> Am 22.05.2015 um 09:04 schrieb Frederik Ramm <[email protected]>:
>
> Yes, of course. If there is no bridge left at all then we'd simply
> delete - or refrain from mapping - the bridge (rather than create an
> object saying there was a bridge but it's gone now).
>
> Incidentally this means that OSM is not suitable for use cases like
> "let's plot all the damage done by disaster <X>" because if the damage
> is obliteration then there will be nothing in OSM that we can plot.
it depends on the structure of the bridge but if it is/was a stone bridge or
steel or concrete (i.e. a big serious bridge) it will typically not completely
vanish, even if heavily damaged and temporarily unusable the situation will
still be very different to no bridge at all (repairing will often be possible
and done, and be much less work compared to starting from scratch, eg
foundations)
Few here will remember WW II ;-) but we all know the pictures.
In 1945, Germany, after the war, reconstruction was less work than starting
from scratch because even if it looked like total destruction, the streets
impassable and blocked by rubble, but the sewage system, underground
infrastructure, overground city layout, were still mostly sane, and allowed for
much faster reconstruction than new development of a settlement would have
been. Actually more buildings and structure has break destroyed in the time
after the war (50ies/60ies) with the will of modernization than had been
destroyed in the war.
cheers
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
