Here in Belgium many of these are repurposed as cycling highway infrastructure. I wouldn't mind having highway=cycleway, railway=razed on them.
Polyglot On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 1:47 PM Mateusz Konieczny via talk < [email protected]> wrote: > > > > May 25, 2020, 06:37 by [email protected]: > > Greetings. > > > Recently, a user mapped “razed” railways inside a construction zone (link > below). These rails had been removed by our local mappers since they don’t > exist anymore. Using the latest imagery (Maxar), you can see the rails have > been completely removed from “Project 70”, a $1.2 billion Denver-area > transportation corridor construction project. > > > I think this mapper has good intentions, but what is the point of mapping > something that does not exist? Doesn’t this clearly contradict the OSM Good > Practice wiki in regards the sections, “Verifiability”, “Map what's on the > ground” and “Don't map historic events and historic features”? The last > section states, "*Do not map objects if they do not exist currently*." > > Rails were removed - but is there embankment or something similar that > makes clear > that railway line was there? > > In cases of still present embankment it is a bit tricky what is border > between "present" and "gone". > > Note also that recently gone objects may be temporarily keep to prevent > them from accidental > remapping - for example based on old memory or old aerial images. > > But yes, something completely gone can and should be deleted from > OpenStreetMap > (temporarily kept in way that marks it as gone if likely to be > accidentally remapped). > > Should we leave (invisible) destroyed buildings in place, tag them as > razed and then create new buildings on top of them? > > I do this to make people using outdated aerial images less confused. And > delete them > once aerial images are updated. > > I deleted object where people were either importing old objects, > nonexisting objects unlikely > to be remapped by accident, supposedly existing old objects that were > unverifiable. > > > > Should we map things that do not exist? > > No, but remapping existing objects as "this is gone now" (building=yes -> > demolished:building=yes) > is often a good idea. > > But someone adding nonexisting railways, nonexisting buildings, historic > boundaries and so on > should stop, and such additions be reverted. > > (note that ruined buildings, ruined railways are mappable, just completely > gone are not). > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
