I agree with Dave F here, where would you stop.
I've been updating some streetnames around the SW, and noticed that there
are now railway=abandoned going through towns and villages where there are
no remains of the tracks visible. (Housing estates clearly built over any
remnants of old lines)
Where there is physical evidence of an embankment, cutting, old track route,
then by all means record it. (I've done this myself, as it helps to
explain the topography) but this is not a historic document.
Cheers
Jason W (UniEagle)
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave F.
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 10:49 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
On 30/06/2012 15:11, SomeoneElse wrote:
Obviously "mapping things that aren't there any more" is a bigger
issue
Has there been discussion about this outside talk:railway? If there
hasn't I'm a bit annoyed that a niche user group didn't discuss it with
the wider world.
You're correct it has been discussed before but I thought there was a
conclusion - that OSM is not a historic document.
It there is physical evidence of something from days gone by then tag it
as such but if the landscape has totally obliterated it, leave it be. If
Peterito wants to create a 'railways of the past map' he should use OSM
as the _current_ background and import old ways from a separate database.
One of the problems is where do you stop? I live in a city that's goes
back beyond Roman occupation. If OSM were to be totally inclusive &
complete in a historic sense then my patch would be a right PITA to move
around within the editors, let alone amend anything.
Cheers
Dave F.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
