[Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

Bryce Nesbitt bryce2 at obviously.com
Tue Mar 10 07:33:03 UTC 2015


On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:53 PM, moltonel 3x Combo <moltonel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com> wrote:
>
> > I know it's a messy dividing line.  I see it as important context to
> > current day mapping.
>
> That's a fair point, but I've seen it pushed beyond reason too many
> times.....
>

I've also seen the opposite mapping issue, where an abandoned railway was
deleted from the map,
when in fact large chunks still exist.




> Also, if an abandoned railway has evolved into something else, then
> it's not an abandoned railway anymore. If you add a highway=cycleway
> tag, you should remove the railway=abandoned tag.
>

I don't see that railway=razed damages highway=cycleway.

The present day cycleway may well have photos of that same old railway on
interpretive signs.  The current cycleway may in fact be called a "rail to
trail".  Some people seek those out explicitly, because they're associated
with a flat grade and gentle curves.

In cases like this the history is* a part of a present day object.*


--------------------------
Railroads are special in part because they're large and long, far bigger
than any abandoned shop or razed cottage.
They leave a major footprint on the future world, one that's often apparent
well after the last bit of gravel is dug out and planted over.

It's more like tagging "shoe shop in a landmark beaux arts former post
office" than "turn left where the fruit stand used to be".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150310/440f99cd/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list