Ian Dees writes: > I appreciate that there are strong feelings about this topic, but we could > certainly use more constructive language and have a civilized conversation.
I would love to have a civilized conversation with civilized people who don't destroy other people's work. You're asking for constructive language about destruction, without any apparent irony. It's really just a small handful of people who think it's okay not just to delete things, but to counsel other people to delete things. "I didn't see it, so I deleted it" is a reason for a ban, not an excuse against being banned. Of course, the defining problem here is what are these "things"? Are they something that is obvious to everyone? Or are they something that you can barely see as a shadow on an aerial photo, a bit of vegetation in the wall between fields, or a small depression in a field, or cinders where there ought to be sandy loam? I will cheerfully acknowledge that I am expert at locating abandoned railbeds, and that my expert's eye can see things other people don't see. This isn't Wikipedia. We allow original research and expert testimony. So, is OSM to contain only the obvious that everyone can see? Or should it contain everything that can be seen? I'll leave the issue of railway=dismantled where I agree that there is nothing to be seen for hundreds of feet for another day. Clearly we are talking now about railway=abandoned that can be easily discerned on the ground and from aerial photos. -- --my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk