[Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

[Dave F.]

  On 27/09/2010 22:01, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> On 09/27/2010 12:17 PM, Dave F. wrote:
>>   On 27/09/2010 17:37, Lennard wrote:
>>> And when I cycle such a thing and want to map it, it's:
>>>
>>> highway=cycleway
>>>
>>> And I'm done. How am I to know there used to be rails infrastructure
>>> there, years (and years) ago?
>> If you know - tag it; if not - don't. It's not vital, but could be
>> useful.
>>
>>> But I'm biased. We render them on the mapnik map, and that's mostly
>>> where my discomfort stems from. It would be fine to have the tags
>>> just for the purpose of generating dedicated railways maps that also
>>> show all the glory of past, but what the heck are they doing on the
>>> current map?
>> I partially agree with you.
>>
>> If it's a physical entity that was an old railway line but is still
>> visible, such a bridge or a cutting/embankment, map&  tag it,
>> including the railway=abandoned tag if you're aware of it.
>>
>> However if there is *no* visible evidence of it then it shouldn't be
>> mapped. OSM is for current data only.
>>
>> Historical maps should use OSM as background&  overlay such data, but
>> *not* include it in the database?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Dave F.
> You might well have the remains of an old railway, such as an
> embankment, that was still present and useful as a landmark, but had not
> been turned into a cycleway.

Indeed, & these could/should be mapped/tagged.


>    In some cases, these remains might have
> interruptions in them, where part of the old railway right-of-way had
> been replaced by some newer construction.  Different mappers may not all
> agree on how much of the old railway must remain for it to be worth
> marking on the map.

I agree again. How much detail is mapped is purely up to the individual 
based on time available &/or patience.

But only add what is actually visibly there now. Not what was there 
fifty years ago.


Cheers
Dave F.