<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 13:44, Jarek Piórkowski <<a href="mailto:jarek@piorkowski.ca">jarek@piorkowski.ca</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"><br>
Could we do similar with torn-up railways?<br>
<br>
Then the parts where rails or railbed are actually remaining could be<br>
railway=abandoned or whatever, and parts with nothing remaining could<br>
be plain ways in a relation like <a href="https://osm.org/way/498608783" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://osm.org/way/498608783</a><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As I recall, the example Warin was complaining about was part of a</div><div>relation linking sections of defunct railway in different states</div><div>(razed, abandoned, etc.) It would certainly be possible to deal</div><div>with portions that have been converted to roads, cycleways or</div><div>footpaths by inserting them into the relation as what they are,</div><div>rather than what they were (preferably with some tag indicating</div><div>they followed the route of the former railway). That might</div><div>get rid of some of the objections.</div><div><br></div><div>That doesn't get around the problem of sections where buildings or</div><div> fields or whatever have replaced the former railway. I doubt that</div><div>argument will be settled as easily.</div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div></div></div>