On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For something like this, where there is very limited overlap between past
> and present, it makes sense to use a separate database. But in cases where
> most of the features still exist, such as railways or Roman roads, it's
> silly to duplicate the effort between databases (or somehow require everyone
> improving a way in one to upload it to the other and fix all intersections).
Agreed.
As long as the tagging used is such that things that no longer exist
are not normally rendered (and only show as thin outlines on standard
editors) I think including historic data shouldn't be a problem.
Compared with the amount of modern ("current") data, there's not
really that much of it, anyway, so its effect on the storage
requirements is going to be fairly small; and we still meet the
requirement of the most accurate map of what is current.
__John
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
