moltonel writes: > Still, I'd like to add one reason: none of the other tags you > mentioned have such a vehement, uncompromising, relentless champion
There is no "compromise", Moltonel. "Compromise" is where you get your way, and delete my hard work. Can you see how this is not acceptable? Whereas, from my point of view, you can compromise by accepting that abandoned railways have a place in OSM. They don't get rendered anymore, so they're not a problem there. You can hide them in JOSM. I don't know if ID lets you hide ways. Compared to all the things that *should* be mapping but aren't, having a few things that are mapped that "shouldn't" be, simply isn't a problem. Please, compromise, rather than demand that I compromise by giving in completely! The only problem that anybody has been able to articulate is the fear that at some day in the future, OSM will be overwhelmed with all the people who want to map all the things that don't exist anymore. Well, those people aren't here, I am, fear is not rational in most cases, and they aren't making more abandoned railroads anymore (Beeching is dead, and the US has railbanking). -- --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
