[Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

[john at jfeldredge.com]

Well, you presumably would have an intermediate step in which the railway is no longer being used for train traffic, but the rails and crossties (also known as sleepers) have not yet been taken up, so it isn't suitable yet for use as a cycleway.

-------Original Email-------
Subject :Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge
From  :mailto:ldp at xs4all.nl
Date  :Mon Sep 27 09:39:53 America/Chicago 2010


On 27-9-2010 16:25, Noel David Torres Taño wrote:
> What about abandoned=yes ?

And expect every data consumer to have to parse that in addition to 
whatever bridge=* value you leave on the data. What's not there anymore 
is just that: not there anymore. It doesn't deserve a bridge=* tag.

That's one thing I've never really understood with railway=abandoned 
either. Sure, many of them have been converted into might fine 
cycleways, but that's just what they are now: cycleways.

-- 
Lennard


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry