Dave F. writes: > On 23/08/2015 01:27, Balaco Baco wrote: > >>> What we need is a > >>> database that already has all the data and simply identify when some > >>> small elements of it cease to be current. > >> In OSM we do that by deleting the small elements ;) > > I'm sorry. But this is just a stupid thing to do. > > Are you saying if a building gets demolished & replaced with a new one, > you wouldn't remove the original outline from OSM?
This is also a strawman argument. Stop it. You are hurting your own case, and making my case. Do you really want to help the railway=dismantled people? No, you do not. So abandon this line of argument -- it is failure incarnate. Not a single person so far has suggested that everything that used to exist, or everything that has already been mapped but since changed, should remain. NOT ONE PERSON. Instead, I and others have said that since you can see a railway at point A, and you can see a railway at point B, it only makes sense to map it between those points for several reasons: o Chances are good that there are artifacts between point A and B that further investigation will reveal. o Mappable entities exist between those points which can only be understood by including the dismantled railways (e.g. bridges, roads, or buildings). o It's possible that cadastral data would reveal the presence of a right-of-way, and (I think, but correct me if I'm wrong) everybody agrees that there is way too much cadastral data to include in OSM, and it's something that must be imported because it only exists in a real property office's database. I can point to examples of all of the above. Please don't doubt me. You don't want me to have more facts on my side. -- --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
