Le 11.03.19 à 23:57, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > Mar 11, 2019, 10:28 PM by marc_marc: > Le 11.03.19 à 21:36, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > Mar 11, 2019, 8:58 PM by marc_marc_irc: > Le 11.03.19 à 19:27, Christoph Hormann a écrit : > > we map positively what verifiably exists > > with different imagery, it is possible to verify: > - that an old one shows trees: old:landcover=trees > - that a more recent one shows no trees. landcover=xyz > landuse=farmland > > We do not map what was in the past and disappeared. > > > who is we ? check taginfo for ex 288k old_name or some lifecycle prefix > if some users keep old name, I see no issue to keep the old cover in > addition to the new one. > > old_name is OK - it is for name that is older/outdated but still in use > among some people
"old_name only for name still in use" is your vision of things, I doubt it's the common meaning. When one shop is replaced by another, I always keep the old name with old_name even if no one else uses it to designate the new store. the primary purpose is to prevent someone from re-encoding the old store with an older source than mine. > The only case where it is a bit OK is for recently changed features > (note="cycleway tagged here is not yet visible on aerial images" > or note-"house visible on aerial images is demolished as of 2019-03"). some imagery takes a decade to update in some parts of the world. some deforestation is not that long old. so there's no real difference with your demolished house. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
