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
