Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
Le 25.10.22 à 19:45, Colin Smale a écrit : Are underground pipelines and electricity transmission cables just as controversial? They are covered over, built on, and completely unobservable from the surface in several European countries, the markers are visible from satellite imagery and by survey, this is not at all comparable with a railway line that has been dismantled and no longer exists on the ground even if some earthworks/cutting are still visible (perhaps a tag would be needed to indicate earthworks) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
Le 25.10.22 à 20:26, Minh Nguyen a écrit : If you have time to write up your experiences in OHM's central issue tracker [1], it could have a concrete impact on the project. https://github.com/OpenHistoricalMap/issues/issues/478 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
Hi, On 10/25/22 19:18, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: In my experience, it is more often the opposite situation that happens. A mapper, unaware of the lengthy debates on the topic of former railroads, is mapping her house and removes the bit of abandoned rail currently on the map in that spot, assuming it is a data error or poor import. After all. she's quite aware that there is a house and not a railway at that location as she has personally surveyed it. Sometime later, an abandoned railway enthusiast comes along and angrily harasses the mapper for removing the bit of railway that quite rightly isn't there. In that situation, I would clearly support the mapper who has deleted the railroad. (In discussions with abandoned-railway-enthusiasts, you will often get to hear that there are remnants of a railway line that betray the former existence of it to an educated observer. If a new housing development has been built where once there was a railway, then this is obviously not a valid line of argument.) It's been my experience that allowing enthusiasts to map phantom railways causes far more grief and contention between mappers than simply drawing a line and saying "we don't map things that aren't there." I agree with that - especially as OSM is very prone to "whataboutism", and before you know it there will be a discussion somewhere about mapping some other long-gone stuff and people will say "but you allow the railways" Still I would recommend against, and also word any wiki articles to avoid, someone starting a crusade to get rid of abandoned railways. Delete the ones you encounter while mapping and which you don't see traces of - totally fine. Run an overpass query to find them all and delete them - just causes unnecessary strife. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
Vào lúc 06:40 2022-10-25, Marc_marc đã viết: when to migrate the data to ohm, I am convinced. however, having tested it this month, it's horribly non-ergonomic and I don't believe for a moment that it's within the reach of an iD contributor nor of an average contributor with josm, unless a plugin exists, which I haven't seen Thanks for giving the project a look. In the long term, I think a credible OpenHistoricalMap project will be valuable to OSM as an outlet for this kind of information that people will inevitably want to map. It's good for us to know what we're sending history-minded mappers into. I'm not surprised that you found major ergonomic issues. OSM unsurprisingly gets more attention from software developers than OHM, and not all of the OSM software that OHM forks was originally designed to be forked. If you have time to write up your experiences in OHM's central issue tracker [1], it could have a concrete impact on the project. Some good news: the iD fork is being redone based on the latest version of iD, with more usable customizations than before. [2] The development team is working on some deployment issues, but the new version should be live soon. [1] https://github.com/OpenHistoricalMap/issues/issues/ [2] https://github.com/OpenHistoricalMap/iD/pulls?q=is%3Amerged -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 1:45 PM Colin Smale wrote: > Are underground pipelines and electricity transmission cables just as > controversial? They are covered over, built on, and completely unobservable > from the surface. They may also have been taken out of service many decades > ago. > In the US, generally no. They are quite infrequently mapped, and they're tagged as an underground feature when they are. That's quite a different scenario from an ostensibly above-ground feature that is not present to the above-ground observer. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
> On 25/10/2022 19:18 CEST Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 4:37 AM Frederik Ramm mailto:frede...@remote.org> wrote: > > > in the spirit of friendly collaboration I would say that a limited amount of > > stuff-that-should-not-be-in-OSM can be *tolerated*. If someone does a > > lot of good work for OSM otherwise and would really like to record an > > ancient former railroad that ran through where their house now sits - I > > shrug and let them do it. > > > > In my experience, it is more often the opposite situation that happens. A > mapper, unaware of the lengthy debates on the topic of former railroads, is > mapping her house and removes the bit of abandoned rail currently on the map > in that spot, assuming it is a data error or poor import. After all. she's > quite aware that there is a house and not a railway at that location as she > has personally surveyed it. Sometime later, an abandoned railway enthusiast > comes along and angrily harasses the mapper for removing the bit of railway > that quite rightly isn't there. It's been my experience that allowing > enthusiasts to map phantom railways causes far more grief and contention > between mappers than simply drawing a line and saying "we don't map things > that aren't there." > I expect pages with "This page intentionally left blank" save quite a few calls to customer service. I.e. if you draw a line and label it somehow "this line should not be here" you might defuse the argument and to a point where live-and-let-live counts again. Putting an end-date on it might be a start. Are underground pipelines and electricity transmission cables just as controversial? They are covered over, built on, and completely unobservable from the surface. They may also have been taken out of service many decades ago. