<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>Jan 2, 2021, 15:32 by pla16021@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 at 14:09, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div>Previous discussions changed my mind on such cases and I am OK with mapping this -<br></div><div>though we really should have some tagging to describe what kind of traces remained.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Some time ago I retagged removed railway into<br></div><div><br></div><div>railway=abandoned<br></div><div>railway_remains:gravel=yes<br></div><div>railway_remains:railway_signs=yes<br></div><div>service=spur<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sometimes not even the gravel remains, or it is so overgrown by weeds<br></div><div>it is not easily spotted even on the ground. However, if the right of way<br></div><div>still remains then there are likely to be fences or hedges bracketing the<br></div><div>former way. And often there will be embankments, cuttings, bridges<br></div><div>and tunnels which make no sense without knowing there was a <br></div><div>former railway line.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure it's sensible to do more than we have now: disused track<br></div><div>(perfectly usable if somebody wanted to run a train on it), abandoned track<br></div><div>(needs work before trains could run on it), razed track (you'd need to do a<br></div><div>lot of work, which might include regrading and re-ballasting before new track<br></div><div>could be laid). Oh, and planned laying of new track where a razed track is<br></div><div>now, and/or construction.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div>railway=abandoned seems to be primarily used for places where <br></div><div>railway tracks are gone and railway=disused in used also for <br></div><div>extremely overgrown tracks, that would require cutting 20m<br></div><div>high trees growing now between railway tracks.<br></div><div><br></div><div>railway=abandoned is getting used for everything from <br></div><div>(1) "railway tracks damaged but present" <br></div><div>through <br></div><div>(2) "track ballast and sleepers are present" <br></div><div>to<br></div><div>(3) "railway is gone, rail use struck from development plans, <br></div><div>embankment gone, housing estate constructed there,<br></div><div>area is not even owned by railway company"<br></div><div><br></div><div>I am pretty sure that tagging of that would strongly benefit<br></div><div>from more specific tags.<br></div><div><br></div><div>See<br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542">https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542</a><br></div><div>"I'm not sure that everyone will agree on this, but I've seen a few
"abandoned"<br></div><div>railway lines being rendered diagonally across well mapped
housing estates,<br></div><div>and it looks terrible."<br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned</a><br></div><div>"A tag to map former railways, where the rails have been removed but<br></div><div>the route is still visible in some way."<br></div> </body>
</html>