[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - rail_trail

Masi Master masi-master at gmx.de
Tue Jan 31 01:30:12 GMT 2012


Ok, i agree with most of you!
highway=cycleway + railway=abandoned is good.
Some people prefer highway=cycleway + railway=dismantled (see:  
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#Abandoned_railways_where_all_evidence_has_been_removed)

So should we change the proposal to these both cases!? (so we can pimp the  
wiki (Key:cycleway & Key:railway))

Then we need a consensus about rendering in Mapnik!



Ohh is see, the Osmarender plot both, cycleway & abandoned railway:
http://hikebikemap.de/?zoom=16&lat=47.11665&lon=-118.02014&layers=000B0FFFFF

And on OpenCycleMap, the routes (or ways with "ref"(?)) are highlighted:
http://hikebikemap.de/?zoom=17&lat=51.14368&lon=7.28507&layers=00B00FFFFF


---

Am 30.01.2012, 15:05 Uhr, schrieb Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com>:
> I like the idea to see ex-railway cycleways on the map. I also like to  
> see
> cycle routes on the map, and I would like to see ex-railways on the map.
>
> I have my doubts whether the tagging of a cycleway as being on a n
> ex-railway should be done at the level of a key to the highway tag. If I
> understand your proposal correctly a typical tagging would look like this
> highway=path
> bicycle=designated
> foot=designated
> surface= xxx
> width= xxx
> ref= xxx
> rail_trail=yes
>
> I see several problems whit this approach:
>
> If the ex-railway continues, as it often happens on a piece of normal  
> raod,
> not on a designated cycle path, would you add railtrail=yes to
> highway=secondary. If you don't do that the rendering will be  
> interrupted.
>
> Then I do not see how you would instruct the routing algorithm to prefer
> the railtrail ways over other cycleways

I only thought about cycleways, so if there is a section  
highway=secondary, there it makes no sence to tag it as a "good" railtrail.
For routing it's no problem, because the railtrail is a bit shorter, so  
the routing-quality of the hole way (included the secondary) is only a bit  
more less.

---

Am 30.01.2012, 14:51 Uhr, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer  
<dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
> (plus any other tags). Ocassionally you might also want to add some of  
> these:
>
> embankment=yes (de:Damm)
> cutting=yes (de:Einschnitt)
> tunnel
> bridge

right, i can add this to the proposal page.

---

Am 30.01.2012, 14:46 Uhr, schrieb Gleb Smirnoff <glebius at glebius.int.ru>:
> I'll upload several fotos and link them to proposal page in next few
> days, as well as add couple of words to the proposal, if you don't
> mind.

feel free, to add some information to the proposal page.



More information about the Tagging mailing list