[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Railway tracks on highway

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 10 11:59:32 UTC 2018

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:13 AM Nikulainen, Jukka K <
jukka.nikulainen at helsinki.fi> wrote:

In particular the "=abandoned" and "=disused" tags would I think be of
> great distinguishing value. For example car drivers could be interested
> whether a given section of a highway has possible railway traffic or not,
> whereas bicycles should be warned of the existence of rail tracks on a
> highway irrespective of possible traffic on them.

Yes, it's useful to know if the rails are disused.  I think they wouldn't
be abandoned because that
would mean they, and the road surface around them, would be allowed to fall
into disrepair and
cause problems for other traffic.  I think they'd be ripped out rather than
abandoned, especially
as they do cause problems for cyclists.

However, I don't like =disused because that would throw away the knowledge
of what they were
previously for, tram/train/whatever.  I also don't like it because we
already have two other ways
of indicating disuse.  One is the lifecycle namespace, so disused:*=*, but
that has the problem
that many renderers treat disused:*=* as meaning "do not render."  The
other is the deprecated

Disused=yes is deprecated in favour of the lifecycle namespace but it is
still useful precisely
because the feature is rendered as though it is still physically present
and there are cases
(this is one of them) when that is the right thing to do.  However, that
would require mapping
the rails as a separate way (sharing the same nodes as the road) otherwise
would mean the road was also disused.

So it may be the best option is embedded_rails=disused.  Giving a third way
of mapping
disused objects. :(

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181210/07f8a922/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list