[Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway (was: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways)

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Apr 22 16:57:37 UTC 2013


I'll split the way and map the abandoned right of way separately from the
existing detour.  This happens commonly on cycleways here that follow old
railroads, where the cycleway will kick out to hit a crossroad at a right
angle.
On Apr 22, 2013 10:44 AM, "John F. Eldredge" <john at jfeldredge.com> wrote:

> Masi Master <masi-master at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> >
> > Am 18.04.2013, 17:22 Uhr, schrieb Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:
> >
> > >
> > > 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 ]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>> 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=abandoned. Where it has been reused as a cycle path
> > then
> > >>>>>> add >>>>>>highway=cycleway. Consider adding a end_date=* tag or
> >
> > >>>>>> more specifically a railway:end_date=* >>>>>>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.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ben
> > >>>>>
> > >> 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=abandoned" and "add
> > >> highway=cycleway to railway=abandoned" instead of "add ...???...
> > >>to
> > >> highway=cycleway"?
> > >
> > > 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 something.
> > >
> > > 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)
> > > Advantages:
> > > -  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
> >
> > > directly)
> > >
> > > Disadvantages
> > > - tag clashes, particularly "name=" - is this the name of the bike
> > path,
> > > or of the former train line?
> > >
> > > 2) Two ways, not sharing nodes
> > > Advantages:
> > > - keep information separate, retain everything about the train line
> > > Disadvantages:
> > > - messy for editing, rendering
> > >
> > > 3 Two ways, sharing nodes
> > > Advantages:
> > > - "clean", most precise
> > > Disadvantages:
> > > - 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)
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Hi,
> > i think using the same way and add tags is the best solution:
> > The railway has no sharp corners and no extreme incline, so it is
> > generally good for cycling. The tag railway=abandoned on a cycleway
> > can be
> > an indicator for a non-hilly (=power-saving) cycleway.
> > If you use solution 2) or 3), you don't know easily, that this is a
> > cycleway without strong incline.
> >
> > The railway name (and other properties) can be add by relation,
> > old_name
> > or railway:name
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> How do you recommend handling situations where a railroad bridge has been
> removed, and the cycleway diverts in order to make a grade crossing across
> the roadway that the bridge had formerly passed over?  Simply reusing the
> railroad way would mean that the map would falsely indicate that the bridge
> was still present, which doesn't match the injunction to "map the ground
> truth".
>
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for it is better to think wrongly than not
> to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130422/f7229ac9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list