On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 6:16 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/12/19 Andy Allan <gravityst...@gmail.com>: >> I prefer the principle of least surprise when working with OSM data. >> The most basic analysis of the data should have the least gotchas >> possible. So we should avoid tagging things as "This is a foo. (By the >> way, no it's not)" and "This is a baz. (Psst, it was a baz three years >> ago, but not any more)" - especially when there are many different >> caveats we can put on the information. > > I'd love to bury my head in the sand and pretend things are always > simple assumptions too, but unfortunately the world has vastly > different ideas and you can either accept them or not, but it's > clearly obvious some people want to map these types of temporary > things, and even past things like the Pompai example.
Yes, I never said they shouldn't be mapped. What I am suggesting is that things which do not exist can be mapped, but since the mapping of things that do not exist is a niche passtime then appropriate measures should be taken not to confuse people working with mainstream data. If you are suggesting that highway=residential should also be used to describe things that aren't actually residential roads (but used to be), then I suggest that you are going out of your way to make life difficult for everyone, yet to no advantage of the few. Those who are interested in historical maps will need to know about the "4th dimension" and whatever tags are involved. Those who aren't, shouldn't need to. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
