> Are you saying if a building gets demolished & replaced with a new one, > you wouldn't remove the original outline from OSM?
I'm saying that simply deleting the original outline, leaving nothing in its place is different than putting the *same quality outline* for the newer building that should be there. And while this new data does not exist, the old one should stay there as it is. It should, at most, be marked with a tag such as "end date" or "demolished" or anything similar. Simply deleting it is bad. And to justify the deletion for a currently demolished building is silly and naive: buildings are usually replaced much faster than maps are expected to last, and the work of updating it twice, once for the "empty space, dem. building" and the future "new building outline" is better done only one time. Further, in places like OSM, where contributors for the second part cannot even be guaranteed, it should be mandatory to follow guidelines and ideas similar to this one. -- Balaco On Sun, Aug 23, 2015, at 15:03, Dave F. wrote: > On 23/08/2015 01:27, Balaco Baco wrote: > >>> What we need is a > >>> database that already has all the data and simply identify when some > >>> small elements of it cease to be current. > >> In OSM we do that by deleting the small elements ;) > > I'm sorry. But this is just a stupid thing to do. > > Are you saying if a building gets demolished & replaced with a new one, > you wouldn't remove the original outline from OSM? > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://www.fastmail.com - Access your email from home and the web _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
