Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
82 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Joseph Eisenberg
This was originally sent to the Talk mailing list, but it is better if it is discussed on the Tagging mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

I agree that razed, completely demolished railways, where all traces of the former track-bed have been removed, should be removed from OpenStreetMap.

It is still considered acceptable to map abandoned railways, where the old railway grade remains, even though the metal rails have been removed. 

However, note that there are some people who are very committed to mapping historical and abandoned railways, so there may be resistance to removing these features.

See the long discussions about rendering railway=abandoned at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 and https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/586 for example.


– Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 9:40 PM Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:

Greetings.


Recently, a user mapped “razed” railways inside a construction zone (link below). These rails had been removed by our local mappers since they don’t exist anymore. Using the latest imagery (Maxar), you can see the rails have been completely removed from “Project 70”, a $1.2 billion Denver-area transportation corridor construction project.


I think this mapper has good intentions, but what is the point of mapping something that does not exist? Doesn’t this clearly contradict the OSM Good Practice wiki in regards the sections, “Verifiability”, “Map what's on the ground” and “Don't map historic events and historic features”? The last section states, "Do not map objects if they do not exist currently."


Should we tag (invisible) razed sidewalks? Should we leave (invisible) destroyed buildings in place, tag them as razed and then create new buildings on top of them?


https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/39.78016/-104.94562




_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Colin Smale


On 2020-05-25 07:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

This was originally sent to the Talk mailing list, but it is better if it is discussed on the Tagging mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
I agree that razed, completely demolished railways, where all traces of the former track-bed have been removed, should be removed from OpenStreetMap.
 
It is still considered acceptable to map abandoned railways, where the old railway grade remains, even though the metal rails have been removed. 
 
However, note that there are some people who are very committed to mapping historical and abandoned railways, so there may be resistance to removing these features.

1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not be your hobby, but it is their's. The bar to actively deleting other people's work should be set very high indeed.

2. In the present, it IS a former trackbed, even if you can't see it. In the past it was an active rail line.

3. In terms of database bloat, abandoned/razed rails have a completely insignificant impact.

4. Downstream consumers/renderers have always been able to ignore things as they see fit, they can quite easily ignore razed tracks as well.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Phake Nick
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
I personally think such should still be tagged as long as the space, or the right of way, still remain, but not when it have been completely removed, integrated into surrounding area, and redeveloped, unless traces or marks of either the remain of the rail system itself or the space previous used by the rail can still be found despite redevelopment.

在 2020年5月25日週一 13:06,Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> 寫道:
This was originally sent to the Talk mailing list, but it is better if it is discussed on the Tagging mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

I agree that razed, completely demolished railways, where all traces of the former track-bed have been removed, should be removed from OpenStreetMap.

It is still considered acceptable to map abandoned railways, where the old railway grade remains, even though the metal rails have been removed. 

However, note that there are some people who are very committed to mapping historical and abandoned railways, so there may be resistance to removing these features.

See the long discussions about rendering railway=abandoned at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 and https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/586 for example.


– Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 9:40 PM Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:

Greetings.


Recently, a user mapped “razed” railways inside a construction zone (link below). These rails had been removed by our local mappers since they don’t exist anymore. Using the latest imagery (Maxar), you can see the rails have been completely removed from “Project 70”, a $1.2 billion Denver-area transportation corridor construction project.


I think this mapper has good intentions, but what is the point of mapping something that does not exist? Doesn’t this clearly contradict the OSM Good Practice wiki in regards the sections, “Verifiability”, “Map what's on the ground” and “Don't map historic events and historic features”? The last section states, "Do not map objects if they do not exist currently."


Should we tag (invisible) razed sidewalks? Should we leave (invisible) destroyed buildings in place, tag them as razed and then create new buildings on top of them?


https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/39.78016/-104.94562




_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


sent from a phone

> On 25. May 2020, at 07:06, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It is still considered acceptable to map abandoned railways, where the old railway grade remains, even though the metal rails have been removed.


As a side note these are “dismantled” railways, while abandoned railways have the metal rails still more or less in place

Cheers Martin



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Colin Smale


sent from a phone

On 25. May 2020, at 08:54, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> wrote:

1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not be your hobby, but it is their's. The bar to actively deleting other people's work should be set very high indeed.


