On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote: > On 28/09/2010 01:41, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> Strawman. We're only talking about former railway alignments. > > Hmm... not sure you understand the meaning of the straw man argument. > > ----- > > You're (sic) statement "Because we don't only map what's currently there." > proves > you (& I) have moved the discussion on to include all data.
False dichotomy. There's a big difference between mapping only what's current and mapping everything that has ever existed. > >>> Why do you think it should remain in the OSM database? >> >> Because it's of local interest even where no linear traces remain. > > As I said before (I shall repeat as you evidently didn't read it), I agree, > it *is* of interest & the data should be kept, just not within the OSM > database. Then what database would you move it to? > > From your last missive: > > "Because we don't only map what's currently there. > To expand on this: > http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/old_name/ > http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/old_ref/"; > > This is a poor argument. These are clearly for *current* entities that are > still in existence, but have been renamed. Either way it's historic information. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
