[Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway (was: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways)
stevagewp at gmail.com
Thu Apr 18 15:22:32 UTC 2013
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:33 AM, André Pirard <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com>wrote:
>> From OSM-talk-be, with best regards. I put the questions before the
> replies ;-)
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:31 PM, André Pirard <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>> On 2013-04-13 23:02, Marc Gemis wrote :
>>> ... [ full message<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20130413/9baee2b4/attachment.html>]
>>> So why two lines for an abandoned railway and the cycleway/footway on it
>>> ? Can't they be combined ?
>>> What to do is explained in the OSM wiki at ... Railways<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railways>
>>> Abandoned - The track has been removed and the line may have been reused
>>> or left to decay but is still clearly visible, either from the replacement
>>> infrastructure, or purely from a line of trees around an original cutting
>>> or embankment. Use railway<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway>
>>> =abandoned <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned>.
>>> Where it has been reused as a cycle path then add highway<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>
>>> =cycleway <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway>.
>>> Consider adding a end_date<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:end_date>
>>> =* tag or more specifically a railway:end_date<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:railway:end_date&action=edit&redlink=1>
>>> =* tag.
>>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> This means that the separate track should be removed for the 3 cases I
>>> listed, or not ?
>>> On 2013-04-14 23:11, Ben Laenen wrote :
>>> No, highway and cycleway should not share any ways. The only thing
>>> which may be acceptable is reusing the same nodes for two different ways,
>>> but only if they are on exactly the same location, which is actually quite
>>> rare. In quite a lot of cases there will be an offset, or it will diverge a
>>> little bit from the original railway track.
>>> IMVHO, there is no railway if there are no rails, just a
> cycleway, just one way.
> And the intention may be to add information that there *was*** a railway
> there, the genesis.
> How then explain the wiki rules: "railway<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway>
> =abandoned <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned>"
> and "add highway <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=cycleway<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway>to
> railway <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway>=abandoned<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned>"
> instead of "add ...???... to highway<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>
> =cycleway <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway>"?
Hi. I have a bit of an interest in rail trails. For those not well versed
in them, these are where an old train line has been decommissioned, the
rails have been pulled up, and a bike path runs where the trains used to.
Usually the bike path has to diverge from the original alignment at certain
points, where the land has been sold, or there's a bridge missing or
So, there are few options for tagging:
1) A single way: "railway=abandoned | highway=cycleway | name=Blah Rail
Trail | surface=unpaved" (usually with a cycle route relation as well)
- easy, can quickly convert a mapped train line into a rail trail
- preserves the relationship between bike path and train line (eg, it's
easy for a data consumer to pull out ways that are rail trails)
- can use this information for rendering (eg, show the bike path in a
special way when it's a rail trail, and don't render the train line
- tag clashes, particularly "name=" - is this the name of the bike path, or
of the former train line?
2) Two ways, not sharing nodes
- keep information separate, retain everything about the train line
- messy for editing, rendering
3 Two ways, sharing nodes
- "clean", most precise
- really bad for editing (hard to select between multiple colinear ways)
- really bad for rendering (totally unpredictable which of the two ways
will show, maybe they both will and will look terrible)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging