Peter Miller <peter.miller@...> writes: >What do you do when a road has completely gone? Mascall Avenue in Oxford >has completely gone. There's a new housing estate, with a road network that >doesn't match what was there before, so there's no way to mark with old_name >or not:name or anything. > >I suggest that the main upload process should spot an attempt to add back a >feature which has been removed with the message ' Mascall Avenue was removed by >-this- edit on xx-xx-xxxx with the comment 'blar blar' Are you sure you want to >add it back'. A bot would also ideally do this prior to it getting to the >upload >stage. Wikipedia has a similar warning for people attempting to re-create a >previously deleted article.
Hmm, just possibly, but I think relying on user intelligence and good judgement is better. (The mapper needs to have those anyway.) Nobody would blindly trace a street from OS through the middle of some existing features - at least I hope not! And any putative bot should definitely behave better than that too. I would suggest that whoever removed Mascall Avenue from the map should have mapped what replaced it - a brownfield site or whatever - to avoid future confusion. It's most unlikely for features to be removed from OSM and replaced with an entirely blank canvas. The Wikipedia parallel is not exact: an article is deleted from Wikipedia usually not because the thing it refers to doesn't exist in the real world, but because it is not 'notable' or 'verifiable' or has been merged into another article. OSM has a much simpler criterion of whether the thing exists. -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
