2009/6/8 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>: > I was actually trying to suggest that it might, in some cases, really > make sense for things to be shared between the then and the now. If you > take the Parthenon in Rome, then the geometry should be pretty much the > same between now and ancient times, and as you say, refining the > geometry of today's tourism=attraction should ideally also improve the > ancient place_of_worship=church. This could not be done if you have > Ancient Rome on a separate server.
sorry, but to prevent confusion, I'd like to put some details right: I guess you are talking about the pantheon (the parthenon is in Athens): today's tourism=attraction is still a place_of_worship=church (maybe the ancient one never was a church but a place_of_worship it definitely was). The geometry for some time was quite different, as Bernini constructed to towers upon the front part (pronaos): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Roma_Pantheon_c1835.jpg/800px-Roma_Pantheon_c1835.jpg but they were brought down in late 19th century. The problem is, that usually you won't find a place after 2000 years like it was before. The ground will rise, people will construct upon, others might tear down (look here for instance, medieval construction on top/inside of a roma theatre, quite common, you can find this in France too: http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/20763.jpg). Todays state is just what is left, the ancient state might be different (even the massive pyramids of egypt shrunk a little bit due to erosion) What I try to point out: if someone wants to put data of ancient Rome in OSM, it will most probably not be based on the way we usually collect data. I will be some import from archeological surveys. You might want to update the today-layer based on this data (if you know, which part exactly is which in todays building), but you definitely won't want some yahoo-aerial painter to mess with your cm-precise archeological data ;-). > Much as we pride ourselves in topological correctness - for us, a > junction is not where two linear shapes happen to intersect, but an > explicitly placed node that, if moved, will modify both shapes -, I > would also love to see continuity in the temporal dimension, i.e. I > would prefer the Parthenon to use the same nodes, then and now, because > it *is* the same building. to give another example: this building is roughly 100 years, but the question whether it is the same is not easy to answer, as it was partly reconstructed: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/0/00/Berliner_dom_1900.jpg http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Berliner_Dom_1964_western_front.jpg&filetimestamp=20071223215903 http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:2006_Berliner_Dom_Front.jpg&filetimestamp=20061030222839 older buildings usually have much more phases and therefore it really get's a specialist's issue to discover, which part is from when. On the other hand there is already lots of this kind of research and if we can win these people to insert their data into our db, it would be a great source for many scopes. I would also like this, but I see lots of obstacles as we usually are not archeologists. Another possible problem for very old buildings could raise from WGS84 and plate tectonics. Not sure about this (maybe WGS84 considers this?). > I guess this has the potential to be hellishly complex but also fun. +1 cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
