On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Neil Matthews wrote: > I've recently noticed a lot of "historic" edits in Bath by user SNLA > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SNLA). > > There's been some discussion on the changeset > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/49401905 > > What's the prevailing thought process on mapping mostly obliterated > historic buildings - abuse the layer tag to push them underground, > restrict them to OHM rather than OSM, or just delete them. One problem > seems to be they are joining other contemporary features and modifying > them when rectifying ruined buildings, etc. I always find Bath "a bit > fiddly" so it's not surprising. The other issue would be where > underlying data is from, in terms of copyright. > > Maybe other large historic towns have good solutions; Londinium, Eboracum?
I've always understood that OpenStreetMap maps what is *currently* there. Visible, and verifyable. Things that used to be there (dismantled railways, no longer visible old forts and castles, etc.), should not be on OSM. OHM is the place for that. cheers, Derick _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
