Couldn't agree more. Serial deletionism is a concept that I just don't understand, I'm sure it's well intentioned, but I can't see where it's coming from.
On to technical details: There is however a dificulty in distinguishing between when somone moves somthing because it was previusly mapped at low resolution, and when it's moved because it actually moved. I often find this problem when editing. To get going at least, all we need is support in renders for a closed tag, then the higher lever issue of educating people to use it (or at least not abuse it) then there are probelms like: railway=abandoned closed=1931 highway=footway JR On 25 April 2010 07:57, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote: > Dave F. wrote: >> Lester Caine wrote: >>> But well mapped rivers don't have ways down their middle >> >> Really? >> Care to expand on that please? > > MOST rivers are now being mapped fully and so are areas rather than a line > with > some arbitrary width. So there is no 'way' corresponding to some arbitrary mid > point to the river ... > >>> Even more important, we need a way to maintain historic information >>> such as '1995 boundary' where later boundaries are different. >> >> Why do we need to do that? >> I delete out of date data. >> Please explain why you think we should keep it? > > Just because YOU are not using the data does not entitle you to delete it! > The whole reason *I* am interested in OSM is as a base for documenting my > genealogical data. Being able to check a location at some point in time is > important and while many of the attempts to get time data properly tagged have > not been accepted, simple information like 'constructed=1980' would at least > allow maps to be rendered to provide a view in a particular year. ONCE that is > possible, then the related boundary information is also important. > >> If a footpath gets moved do you think I should still show a way & mark >> it as 'this is where it used to go'? > 'closed=2007' makes perfect sense to me. People then coming back to an area > that > they walked 30 years ago would then see why they can't follow the same route > today? > > Just like 'micromapping', historic information may not be of interest to > everybody, but moving forward, why would you NOT want to maintain data that > has > already been mapped. We just need agreement on how it is maintained - since > the > 'history' of object edits is simply no substitute for mapping historic data. > > -- > Lester Caine - G8HFL > ----------------------------- > Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact > L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk > EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ > Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// > Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
