On 24/08/2015 04:23, Balaco Baco wrote:
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.
No. If it's gone, it's gone. If there's no new structure to replace it,
then leave the area empty. If it's becomes a construction site, tag it
as that. If it becomes a brownfield site, tag it as that. Please base
your editing on facts & evidence.
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.
I've read this a few times & I'm struggling to comprehend. You're saying
I shouldn't remove a building from OSM that's already been demolished in
the real world because... ? <& that's where you lost me>
---
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
