On 24/08/2015 7:25 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
On 24/08/2015, Balaco Baco <balacob...@imap.cc> wrote:
buildings are usually
replaced much faster than maps are expected to last, and the work of
updating it twice, once for the "empty space, dem. building" and the
future "new building outline" is better done only one time.
It's nice to avoid unecessary version churn, but if a mapper keeps up
with the real-world changes there's nothing wrong with updating OSM
too. If you search the archives you'll find plenty of discussions on
"mapping temporary features" and how ephemeral a feature needs to be
before it loses its mapworthyness. For example a road closed during a
weekend is a clear no-map, but construction work is usually considered
mappable if it'll last a few months and there is a local mapper to
keep track of the updates.
"how long a map is expected to last" is a tricky question especially
for OSM. Paper maps are often updated yearly but kept for decades in
people's homes.
I have an old map passed down though the family .. 1860s .. still has features
present today.
Some features have gone, some replaced with new structures, a few moved.
While the intention was a map ... back then there was little though given to
how long it would last .. well worn and folded many times it has lasted well.
The scale varies, hand drawn and then printed on a printing press.
Would I map its features into OSM? No, most would not be interested, some would
be confused by them, some would not believe some features.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
