On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 13:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > Jun 9, 2020, 13:55 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski <ja...@piorkowski.ca> wrote: > > > Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as > roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned > > > Nope. We'd map the portions that are existing ways like this: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236 > > If it is mapping just still existing ways, why it has "conjectural=yes" > tag? > That is a non-sequitur. The ways exist and have been mapped. The route, which consists of those ways, has been marked as conjectural. How much of it is conjectural could be a very tiny fraction of it. > > For mapping of just still existing ways it seems to be suspiciously > well matching modern infrastructure like for example in > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236#map=18/51.39839/0.45684 > Yes, roads that have been improved tend to follow their old route. Occasionally, however, a road improvement (using machinery unavailable to the Romans) includes a slight diversion. Sometimes the diversion retains the name and the original route is prefixed with "Old." Mainly, though, the routes of roads go back many centuries to days when they were little more than cart tracks. > > In other words, it seems to be a clear case of mapping guessed route of > formerm > historic no longer existing object. > It has as much (or as little) existence as a walking route. It certainly has more existence than a walking route without signs, as there are plenty of street signs for it. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