+1
I completely subscribe to this 

Cheers Martin 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Colin Smale

Hola,

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 08:52:21AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> 1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not
> be your hobby, but it is their's. The bar to actively deleting other
> people's work should be set very high indeed.

I subscribe to this aswell. As long as it does not collide with stuff
in use we should be able to tolerate data of historic or special purpose
most of us probably do not aim for.

The broad scope of your subject must otherwise be answered with: "No"

It IS Best Common Practice to follow the "On the ground" rule with only
very few exceptions.

And IMHO we cant lift that. OSM needs to have a common ground to discuss
matters and sometimes reality is already pretty hard to agree on. If we
now add stuff in history or in the minds of mappers we open a pretty
difficult can of worms.

So - To quote from Postels Law - On of the inventors of the Internet:

"Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others"

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by dieterdreist



May 25, 2020, 09:47 by [hidden email]:


sent from a phone

On 25. May 2020, at 08:54, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> wrote:

1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not be your hobby, but it is their's. The bar to actively deleting other people's work should be set very high indeed.


+1
I completely subscribe to this 
+1, but something that is 100% gone can be deleted.

I have seen railway=abandoned mapped across open-pit mine that was there for 20 years.

There was zero chance of mappers recreating it (as oldest aerials will show open pit mine),
it was 100% gone (like embankments, railway station and dirt 20 m below).

I deleted it.

Something that is fully, completely and totally gone can be deleted. If there are buildings
across former track of the railway and embankment is leveled then it can and should
be deleted.

If there are no traces whatsoever and you need old maps to map it then it is out of
scope of OSM and deleting it improves OpenStreetMap.

There was railway here:

There are no traces whatsoever. It is not mapped, should not be mapped and
should be deleted if mapped.

I have more doubts about cases where only earthworks remain (and are used for
cycleway/road/path). You can plausibly guess that railway was there but it is just a
guess and typically you need old maps to confirm that it was there.

And in some cases such features look like former railway but that is not really true.

But something that is totally gone should be gone from OpenStreetMap (with exceptions
for objects marked as gone and temporarily not deleted to prevent incorrect remapping).


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Phake Nick
In reply to this post by Florian Lohoff-2


在 2020年5月25日週一 16:12,Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]> 寫道:

Hola,

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 08:52:21AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> 1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not
> be your hobby, but it is their's. The bar to actively deleting other
> people's work should be set very high indeed.

I subscribe to this aswell. As long as it does not collide with stuff
in use we should be able to tolerate data of historic or special purpose
most of us probably do not aim for.

The broad scope of your subject must otherwise be answered with: "No"

It IS Best Common Practice to follow the "On the ground" rule with only
very few exceptions.

And IMHO we cant lift that. OSM needs to have a common ground to discuss
matters and sometimes reality is already pretty hard to agree on. If we
now add stuff in history or in the minds of mappers we open a pretty
difficult can of worms.

So - To quote from Postels Law - On of the inventors of the Internet:

"Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others"

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Your email initially sound like you thinl they shouldn't be deleted but then it sound like you think they shouldn't be kept?


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Florian Lohoff-2
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:12:34PM +0800, Phake Nick wrote:
> > So - To quote from Postels Law - On of the inventors of the Internet:
> >
> > "Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others"
>
> Your email initially sound like you thinl they shouldn't be deleted but
> then it sound like you think they shouldn't be kept?

Its a matter of common sense. No we dont want to delete everything
immediatly - but for the sake of common ground for decisions we should
try to stick near the "On the ground" rule.

So be liberal but in case of dispute we need to stick with "On the
ground"

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Phake Nick
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list


在 2020年5月25日週一 19:35,Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> 寫道:



May 25, 2020, 09:47 by [hidden email]:


sent from a phone

On 25. May 2020, at 08:54, Colin Smale <[hidden email]> wrote:

1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not be your hobby, but it is their's. The bar to actively deleting other people's work should be set very high indeed.


+1
I completely subscribe to this 
+1, but something that is 100% gone can be deleted.

I have seen railway=abandoned mapped across open-pit mine that was there for 20 years.

