On 6/29/15 3:58 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > Is there any feature on the ground that can be surveyed? From the > image it doesn't appear that the site has any historical markers that > can be mapped. If so, I would say it doesn't belong in OSM. You'l' > have to ask OHM if they think it belongs there. > > You should also contact the editor. I'm sure she would be happy to > explain why she felt it belongs in OSM. > > Clifford > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Hans De Kryger > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Would this be better in OpenHistoricalMap? > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/33.44692/-112.09043 > >
the canal, you mean? it's probably appropriate for OHM, although i'd be interested in what is actually surveyable on the ground. the existence of something surveyable determines if anything should be in OSM in, perhaps, the disused: namespace. it were to go into OHM, of course, we like it if it's documented and start_date and end_date tags are provided. but then we'd prefer the whole canal system, or at least major chunks of it, instead of this fragment. so the answer is definitely maybe. richard -- [email protected] Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
