<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Jun 9, 2020, 14:42 by jarek@piorkowski.ca:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 07:56, Paul Allen <pla16021@gmail.com> wrote:<br></div><blockquote><div>On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski <jarek@piorkowski.ca> wrote:<br></div><blockquote><div>Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as<br></div><div>roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Nope. We'd map the portions that are existing ways like this:<br></div><div>https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7063236<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Could we do similar with torn-up railways?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Then the parts where rails or railbed are actually remaining could be<br></div><div>railway=abandoned or whatever, and parts with nothing remaining could<br></div><div>be plain ways in a relation like <a href="https://osm.org/way/498608783">https://osm.org/way/498608783</a><br></div></blockquote><div>No. I am OK with extreme broad interpretation of what counts as<br></div><div>remain of railway allowing it to map.<br></div><div><br></div><div>But mapping where nothing at all is remaining is clearly out of scope of <br></div><div>OSM.<br></div><div><br></div> </body>
</html>