<div dir="ltr"><div>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. <br></div><div>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.</div><div>Anyway i am against removing apparently useless data without consultation with the author, with the exception of clear errors.</div><div><br></div><div>Volker<br></div><div><br></div><div>Volker<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 00:46, Clifford Snow <<a href="mailto:clifford@snowandsnow.us">clifford@snowandsnow.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:29 PM Paul Allen <<a href="mailto:pla16021@gmail.com" target="_blank">pla16021@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><br><div>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?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I didn't map it (somebody else did), but I can observe the path of a former railway</div><div> because some of the route has the tree-lined hedges typical in this part of the world.</div><div>Often between such hedges is a farm track, or a road, occasionally a footpath, but</div><div> there is no highway along this route. It is an otherwise inexplicable pair of tree-lined</div><div>hedges, or gaps in woodland. With the occasional bridge, embankment and cutting.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, you need historical knowledge to figure out what the route was, but you</div><div>can identify it from aerial imagery. See if you can figure out which bit on the</div><div>map it is: <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0496/-4.6166" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0496/-4.6166</a></div><div><br></div><div>Is the existence of those actual, verifiable features sufficient to justify</div><div>mapping an abandoned railway as explanation and to deter other mappers</div><div>from guessing there is a footpath or track where one doesn't exist? Is it</div><div>sufficient to justify mapping the whole abandoned line, even though it is</div><div>less obvious along much of the route?</div><div><br></div><div>I might not map such a line myself, but I'd be very reluctant to remove it.</div><div>Especially as I suspect there are bridges, culverts, cuttings and embankments</div><div> along it that still exist but have not yet been mapped.<br></div><div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div>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.<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Clifford<br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>@osm_washington<br></div><div><a href="https://www.snowandsnow.us" target="_blank">www.snowandsnow.us</a></div><div>OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>