There was zero chance of mappers recreating it (as oldest aerials will show open pit mine),
it was 100% gone (like embankments, railway station and dirt 20 m below).

I deleted it.

Something that is fully, completely and totally gone can be deleted. If there are buildings
across former track of the railway and embankment is leveled then it can and should
be deleted.

If there are no traces whatsoever and you need old maps to map it then it is out of
scope of OSM and deleting it improves OpenStreetMap.

There was railway here:

There are no traces whatsoever. It is not mapped, should not be mapped and
should be deleted if mapped.

I have more doubts about cases where only earthworks remain (and are used for
cycleway/road/path). You can plausibly guess that railway was there but it is just a
guess and typically you need old maps to confirm that it was there.

And in some cases such features look like former railway but that is not really true.

But something that is totally gone should be gone from OpenStreetMap (with exceptions
for objects marked as gone and temporarily not deleted to prevent incorrect remapping).

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

To add on it, I think something like https://minkara.carview.co.jp/smart/userid/177050/blog/43940205/ should still be included in the OpenStreetMap since some of their trace still exists on the ground and that it's still more or less possible to locate the alignment of the abandoned rail route.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
If there is any detectable sign that there was a rail there one day,
surely it could be mapped - and especially so if the locals still
remember and/or refer to it.

If it has been completely removed, with other things built on top of
it, or the area completely remodeled so that there is no trace of the
former railway and no expectation of reconstruction, then it depends
on whether the former railway has significance in some other less
obvious way (e.g. being part of an administrative boundary). If not,
it should probably be removed, moved elsewhere [1], or changed into
something else (what's actually there now).

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_historic_events_and_historic_features

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 2:06 AM Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> This was originally sent to the Talk mailing list, but it is better if it is discussed on the Tagging mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> I agree that razed, completely demolished railways, where all traces of the former track-bed have been removed, should be removed from OpenStreetMap.
>
> It is still considered acceptable to map abandoned railways, where the old railway grade remains, even though the metal rails have been removed.
>
> However, note that there are some people who are very committed to mapping historical and abandoned railways, so there may be resistance to removing these features.
>
> See the long discussions about rendering railway=abandoned at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 and https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/586 for example.
>
> Also see the previous discussion at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#Abandoned_railways_where_all_evidence_has_been_removed
>
> – Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 9:40 PM Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Greetings.
>>
>>
>> Recently, a user mapped “razed” railways inside a construction zone (link below). These rails had been removed by our local mappers since they don’t exist anymore. Using the latest imagery (Maxar), you can see the rails have been completely removed from “Project 70”, a $1.2 billion Denver-area transportation corridor construction project.
>>
>>
>> I think this mapper has good intentions, but what is the point of mapping something that does not exist? Doesn’t this clearly contradict the OSM Good Practice wiki in regards the sections, “Verifiability”, “Map what's on the ground” and “Don't map historic events and historic features”? The last section states, "Do not map objects if they do not exist currently."
>>
>>
>> Should we tag (invisible) razed sidewalks? Should we leave (invisible) destroyed buildings in place, tag them as razed and then create new buildings on top of them?
>>
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/39.78016/-104.94562
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



--
Fernando Trebien

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Tagging mailing list



May 25, 2020, 23:50 by [hidden email]:
then it depends
on whether the former railway has significance in some other less
obvious way (e.g. being part of an administrative boundary)
This is going too far. Glaciers left clear marks in many countries, but
mapping glaciers of last glacial maximum[1] is out of scope of OSM.

If sole trace of railway is that administrative boundary matches its course,
then it should be deleted.




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jack Armstrong Dancer@sprynet.com
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
I agree with Mateusz Konieczny. If there is some vestige of the object remaining, then mapping it in some way seems reasonable. But, if the railway, building, highway, etc., are completely removed and there are absolutely no visible remains of what was once there, it can be removed.

I don't see the need to map something that does not actually exist.

- Jack Armstrong
chachafish

-----Original Message-----
From: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Sent: May 25, 2020 4:15 PM
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Cc: Mateusz Konieczny
Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?




May 25, 2020, 23:50 by [hidden email]:
then it depends
on whether the former railway has significance in some other less
obvious way (e.g. being part of an administrative boundary)
This is going too far. Glaciers left clear marks in many countries, but
mapping glaciers of last glacial maximum[1] is out of scope of OSM.

