<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR4g_uMc=tPoZ1HrJNbV6Ymk7eteMAafOO=qhZvBk3uq8w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Warin, Jack,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>your comments are really off my main point.</div>
<div>We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have
different opinions on whether a razed (on the ground)
railway can be mapped in OSM. In the middle of that
discussion the abandoned railway wiku page gets completely
rewritten by one of the participants in the thread
explicitly stating that razed railways should be <i>removed</i>
from OSM. <br>
</div>
<div>This is basically against good practice in OSM.</div>
<div>In addition the statement that where roads trace
razed/dismantled railways, the reference to the fact that
they do, should be removed is clearly wrong. Worldwide there
are many thousands of km of roads and cycle routes that
retrace exactly former railway lines . what is wrong with
adding railway=dismantled (orrazed) to the ways that make
up the road or the cycle route. <br>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div>Railway installations are major sites present in our
environment,</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are
gone, no longer here, vanished. <br>
</p>
<p>The one I am thinking of has visible things at one end and a few
bits elsewhere, those I would leave on OSM as they 'exist'. <br>
</p>
<p>But to map it where there is nothing left.. to me that is
deceptive. The other mapper has extended one of the things I left
mapped so that an embankment runs over roads, through car-parks, a
building and a playing field. That does not exist now, it may have
decades ago ... but not today and not for quite a few years. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR4g_uMc=tPoZ1HrJNbV6Ymk7eteMAafOO=qhZvBk3uq8w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div> and there is no good reason to remove them from the map,
whether they are actively used or only indirectly "visible".</div>
<div>Just two other observations to put this in context:</div>
<div>We have plenty of underground water courses, oil or gas
pipelines where only few objects on the surface indicate their
underground existence - no-one would object to having them in
the map data, including the underground parts.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Agreed - because they exist. I know there is an underground
railway near me because I use it, it is not viable 'on the
ground'. There is a drainage channel near me that I can see as
entry and exit places .. its precise route I don't know so I use
the est sources to estimate its route. I do my best to map things
that exist. I don't think OSM is the place for things that no
longer exist in any physical way. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR4g_uMc=tPoZ1HrJNbV6Ymk7eteMAafOO=qhZvBk3uq8w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Another completely different indication that old stuff
could be of interest to tourists: when I moved to the UK from
continental Europe in 1978 I was positively surprised to see,
on the standard OS maps for hikers, references to Roamn and
Saxon sites galore, tyipiclley in the form of "site of ..."
and of many country paths and tracks labeled with their Roman
or Saxon names, even though the present-day structure is much
younger - they only retrace the Roman way like the present-day
street in the first example on the wiki page retraces a former
railway..</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>If there is something to see there .. then map that. I would not
map a railway as a railway if all that can be seen is a board that
has information about the old railway, I would map it as a tourist
sign only - not a railway. <br>
</p>
<p>Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present
today, map it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM.
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALQ-OR4g_uMc=tPoZ1HrJNbV6Ymk7eteMAafOO=qhZvBk3uq8w@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>BTW I am not saying that OSM map data are incomplete
without mapping old raylways, I am only asking to not remove
those that are mapped, and to not write in the wiki that they
should be removed.</div>
<div>BTW 2: wiki pages in general should not invite mappers to
remove already mapped objects, but only correct mapping
errors. <br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 05:03,
Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">61sundowner@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">On 6/6/20 8:02 am, Volker
Schmidt wrote:<br>
> I need to reopen this thread.<br>
><br>
> I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the <br>
> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway
tracks have been <br>
> replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the
contrary this is one <br>
> of the more fortunate cases where the original route
has been <br>
> conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical
railroad.<br>
> I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology
(like former <br>
> railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have
touristic value and <br>
> for that reason should be in OSM.<br>
<br>
<br>
As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling
along a <br>
railway route here nothing remains of the railway.<br>
<br>
If something remains then map the remains, not the bits that
no longer <br>
exist.<br>
<br>
Where an old railway route passes through private
residential houses, <br>
commercial buildings, car parking area .. I don't think that
should be <br>
in OSM yet people map it...<br>
<br>
A historian/archeologist may have interest in documenting
the old <br>
railway route and facilities, they can and should use OHM.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>