Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

On 04/08/17 at 09:20am, SK53 wrote: >Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished: >building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active >mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions. This is exactly what we try and do in Edinburgh. An

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

Dave, I would be very grateful if you did not talk about me (or David Earl, for that matter) in such an off-hand way on this mailing list. I find it really offensive. This is nothing to do with historical mapping: it's retaining an element to avoid erroneous re-mapping of a non-existent

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

This happens to be a local convention which has evolved. I have no idea how it is done in other places as I don't tend to keep track of changes in buildings and am less likely to be in the position of regularly seeing a building & then not being aware of it being demolished. So I'm not offering it

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

On 04/08/2017 12:11, Dan S wrote: 2017-08-04 12:04 GMT+01:00 Dave F : I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM is not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed from OSM. If you wish to store out date info,

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

2017-08-04 12:04 GMT+01:00 Dave F : > I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM is > not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed from > OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History Map.

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM is not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed from OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History Map. Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

Do you mean https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/445288438 is no longer there, and has been rebuilt into a rectangular building? If so, have a look at the newer DigitalGlobe imagery, and also OS OpenData StreetView to see the new building. Mind and check imagery alignment as there's normally an

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished: building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions. On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox" wrote: > Add the new building. We

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground. Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being reversed. On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: How different is the footprint of the new building? I would think that the new

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

How different is the footprint of the new building? I would think that the new building will be of a similar size to the old one - given the planing permissions. So unless you intend to put in the new building .. I would leave it alone - that gives at least an indication that there is a

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:demolished: (your note is not likely to be noticed by someone who is in the middle of editing, I suggest) 2017-08-03 16:39 GMT+01:00 Andrew Black : > What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down and >

[Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

What should one do if there are building that have been knocked down and rebuilt. Loathe just to delete them because an armchair mapper will come back and add them back. The new building is not in current bing imagary. I have added a note #1077006 I am loathe to take photos or roam with a GPS in