If sole trace of railway is that administrative boundary matches its course,
then it should be deleted.







_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Skyler Hawthorne
On May 25, 2020 15:35:44 Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree with Mateusz Konieczny. If there is some vestige of the object remaining, then mapping it in some way seems reasonable. But, if the railway, building, highway, etc., are completely removed and there are absolutely no visible remains of what was once there, it can be removed.

I don't see the need to map something that does not actually exist.

- Jack Armstrong
chachafish

I agree. OSM is not a historical object database. If it doesn't exist, it shouldn't be in the data.
--
Skyler

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

voschix
This is a "problem" that is being exaggerated, in my view. There are very small percentage of historic "things" in the OSM database that really do not exist anymore in the sense that they are truly invisible.

There are plenty of historical "things" in OSM of which large parts still exist today, like the Colosseum in Rome or  the Great Wall of China, just to name two big ones.
But many of the smaller bits you still see today are part of historical artefacts, the remaining parts of which have disappeared, and then there are those in.between cases where bits are still indirectly "visible" on the ground.

One extreme example that springs to mind is The Ridgeway on the Berkshire Downs in Southern England, believed to be Europe's oldest long-distance road.  Even if it's exact course has been lost over the millennia it is today a major tourist attraction for hikers and MTB fans as the prehistoric monuments are aligned on its course like the pearls on a necklace. Most of it is today a  National Trail, but bits are missing, and no longer visible in the landscape, mainly due to human intervention. I have not checked on OSM how it is mapped - I know it from walking it in pre-OSM times.

Fast forward in history..

There was a railway form Ostiglia on the Rover Po to Treviso in Veneto, Italy, built in the early 20th century and abandoned in 1987. No rails remain, but nearly all station buildings and other ancillary buildings and many bridges are still there (or have been restored). More than half of it has been converted so far into a foot-cycle route, one of the busiest in the country. The entire course is still visible in the landscape, easily spotted from satellite imagery. This is the OSM bicycle route relation of the (existing) foot-cycleway and this is the site relation of the original railway course and (most of) the buildings and some other artefacts. Planning work is under way to complete the entire foot-cycle route from Treviso to Ostiglia. I will obtain the planing material with the aim of inserting it in OSM as proposed cycling route.

Another frequent situation is city walls that have been incorporated in more recent buildings.

Yet another example in my own city, Padova. We have three Roman bridges two of which are completely interred, a third one is interred, but partially excavated, Also the canal (formerly a river) theay are spanning, has ben interred completely, but its course is perfectly visible and the road it has been converted to is aptly named "Riviera dei Ponti Romani".

I think that in all these cases we are talking about more or less important attractions which need the historic context.
And if an OSM mapper has inserted that context information, in the extreme case in the form of razed railway tags on a hedge, or similar trivial objects, this information is a valid contribution to OSM, and I would consider removing it as vandalism.

Thanks for having read to the end.

Volker

On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 06:12, Skyler Hawthorne <[hidden email]> wrote:
On May 25, 2020 15:35:44 Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree with Mateusz Konieczny. If there is some vestige of the object remaining, then mapping it in some way seems reasonable. But, if the railway, building, highway, etc., are completely removed and there are absolutely no visible remains of what was once there, it can be removed.

I don't see the need to map something that does not actually exist.

- Jack Armstrong
chachafish

I agree. OSM is not a historical object database. If it doesn't exist, it shouldn't be in the data.
--
Skyler
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Tagging mailing list



May 28, 2020, 23:42 by [hidden email]:
This is a "problem" that is being exaggerated, in my view. There are very small percentage of historic "things" in the OSM database that really do not exist anymore in the sense that they are truly invisible.
And it should stay the same, preferably both with absolute number and percentage going down.
There are plenty of historical "things" in OSM of which large parts still exist today, like the Colosseum in Rome or  the Great Wall of China, just to name two big ones.
Noone proposed deleting objects such as Colosseum and you know that.

