FWIW, I do not think that "objects" that cannot be seen and don't (any longer)
exist should be in OSM.
I accept that some things that cannot be seen (but do currently exist, in some
form, e.g. buried pipelines, administrative boundaries) should be included in
OSM.
Regards,Peter
PeterPan99
On Monday 1 September 2025 at 19:20:49 BST, Daniel Hatton via Talk-GB
<[email protected]> wrote:
I've just tentatively marked a line - way #1426446375 - which is of
historical significance for three reasons:
- it's a former route of the public right of way whose current route is
on the map as ways #236141514, #1316968262, #499954461, #236141513,
and #499954465
- it was the eastern boundary of one of the fields ("Church Field") in
the pre-inclosure strip farming system of the parish where it's
situated
- it's the route of a Roman road that was widely misidentified in the
19th century as the Icknield Way (the current consensus is that the
name "Icknield Way" belongs to another Roman road running parallel
with it, about 2.7km further east)
I've looked both on the ground and in satellite imagery, and there's no
obvious trace of the line currently at surface.
What's people's view on whether this line should be marked in OSM, and
if so, what tags it should have?
--
Kind regards,
Dan Hatton
Dr. Daniel C. Hatton
E-mail: [email protected]
Signal: dch.28
SIP: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
