation details where THEY ARE IN TWO DISPARATE > DATABASES, UNCONNECTED. How, exactly, do you

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Serge Wroclawski writes: > Our project's policy thusfar has been in contrast to other projects in that > each and every one of us is empowered to make changes to anything we see. You're starting to understand! You should make changes to things you see. Things you don't see require a higher stand

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Warin writes: > On 15/08/2015 3:46 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > Railway=dismantled. Doesn't get rendered except where it should be, > do you still want railway=disused to remain? Are we even talking about the same thing? Let's assume that you made a s mple t po. Don't those last two words loo

[OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

I realize that I was not clear with my comment. My point is that we cannot resolve this issue by simply deleting data. Former railroads, or for former (historic) streets (as in Roman Street) or former important road routes (like historic Route 66) could best be handled by relations. To take as an e

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

sent from a phone > Am 15.08.2015 um 13:55 schrieb Colin Smale : > > What about roman roads which are no longer visible without remote sensing or > ground penetrating radar? Are we suggesting they also have no place in OSM? actually I am living in an area with a lot of ancient roman roads, e

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

I meant it a bit rhetorically... Let's live and let live, instead of deleting stuff that *we* don't happen to be interested in. Which brings us back to Russ's original point. On 2015-08-15 14:08, Lester Caine wrote: > On 15/08/15 12:55, Colin Smale wrote: > >> Good question. We assume they

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

sent from a phone > Am 15.08.2015 um 12:31 schrieb Serge Wroclawski : > > The problem that we have in some parts of the world is a lack of data, but in > other parts, we have an abundance of bad imports, and a general timidness > around the removal of data that we can't find the owner of, whi

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 15/08/15 12:55, Colin Smale wrote: > Good question. We assume they were not entered from sources without a > suitable licence. Should we delete them? I certainly don't need to know > where the gas pipelines are. But someone buying a house close by may be interested? A number of pipelines have b

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

sent from a phone > Am 15.08.2015 um 12:31 schrieb Serge Wroclawski : > > 1. Visible on the ground but difficult to detect (ie require specialized > knowledge) > > or > > 2. No longer visible at all. no, the second case would be mistagged with railway=abandoned in most of the cases (shou

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 2015-08-15 13:15, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > >> So who decides what is good data and what is bad data? > > The community as a whole decides what is good and bad data. That starts with > the local community and moves up to the OSM com

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 15/08/15 12:15, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > So who decides what is good data and what is bad data? > > The community as a whole decides what is good and bad data. That starts > with the local community and moves up to the OSM community as a whole in > terms of whether or not data belongs in O

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > So who decides what is good data and what is bad data? > The community as a whole decides what is good and bad data. That starts with the local community and moves up to the OSM community as a whole in terms of whether or not data belongs in O

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

So who decides what is good data and what is bad data? And "visibility on the ground" needs nuancing. Are we to remove underground pipelines/power lines? Or boundaries? "Visible and/or verifiable" might be better. A rule that needs loads of exceptions, is not a well formed rule. An abandoned

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I would like to argue for a general > do-not-remove-if-you-do-not-have-the-original-mapper's-ok-beforehand policy > for these and similar cases. > > Then you are (whether or not you intend it) arguing in favor of dis-empowering users. Our

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 15/08/2015 7:19 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: I would like to argue for a general do-not-remove-if-you-do-not-have-the-original-mapper's-ok-beforehand policy for these and similar cases. I have myself mapped a couple of abandoned railways where the remains were often no longer recognizable ind

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

I would like to argue for a general do-not-remove-if-you-do-not-have-the-original-mapper's-ok-beforehand policy for these and similar cases. I have myself mapped a couple of abandoned railways where the remains were often no longer recognizable individually as traces of a former railway, but as a

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 15/08/2015 3:46 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: Mateusz Konieczny writes: > In another case where railway tracks that were removed, embankment > demolished and somebody build there houses. In that case railway > track should not be mapped in OSM because this feature is gone. Railway=dismantled.

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Mateusz Konieczny writes: > In another case where railway tracks that were removed, embankment > demolished and somebody build there houses. In that case railway > track should not be mapped in OSM because this feature is gone. Railway=dismantled. Doesn't get rendered except where it should be,

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 14/08/15 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:51:13 +0100 > Lester Caine wrote: > >> But the >> one thing that the current model has got the capability of handling is >> start and stop dates for any facet of an object from the name of a >> shop to the evolution of the road

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 14/08/2015 10:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone Am 14.08.2015 um 05:09 schrieb Russ Nelson : We allow original research and expert testimony. So, is OSM to contain only the obvious that everyone can see? Or should it contain everything that can be seen? well spoken, I

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:51:13 +0100 Lester Caine wrote: > But the > one thing that the current model has got the capability of handling is > start and stop dates for any facet of an object from the name of a > shop to the evolution of the road and rail system over time. That the > 'main' database

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 14/08/15 22:03, Ian Sergeant wrote: > On 15 August 2015 at 00:12, Lester Caine > wrote: > > As I have said before 'Delete' is something that should never happen on > what has at some time been correct information. 'Archive' is the correct > term and makin

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 15 August 2015 at 00:12, Lester Caine wrote: > As I have said before 'Delete' is something that should never happen on > what has at some time been correct information. 'Archive' is the correct > term and making that data available as required ... Delete is only > appropriate when the material

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 14/08/15 14:16, Ian Sergeant wrote: > Wow. Every time I edit, I'm splitting ways to add relations, speed > limit changes, lane counts, etc. If the original way happens to still > existing when I've finished it's more good luck than good management. > And it's just as likely to be the stub of t

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > sent from a phone > >> Am 14.08.2015 um 10:48 schrieb Serge Wroclawski : >> >> These discussions are nuanced. Are there going to be things one >> person can identify that another can't- yes. But at the same time, I >> still think that as a project, we've collective

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 14 August 2015 at 22:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: For example we do not tolerate to delete a way and then redraw it, even if it's done better, but rather we ask people to improve what is there by iterating over the existing data. Wow. Every time I edit, I'm splitting ways to add relations

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

sent from a phone > Am 14.08.2015 um 10:48 schrieb Serge Wroclawski : > > These discussions are nuanced. Are there going to be things one person can > identify that another can't- yes. But at the same time, I still think that as > a project, we've collectively made a decision here that we don

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

sent from a phone > Am 14.08.2015 um 05:09 schrieb Russ Nelson : > > We allow original research and expert testimony. > > So, is OSM to contain only the obvious that everyone can see? Or > should it contain everything that can be seen? well spoken, I see this like you and would appreciate if

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 02:23:29 -0400 Russ Nelson wrote: > What if I was to add the aqueduct which goes past Aqueduct Race Track > on Long Island, NY? It is without question there (the name "Aqueduct" > should be a pretty good hint), yet it cannot be seen anywhere. Why not > map that? Why map the Ca

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

Russ, Instead of replying to every individual point, I'm going to address your email as a whole, which is around the idea that deletion is different from addition. These discussions are nuanced. Are there going to be things one person can identify that another can't- yes. But at the same time, I

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

On 2015-08-14 08:23, Russ Nelson wrote: Maarten Deen writes: > On 2015-08-14 07:44, Russ Nelson wrote: > > Maarten Deen writes: > > > I beg your pardon? I read this as "nothing can be deleted", since > > you > > > say that deleting something you don't see (which usually means it's > >

  1   2   >