On 6/27/18 9:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-06-27 15:38 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com > <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>: > > Sometimes it makes sense to do not fully delete OSM elements > representing completely > destroyed objects. > > For example, completely destroyed road should not be present in > OSM, but it may make sense > to keep destroyed:highway=service until it is not visible on > various aerial images to avoid remapping > it by armchair editors. > > > > Generally I agree it can be helpful to state for a transition time > that something is gone but still visible in common aerial imagery. > > What is a "completely destroyed road"? Can there still be the roadbed? > Drainage system / remains? Much more common than something vanishing > completely is partial removal or decay. Often, traces remain. We > should also raise awareness in this regard, so that people consider > their options carefully after discovering a discrepancy between the > ground reality and our map. > > For a very specific use case there is natural=tree_stump which can > often be a good choice to convert a natural=tree into, after it was > cut. But it isn't suitable if they removed the stump as well > (encountered this just 2 days ago). i would tend to use the existing disused: namespace for things that are disappearing.
richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
