On 11 Nov 2010, at 01:08, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > Laurence Penney wrote: >> Of course the history trace is a very valuable thing about OSM. By >> contrast, adding things which don't exist any more - mapping the past - >> is, as Richard Weait says, orthogonal to OSM. > > Not necessarily; historic roads that no longer exist can be of interest to > "normal" people in the scope of a modern map. For example the Oklahoma > Department of Transportation distributes a set of maps showing the various > historic alignments of Route 66 across the state, including some where no > trace remains on the ground ...
That stuff is cool and it's doesn't annoy anybody if people add a small number in low-intensity areas. In dense areas which have changed a lot, such as the Strand in London (with which this thread started), the job of present-day mappers would be hellish if all known historic buildings were added to OSM. Adding the Roman street layout of London would be an interesting question, and there would likely be disagreements about it. In principle, historic data is an orthogonal project. - L _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