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 7:46 AM Marc_marc wrote: > Hello, > > Le 25.10.22 à 09:42, Warin a écrit : > > why have the tags that mean there is nothing left of it? > > I'm using from time to time as a QA-tag to avoid that a mapper > add it back I do this as well. We have had some major wildfires around where I live, and a lot of structures were destroyed, yet they still show up in some imagery sources. I mark these as destroyed so another mapper doesn't add them back. Also trails are constantly being rerouted, and yet the old location will be shown on imagery and Strava for some time. Tagging the ols trail with a life cycle prefix lets other mappers know that what they are seeing on imagery doesn't match reality. Mike > > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 4:37 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > in the spirit of friendly collaboration I would say that a limited amount > of > stuff-that-should-not-be-in-OSM can be *tolerated*. If someone does a > lot of good work for OSM otherwise and would really like to record an > ancient former railroad that ran through where their house now sits - I > shrug and let them do it. In my experience, it is more often the opposite situation that happens. A mapper, unaware of the lengthy debates on the topic of former railroads, is mapping her house and removes the bit of abandoned rail currently on the map in that spot, assuming it is a data error or poor import. After all. she's quite aware that there is a house and not a railway at that location as she has personally surveyed it. Sometime later, an abandoned railway enthusiast comes along and angrily harasses the mapper for removing the bit of railway that quite rightly isn't there. It's been my experience that allowing enthusiasts to map phantom railways causes far more grief and contention between mappers than simply drawing a line and saying "we don't map things that aren't there." ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 4:37 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > If someone does a > lot of good work for OSM otherwise and would really like to record an > ancient former railroad that ran through where their house now sits - I > shrug and let them do it. Only if someone starts to make it their > mission to map every ancient railroad in the country and/or create > relations so that you can see where trains used to ride in 1848 is when > I'll ask them to stop and find a better place for it. > This does seem to be the mission of not just one mapper but quite a few railway mappers. They are trying to maintain a historical network of railways for display on openrailwaymap.org and they like it to be a connected network without gaps. I can understand this desire, but it leads to conflicts when, for example, a huge 8 lane highway has been built across a section of razed railway. One mapper will say "well clearly there can't be any evidence of the razed railway left when the highway has been built over it", and so will cut out the section of former railway where the highway is. This leaves the sections of razed railway on either side where there probably still is some visible evidence that a railway used to exist. Those sections seem perfectly appropriate to keep. The railway mappers will then get very angry that this section was deleted because now there is a gap in the (former) rail network. This gap exists on the ground, so mapping it as such seems entirely appropriate to me. However, the rail mappers argue that existence of a visible razed railway on either side of the highway is enough evidence for the razed railway to also be mapped across where there is now highway. I've also seen it argued that unless you can 100% prove that there *aren't any* traces of a razed railway then it should be assumed that there are traces and the razed railway should not be deleted. For these railway mappers, this includes traces that are now buried under new construction or underwater in a reservoir. Clearly this is too high a burden of proof, and is not a standard we apply to any other feature type. I understand the desire to have a well connected network map of former railways, but this comes into direct conflict with OSM's primary purpose of mapping the world as it is today. -- Zeke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
On 25/10/2022 08:42, Warin wrote: If OSM is about mapping what exists today .. why have the tags that mean there is nothing left of it? The main OSM website/database shouldn't. it is for *current* data. "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and current/" https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome https://www.openhistoricalmap.org was design specifically for the purpose of representing old data. I'd be happy for a mass transfer to it of out of date data. The question with ephemeral data is, at what point in time do you refrain from adding info? I live in a historical Roman city. It would be clogged up with old infrastructure if everything was added. Cheers Dave 'living in the present' F.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Langley Brook
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 12:36, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > Thank you; that's very helpful. Unfortunately, on further examination, that map has this (other) waterway, which we have as Churchill Brook, labelled as Langley brook: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/167796053#map=17/52.56693/-1.77186 and I am reminded that we have two ways, meeting at this node: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2163354438 both labelled Churchill Brook. I think I now need to go and lie in a darkened room... -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing https://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
Hello, Le 25.10.22 à 09:42, Warin a écrit : why have the tags that mean there is nothing left of it? I'm using from time to time as a QA-tag to avoid that a mapper add it back (and in fact, I don't care, for osm, if it's demolished, removed or destroyed, because if you weren't there the day it happened, you don't know anything about it, and what matters to osm is that it's gone, that's why I just was: however, i hear the argument that a demolished railway still has a presence on site because of the civil engineering work it required. it is also regularly reused to make pedestrian/bicycle greenways it would be more accurate to map today's reality: this way has a terracing. good luck convincing those who fill this in osm :) when to migrate the data to ohm, I am convinced. however, having tested it this month, it's horribly non-ergonomic and I don't believe for a moment that it's within the reach of an iD contributor nor of an average contributor with josm, unless a plugin exists, which I haven't seen Regards, Marc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Langley Brook
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 12:36, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > Thank you; that's very helpful. Though it does beg the question of what happens to the water in the south-flowing stream represented by this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4001187 which appears as though it may be connected - and, indeed, what is its source, which may be related to this pool: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/241256722 -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Langley Brook