Colosseum is not completely gone - neither as building nor as tourism attraction and you know this
well.
One extreme example that springs to mind is The Ridgeway on the Berkshire Downs in Southern England, believed to be Europe's oldest long-distance road.  Even if it's exact course has been lost over the millennia it is today a major tourist attraction for hikers and MTB fans as the prehistoric monuments are aligned on its course like the pearls on a necklace. Most of it is today a  National Trail, but bits are missing, and no longer visible in the landscape, mainly due to human intervention. I have not checked on OSM how it is mapped - I know it from walking it in pre-OSM times.
National trail is (almost certainly) mappable but guessed route of the Ridgeway is not
something that can be mapped in OSM.

It is not a place to discuss which historian has a better guess or store all known versions
proposed as possible route.

There was a railway form Ostiglia on the Rover Po to Treviso in Veneto, Italy, built in the early 20th century and abandoned in 1987. No rails remain, but nearly all station buildings and other ancillary buildings and many bridges are still there (or have been restored). More than half of it has been converted so far into a foot-cycle route, one of the busiest in the country. The entire course is still visible in the landscape, easily spotted from satellite imagery. This is the OSM bicycle route relation of the (existing) foot-cycleway and this is the site relation of the original railway course and (most of) the buildings and some other artefacts. Planning work is under way to complete the entire foot-cycle route from Treviso to Ostiglia. I will obtain the planing material with the aim of inserting it in OSM as proposed cycling route.
Proposed features are separate can of worms but at least check copyright status of this plans.

I agree that it is good example of something on a boundary (assuming that both "rails completely gone"
and "track of former railway is recognisable"). Do you have some good images showing both?
Preferably something on Wikimedia Commons. Or on a matching license.
And if an OSM mapper has inserted that context information, in the extreme case in the form of razed railway tags on a hedge, or similar trivial objects, this information is a valid contribution to OSM, and I would consider removing it as vandalism.
Vandalism is typically reserved for edits that damage OSM database and are deliberately malicious.

Mapping razed railway where it is actually clearly recognizable is OK.

Mapping razed railway where it is no longer recognizable and requires old map or memory
to map it? Out of scope.
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 06:12, Skyler Hawthorne <[hidden email]> wrote:

On May 25, 2020 15:35:44 Jack Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree with Mateusz Konieczny. If there is some vestige of the object remaining, then mapping it in some way seems reasonable. But, if the railway, building, highway, etc., are completely removed and there are absolutely no visible remains of what was once there, it can be removed.

I don't see the need to map something that does not actually exist.

- Jack Armstrong
chachafish

I agree. OSM is not a historical object database. If it doesn't exist, it shouldn't be in the data.
--
Skyler
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Paul Allen
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

I agree that it is good example of something on a boundary (assuming that both "rails completely gone" and "track of former railway is recognisable"). Do you have some good images showing both?

I didn't map it (somebody else did), but I can observe the path of a former railway
because some of the route has the tree-lined hedges typical in this part of the world.
Often between such hedges is a farm track, or a road, occasionally a footpath, but
there is no highway along this route.  It is an otherwise inexplicable pair of tree-lined
hedges, or gaps in woodland.  With the occasional bridge, embankment and cutting.

Yes, you need historical knowledge to figure out what the route was, but you
can identify it from aerial imagery.  See if you can figure out which bit on the

Is the existence of those actual, verifiable features sufficient to justify
mapping an abandoned railway as explanation and to deter other mappers
from guessing there is a footpath or track where one doesn't exist?  Is it
sufficient to justify mapping the whole abandoned line, even though it is
less obvious along much of the route?

I might not map such a line myself, but I'd be very reluctant to remove it.
Especially as I suspect there are bridges, culverts, cuttings and embankments
along it that still exist but have not yet been mapped.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Clifford Snow


On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:29 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

I agree that it is good example of something on a boundary (assuming that both "rails completely gone" and "track of former railway is recognisable"). Do you have some good images showing both?

I didn't map it (somebody else did), but I can observe the path of a former railway
because some of the route has the tree-lined hedges typical in this part of the world.
Often between such hedges is a farm track, or a road, occasionally a footpath, but
there is no highway along this route.  It is an otherwise inexplicable pair of tree-lined
hedges, or gaps in woodland.  With the occasional bridge, embankment and cutting.

