This happens to be a local convention which has evolved. I have no idea how it is done in other places as I don't tend to keep track of changes in buildings and am less likely to be in the position of regularly seeing a building & then not being aware of it being demolished. So I'm not offering it as a general solution and that needs to be said.'
I always say where to place it in context: not everyone reading these emails will want to trawl through a whole list. So I try and provide enough information for the casual reader as well as the regular reader. Different parts of the UK have evolved quite different ways of mapping certain features. Often a local consensus emerges because mappers encounter each others work and probably copy a particular approach: either, if they haven't seen such things mapped before, or if they didn't know any suitable tags. This is not a bad thing: it ensures that data does get captured, and usually it only pertains to fairly rare tags or situations. Jerry On 4 August 2017 at 12:04, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote: > I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM > is not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed > from OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History > Map. > > Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep repeat > 'Around here...' as if Nottingham is somehow different & special when > compare with elsewhere. > > On 04/08/2017 09:20, SK53 wrote: > > Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished: > building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active > mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions. > > On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox" <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground. >> Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being reversed. >> >> On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> How different is the footprint of the new building? >> >> I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old >> one - given the planing permissions. >> >> So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone >> - that gives at least an indication that there is a building there. >> >> Add a note to say it has been replaced with something similar? >> >> >> On 04-Aug-17 09:37 AM, Dan S wrote: >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished: >> > >> > (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle >> > of editing, I suggest) >> > >> > >> > >> > 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black <andrewdbl...@googlemail.com>: >> >> What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down >> and >> >> rebuilt. >> >> Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back >> and add >> >> them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary. >> >> I have added a note #1077006 >> >> >> >> I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in a hospital grounds! >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Talk-GB mailing list >> >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Talk-GB mailing list >> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb