Lester Caine <[email protected]> wrote: >We still NEED some usable mechanism to maintain historic information. >On the whole the map is just growing, so just a valid start date is all >that is needed. But increasingly we have modern history where roads are >remodelled, and moving the history of those changes to something other >than the main database just seems pointless? > >----- Original message ----- >> 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 >> > >_______________________________________________ >Talk-GB mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
You might, I don't, so 'we' might not be the right way to phrase this. I've heard this before but I don't see any progress, nor much enthusiasm from most people. Personally, I'm interested in a map (and data) that reflects what I see today. Since 'historic' is completely open-ended it is unrealistic to propose adding any or all of that to OSM. Adding a ruin, that exists on the ground now and I can visit, is completely different from adding a feature that did exist but does not now. -- Cheers, Chris OSM User chillly _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
