[Tagging] unfinished railway of historic importance

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 02:22:37 GMT 2012

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Nah, it was rather about what the priority is. A constrution site could
> always be annotated with "this is planned to become a hotel", even though it
> isn't a hotel; and a cut could always be annotated with "this was once
> planned to become a railway" even though it isn't one.
> I just found the idea of saying "this is a railway - a never-built one, but
> a railway nonetheless" a little extravagant.

Ok, yeah, there is definitely room for debate around how abstract we
allow features in OSM to be. I wouldn't agree with
planned-but-abandoned features being stored except in unusual
circumstances. This kind of issue comes up with route relations in
particular. What defines a "route"? How official does it have to be
before OSM wants to know about it, etc.

In this case, I think it would be generally acceptable to map the
entire train line, even if only certain sections actually underwent
any construction. Obviously there will be a point at which that
becomes ridiculous though: if a train line was planned for 500km, but
only 5 km saw any construction at all, maybe you'd only map whatever
section of track contained that constructed section.


More information about the Tagging mailing list