0
1

I have come across many many occurrences of shake holes* being marked as "old mining?" the problem I see with this is threefold (detailed below), however I wanted to check I wasn't jumping the gun, as I don't want to offend anyone.

  1. I am assured by my friend (who has a Geology degree) that the features are not from old mining but are indeed, as I suspected, natural formations resulting from the limestone rock under the soil being dissolved away.
  2. Even if they were mine workings the name tag is not the correct way to identify this.
  3. The features are marked with areas when I would have thought (although when I think too hard things too often get broken!) that these were better marked consistently with points. Although i accept this will be very time consuming.

What I want to check is: How should I best correct this issue? Should I correct to points or areas? Should

*(A natural depression in a land surface communicating with a subterranean passage, generally occurring in limestone regions and formed by solution or by collapse of a cavern roof. Defenition from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Shake+hole)

For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93798676

Image showing example of the problem

asked 22 Sep '16, 21:00

BarnsleyOli's gravatar image

BarnsleyOli
916611
accept rate: 0%


FWIW When I've been walking in that area I've come across quite a few named "old mining ?" areas and "historic=mineshaft" nodes that simply didn't match anything on the ground, so I just deleted them. I believe I contacted the mapper concerned (the same one as you, who as I understand it is actually historically pretty familiar with the area, and may even also have a geology degree!) at the time.

Assuming you're doing this from ground survey I'd just do the same. Even if not, then you can probably still compare https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93798676 (alleged source, Bing) with the current Bing imagery and still delete it. I'd probably also mention via a changeset discussion comment on the original changeset that you've deleted it because you see no evidence of it.

permanent link

answered 22 Sep '16, 21:21

SomeoneElse's gravatar image

SomeoneElse ♦
31.9k63327744
accept rate: 15%

Thanks for the answer. The reason I asked the question is I assumed that the original editor would have a pretty good idea what they were talking about to have put in so much effort. Also, to confirm, I am doing this from ground survey and using GPS offset corrected Bing imagery as a background. (FWIW I only mentioned the geology degree as an indication I wasn't doing this on a whim!) Thanks Again!

(22 Sep '16, 21:42) BarnsleyOli

Just to check: What are your thoughts on removing the "name" tags from these areas? Would this be too pedantic?

(22 Sep '16, 21:44) BarnsleyOli

I'm pretty sure that way doesn't really have a name of "old mining ?". If it was an old mining area, then that might be a description of what it was, but not its name.

(22 Sep '16, 21:53) SomeoneElse ♦

Agree with all of the above. Also I know for sure that the original editor does have a Geology degree. I think it's worth using a changeset discussion to raise the issue with him directly. Also I think natural=sinkhole is the most widely used tag.

(23 Sep '16, 10:57) SK53 ♦
Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×815
×178
×164

question asked: 22 Sep '16, 21:00

question was seen: 2,080 times

last updated: 23 Sep '16, 10:59

powered by OSQA