I think there's also this? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303225395
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote: > On 6/29/15 3:58 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > Is there any feature on the ground that can be surveyed? From the > > image it doesn't appear that the site has any historical markers that > > can be mapped. If so, I would say it doesn't belong in OSM. You'l' > > have to ask OHM if they think it belongs there. > > > > You should also contact the editor. I'm sure she would be happy to > > explain why she felt it belongs in OSM. > > > > Clifford > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Hans De Kryger > > <hans.dekryge...@gmail.com <mailto:hans.dekryge...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Would this be better in OpenHistoricalMap? > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/33.44692/-112.09043 > > > > > > the canal, you mean? > > it's probably appropriate for OHM, although i'd be interested in what is > actually > surveyable on the ground. the existence of something surveyable > determines if > anything should be in OSM in, perhaps, the disused: namespace. > > it were to go into OHM, of course, we like it if it's documented and > start_date > and end_date tags are provided. but then we'd prefer the whole canal > system, > or at least major chunks of it, instead of this fragment. > > so the answer is definitely maybe. > > richard > > -- > rwe...@averillpark.net > Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting > OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux > Java - Web Applications - Search > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us