<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>Feb 24, 2022, 18:11 by jbittner@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div> I still believe that if someone spends the time to specifically mark a line as non-electrified, those tags should stand. <br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I think that basically everyone agreed with this<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It's also useful in areas with actual electrification to mark the neighboring lines as non-electrified. One person's extraneous/redundant might be very important to another person. Some folks have removed my 'abandoned:railway=rail' tags as being "redundant" to 'railway=abandoned' when the abandoned:railway tag indicates whether an abandoned line was a rail line, tram line/trolley line, light rail, narrow gauge line, etc.<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">+1 (railway=abandoned abandoned=rail would be needed to be actually carrying the<br></div><div dir="auto">same info - and even then such "cleanup" is quite dubious in general)<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">(but for example removal of stuff=water tag from natural=water areas likely would be fine)<br></div><div dir="auto">(I hope that this abandoned:railway=rail has still some remains in terrain if it mapped)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>