Yes, you need historical knowledge to figure out what the route was, but you
can identify it from aerial imagery.  See if you can figure out which bit on the

Is the existence of those actual, verifiable features sufficient to justify
mapping an abandoned railway as explanation and to deter other mappers
from guessing there is a footpath or track where one doesn't exist?  Is it
sufficient to justify mapping the whole abandoned line, even though it is
less obvious along much of the route?

I might not map such a line myself, but I'd be very reluctant to remove it.
Especially as I suspect there are bridges, culverts, cuttings and embankments
along it that still exist but have not yet been mapped.

I concur with Paul. I've helped do some preliminary work for a new bike route. The preliminary plan was to use the road for the bike route. When looking at OSM, next to the road was an abandoned railway. The tracks appear to be gone, but the raised bed is visible. Without the existence of the abandoned railway it most likely would have been missed. If this bike route ever comes into existence, the planners can now consider using the old railway. They may not due to cost, but at least they have the option. And they wouldn't have found the old railway from Google or local county/city drawings, just OSM.

With no artifacts left, I agree it can and should be removed. But I'm really cautious with railway lines because they can be repurposed easily.

Best,
Clifford

--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

voschix
My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some pieces that have been completely erased, but of which we have documented knowledge of where they once were. The entire thing makes sense only with all its parts. These things be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and hence, if someone has gone to the length of mapping them, should find space in OSM.
In my view a general rule that any mapper can erase any object from the map, when he does not see any trace of it, is certainly not correct , he may be removing parts of the thing thsat only with all its partsmakes sense.
Anyway i am against removing apparently useless data without consultation with the author, with the exception of clear errors.

Volker

Volker

On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 00:46, Clifford Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:29 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

I agree that it is good example of something on a boundary (assuming that both "rails completely gone" and "track of former railway is recognisable"). Do you have some good images showing both?

I didn't map it (somebody else did), but I can observe the path of a former railway
because some of the route has the tree-lined hedges typical in this part of the world.
Often between such hedges is a farm track, or a road, occasionally a footpath, but
there is no highway along this route.  It is an otherwise inexplicable pair of tree-lined
hedges, or gaps in woodland.  With the occasional bridge, embankment and cutting.

Yes, you need historical knowledge to figure out what the route was, but you
can identify it from aerial imagery.  See if you can figure out which bit on the

Is the existence of those actual, verifiable features sufficient to justify
mapping an abandoned railway as explanation and to deter other mappers
from guessing there is a footpath or track where one doesn't exist?  Is it
sufficient to justify mapping the whole abandoned line, even though it is
less obvious along much of the route?

I might not map such a line myself, but I'd be very reluctant to remove it.
Especially as I suspect there are bridges, culverts, cuttings and embankments
along it that still exist but have not yet been mapped.

I concur with Paul. I've helped do some preliminary work for a new bike route. The preliminary plan was to use the road for the bike route. When looking at OSM, next to the road was an abandoned railway. The tracks appear to be gone, but the raised bed is visible. Without the existence of the abandoned railway it most likely would have been missed. If this bike route ever comes into existence, the planners can now consider using the old railway. They may not due to cost, but at least they have the option. And they wouldn't have found the old railway from Google or local county/city drawings, just OSM.

With no artifacts left, I agree it can and should be removed. But I'm really cautious with railway lines because they can be repurposed easily.

Best,
Clifford

--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Warin
On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:

> My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible
> objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some
> pieces that have been completely erased, but of which we have
> documented knowledge of where they once were. The entire thing makes
> sense only with all its parts. These things be of interest for some
> end users of OSM data, and hence, if someone has gone to the length of
> mapping them, should find space in OSM.
> In my view a general rule that any mapper can erase any object from
> the map, when he does not see any trace of it, is certainly not
> correct , he may be removing parts of the thing thsat only with all
> its partsmakes sense.


Where an old railway line has been built over by houses, factories,
shops and roads I see no reason to retain the (historical) information
in OSM.

The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but where
there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.


> Anyway i am against removing apparently useless data without
> consultation with the author, with the exception of clear errors.



Disagree.

Once the data is in OSM it is no longer the 'property' of the author or
following editors.

If I am not certain of something I'll ask the author/flowing editors but
where I know something is wrong I'll change it without consultation.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12345