> -----Original Message----- > From: moltonel 3x Combo [mailto:molto...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 6:54 PM > To: EthnicFood IsGreat <ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com> > Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject > > On 14/09/2015, EthnicFood IsGreat <ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I guess we're asking that an exception to the "verifiable features > > only" rule be made for these features. > > IMHO the exception that you are asking for is not to the "verifyable only" > rule but to the > "presently existing" rule. All the abandoned/dismantled railroads I've seen > in OSM were > verifyably "previously existing" but also (where the conflict arrises as far > as I'm > concerned) verifyably "no longer present". > > This is not a rejection of your plea, just trying to make sure of what we are > talking about. > > > Simply confining abandoned railroad > > features to OHM is not a good solution, because without being able to > > view them in the context of existing features, they lose a lot of > > their value. > > Agreed, OHM is currently not very usable. > > > > I've suggested that early on, and again in my latest reply to Russ : I think > that maping the > past in OSM would be acceptable, if done properly. Some kind of "OHM done > right". > Doing things really right might require a modification of the data model, a > cross-db > synbchronisation tool, or some other cool technology... But that's just too > far off, too > hypothetical. The next best thing is a tagging system for the past. > > If it wasn't clear already, railway=dismantled, end_date, or any system that > mixes past > and present in the same namespace is IMHO not acceptable. Consumers, editors > and > tools should be able to filter out historical data with a simple rule. I've > suggested using > "past:" as a key prefix, with an optional " @ date - range" as a value suffix. > Didn't see any reply, what do people think ? > > As for opening the floodgates of historical mapping, I do not like it from a > very personal > POV, but I can recognise that there is a need, that OSM might be the best > tool to fill that > need, and that it might ultimately strengthen the poject. I just hope (and > believe and > work to make it true) that it won't be too much of a nuisance to my usecase. > And if we do open up to maping the past, I don't think that it should be > reserved to > railroads. > > I've argued against maping no-longer existing railroads in way too many > emails at this > stage, but I suggested this escape route early on. > Nobody picked it up but I think that's the only thing that currently stands a > chance of > reaching consensus. EthnicFoodIsGreat, can you see the working compromise > that Russ > cannot ? >
I would be for any compromise that allows the historical railroads to remain, including your idea. In the meantime, I am coordinating with a mapper who wishes to delete selected abandoned railroads that he encounters. He notifies me first when he encounters such a railroad, and then I copy it to OHM, so that the information will not be lost after he deletes it. > That's it for me, bye bye railroad thread, I hope. Of course I'm only one > contributor, not a > highly prolific or influential one, not an authority, just a voice. Others > have been less noisy > but more dogmatic than me on the subject. The community as a whole must decide > wether "we map the present" is still a hard OSM rule. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