Thank you; that's very helpful. As it passes through "Langely Pool", I've assumed it is all known as Langley Brook. Elsewhere on the brook, the alignment of: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485634449 and the immediate section downstream from there seems dubious; the former is shown as a culvert, but the latter not, yet it is not visible on any of the available aerial photography. On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 09:54, Andy Robinson wrote: > > Andy, > > You can find it on https://maps.nls.uk/view/101584522 where there is a > "rises" note on the map. > > Cheers > Andy > > -Original Message- > From: Andy Mabbett > Sent: 24 October 2022 20:33 > To: Mappa Mercia mailing list > Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Langley Brook > > I'm trying to determine the western extent and source of Langley Brook, > which runs eastwards to join the Tame at RSPB Middleton Lakes. > > I have created this relation: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14727241 > > and it seems this unnamed way: > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/123146313#map=15/52.5704/-1.7727 > > and those linking the two might be the same, but there are intermediate > pools. Can anyone advise, please? > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk > > ___ > Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list > Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands > -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Langley Brook
Andy, You can find it on https://maps.nls.uk/view/101584522 where there is a "rises" note on the map. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Andy Mabbett Sent: 24 October 2022 20:33 To: Mappa Mercia mailing list Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Langley Brook I'm trying to determine the western extent and source of Langley Brook, which runs eastwards to join the Tame at RSPB Middleton Lakes. I have created this relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14727241 and it seems this unnamed way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/123146313#map=15/52.5704/-1.7727 and those linking the two might be the same, but there are intermediate pools. Can anyone advise, please? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
As usual (nearly all of the time!), I appreciate and agree with your well-stated clarifications, Frederik! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
Hi, you are correct in all aspects, however in the spirit of friendly collaboration I would say that a limited amount of stuff-that-should-not-be-in-OSM can be *tolerated*. If someone does a lot of good work for OSM otherwise and would really like to record an ancient former railroad that ran through where their house now sits - I shrug and let them do it. Only if someone starts to make it their mission to map every ancient railroad in the country and/or create relations so that you can see where trains used to ride in 1848 is when I'll ask them to stop and find a better place for it. In a non-railway context, the various "this does not exist any more" prefixes can have value if the object in question is still visible on aerial imagery - otherwise, if you simply delete the thing from OSM, someone else will draw it back in. The wiki should definitely say that all these tags are meant for special situations and the existence of these tags is not a reason/excuse to map every vanished object there is. I would stress "not adding more of this" over "removing the stuff that already is in OSM" though. I don't want a horde of self-appointed cleaners running through OSM "because the wiki says so". Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
On Oct 25, 2022, at 12:42 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: a > Question: about mapping of old railway infrastructure. Without "meaning to be mean," I say "oh, no, not again!" I say it like that because OSM has had this discussion many, many times. I'll be relatively brief here and have at it with a short version, one more time. OSM maps old railway infrastructure because it has very long-lasting effects on the land, affecting landuse, transportation patterns and more for decades, sometimes for centuries. OSM (and OHM, OpenHistoricalMap, considered by some a "sibling project" of OSM) map(s) these, and OSM documents [1] (even with several pictures) that we do, saying "mapping such features is acceptable where some (of the infrastructure) remains." Yes, there remains some controversy, the wiki goes to some length to explain what this is, what is a borderline case, etc. But this is a topic which has been thoroughly discussed, even as it remains being discussed to this day. Regarding other things which "don't exist today" which are NOT railways, well, those are a separate topic (from railways). There: "I didn't fix it..." but I hope that helps. [1] https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway#What_is_sufficient_to_map_a_former_railway ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] razed railways and other things that don't exist today
Hi, Question: If OSM is about mapping what exists today .. why have the tags that mean there is nothing left of it? demolished:*=* Not existing anymore because of active removal removed:*=* Not existing anymore because of active removal (possible duplicate of demolished:*=*) razed:*=* Not existing anymore because of active removal (duplicate of removed:*=*, possible duplicate of demolished:*=*) destroyed:*=* Destroyed by an event other than active demolition I think these tags would be of use in Open Historic Map (OHM) and that is possibly why they are in the OSM wiki? Possibly the OSM wiki should recommend that the data with these tags be moved to OHM? The argument for mapping these things from the 'old railway' people is that; 1) it does not render on the 'standard map' so it is not a problem. 2) it is used by Open Railway Maps (ORM) My contention is; 1a) This is a problem when people try to map new things, the old things lead to mapping things that never existed like railway=crossing where a new footway/highway is also mapped over a now non existent railway line. 1b) People mapping new things may not see the old stuff on the new imagery .. and simply delete it, leading to edit wars. 1c) People map things like an old embankment for old railway lines .. right through existing roads 3) Old data should be mapped into OHM so it can be preserved .. together with the start and stop dates .. these 2 tags are fairly well ignored in OSM. 2) ORM should take current data from OSM and old data from OHM. This would add the start/end dates that could be used in ORM to select the time period. Thus those only interested in the present could have that, and those interested in some past date could have that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
