Sorry in advance, this mail just rehases arguments that I made before, but it seemed polite to reply.
On 29/08/2015, Russ Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote: > moltonel 3x Combo writes: > > One can often assert that something was here even when nothing is left > > of that thing. And is nothing is left of that thing, it shouldn't be > > mapped. > > What about point A? What about point B? The *endpoints* do indeed > continue to exist, so "nothing is left of that thing" is not true > about most dismantled railways. That's precisely it, point A and B continue to exist, they can be mapped as abandoned/disused. What's between A and B did not continue to exist, and should not be mapped. We know perfectly where New York's World Trade Center used to be but there's no tower=dismantled at that location. > Should the map look like this (A)? ___ __ ____ > > Or should it look like this (B)? ___---__-____ > > Some people are arguing for A. I argue that B is a better > representation of what is there (the underscores) because it includes > the dismantled portions (the dashes). And unsurprisingly, I argue for A. Because it reflects the current state of the railroad. I do understant the appeal of being able to create a relation where each member follow the previous one without holes. But if reality has holes, so should the relation. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
