On 29/08/2015 05:03, Russ Nelson wrote:
Dave F. writes:
> 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 is also a strawman argument. Stop it.
How can it be a straw man when it's a question? I genuinely didn't
understand the previous comment so asked for clarification. This is a
perfectly acceptable thing to do in reasoning & discussion.
Instead, I and others have said that since you can see a railway at
point A, and you can see a railway at point B, it only makes sense
to map it between those points for several reasons:
o Chances are good that there are artifacts between point A and B
that further investigation will reveal.
Then map those artefacts, not the non-existent rail track
o Mappable entities exist between those points which can only be
understood by including the dismantled railways (e.g. bridges, roads,
or buildings).
Rubbish. A bridge is still recognisable as a bridge without stating its
history.
o It's possible that cadastral data would reveal the presence of a
right-of-way, and (I think, but correct me if I'm wrong) everybody
agrees that there is way too much cadastral data to include in OSM,
and it's something that must be imported because it only exists in a
real property office's database.
Please clarify what you mean by cadastre.
I can point to examples of all of the above. Please don't doubt
me. You don't want me to have more facts on my side.
---
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
