On 08/09/15 12:58, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> The historical tag can be used to indicate that the viaduct was >> > previously used as a railway. It should be used in conjunction with >> > other tags such as man_made. > Is there anything **currently** making clear (or at least indicating) > that it is constructed as a railway bridge? Is there any difference? > > Historical data should not be added and if present - removed.
This is perhaps the sticking point? A structure exists due to the previous construction of say a railway and it gets 're-tasked' to something else. If it's called 'the old railway viaduct' then that is acceptable, but if it's just called 'the viaduct' one is not allowed to add in some way 'formally the xxx railway'? Having to dig back through change log data to establish that was previously mapped while it was a something else when many locals will be looking for 'the old xxx' is wrong. If the object being mapped has an historical aspect there should be no objection to adding that data and no one has a right to remove it. Even 'site of xxx' has a precedent to map it if there is some marker visible on the ground but no other indication it ever existed. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
