On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Russ Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote: > Frederik Ramm writes:
> The trouble is that I'm being > threatened with having my contributions deleted! > > DELETED! > > Why incentive do I have to correctly tag, when people are saying "Go > ahead, I'm just going to delete it anyway and I'm going to encourage > other people to do the same thing." Russ, seriously. Many people already told you that if it is removed physically, then we remove it in OSM as well. Even if you use a tag "dismantled", the point isn't changing : we don't keep removed features in OSM. We map the present (and basically, I'm also if favour to delete the future, like the "planned" stuff when it's not 100% sure). There is a large consensus on that in the community. Why are you insisting ? If you like, check the OHM project which is dedicated for historical maps. I got some examples from the net: [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dunstable,_Dismantled_railway_and_National_Cycle_Network_Route_6_-_geograph.org.uk_-_146322.jpg where is the railway here ? were are the rails ? why should we keep any mention about "rails" when it's a cycleway now ? map what we see, the path or track and the cuttings/embankments. [2] http://ukbeach.guide/photos/uk-photos.php?photo=15295 [3] http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2496379 "disused" is fine here. [4] https://outoftheloopdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/p6090099.jpg Who knows that this track was a railway from 1881 to 1961 ? why should we keep any "railway" tag here ? Pieren _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
