> On 25/10/2022 19:18 CEST Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonew...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 4:37 AM Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org > mailto:frede...@remote.org> wrote: > > > in the spirit of friendly collaboration I would say that a limited amount of > > stuff-that-should-not-be-in-OSM can be *tolerated*. If someone does a > > lot of good work for OSM otherwise and would really like to record an > > ancient former railroad that ran through where their house now sits - I > > shrug and let them do it. > > > > In my experience, it is more often the opposite situation that happens. A > mapper, unaware of the lengthy debates on the topic of former railroads, is > mapping her house and removes the bit of abandoned rail currently on the map > in that spot, assuming it is a data error or poor import. After all. she's > quite aware that there is a house and not a railway at that location as she > has personally surveyed it. Sometime later, an abandoned railway enthusiast > comes along and angrily harasses the mapper for removing the bit of railway > that quite rightly isn't there. It's been my experience that allowing > enthusiasts to map phantom railways causes far more grief and contention > between mappers than simply drawing a line and saying "we don't map things > that aren't there." > I expect pages with "This page intentionally left blank" save quite a few calls to customer service. I.e. if you draw a line and label it somehow "this line should not be here" you might defuse the argument and to a point where live-and-let-live counts again. Putting an end-date on it might be a start. Are underground pipelines and electricity transmission cables just as controversial? They are covered over, built on, and completely unobservable from the surface. They may also have been taken out of service many decades ago.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
