[Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Fri Jun 5 22:02:41 UTC 2020

I need to reopen this thread.

We have not arrived at a consensus so far in this talk,
Nevertheless the wiki page Demolished_Railway
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway> was completely
rewritten on 07:17, 27 May 2020 by Mateusz Konieczny
In particular the wording
" Here railway is gone without any trace in terrain except possibly road
alignment. Its course is well documented, but such historic feature is out
of scope of OpenStreetMap, should not be mapped and should be deleted if
in the caption of the first picture is certainly something we were talking
about, but had not agreed upon.
This rewrite in the middle of an inclusive discussion on the main aspect of
the page seems to me not correct. As far as I remember (I may not have read
all the contributions in all details) we did not talk about rewriting that
page. I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the
razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been
replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this is one of
the more fortunate cases where the original route has been conserved, and
it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former
railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic value and for
that reason should be in OSM.


On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 16:56, Cornelis via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org>

> I would like to add another interesting one. A railway that never has
> been finished completely, but you can clearly see it on the map,
> nonetheless: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/51.0885/6.6486
> Most of it is still visible, not only in the bigger picture. It's build
> as embarkment in large parts so you can easily recognize it. There still
> are several bridges crossing it. Short parts of the railway are named as
> „Strategischer Bahndamm“ (using highway=track and a name tag), but there
> is no complete relation for it or even the part between Neuss and
> Rommerskirchen from which the name is derived.
> For further information you may consult this wiki artice:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Railway_Embankment
> Maybe this one even serves as example for an old railway that in fact
> should be mapped to explain these clearly visible features that
> otherwise would lack an explanation?
> Best regards
> Cornelis
> Am 04.06.20 um 06:19 schrieb Mark Wagner:
> > On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 12:24:45 +0200 (CEST)
> > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Jun 3, 2020, 07:03 by mark+osm at carnildo.com:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST)
> >>> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933103 at gmail.com:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26,Warin <> 61sundowner at gmail.com> >
> >>>>> 寫道:
> >>>>>> On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> >>>>>>   > My main point is that out there are things that consist of
> >>>>>>   > visible objects plus objects which have left visible traces,
> >>>>>>   > and also some pieces that have been completely erased, but of
> >>>>>>   > which we have documented knowledge of where they once were.
> >>>>>>   > The entire thing makes sense only with all its parts. These
> >>>>>>   > things be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and
> >>>>>>   > hence, if someone has gone to the length of mapping them,
> >>>>>>   > should find space in OSM. In my view a general rule that any
> >>>>>>   > mapper can erase any object from the map, when he does not
> >>>>>>   > see any trace of it, is certainly not correct , he may be
> >>>>>>   > removing parts of the thing thsat only with all its
> >>>>>>   > partsmakes sense.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   Where an old railway line has been built over by houses,
> >>>>>> factories, shops and roads I see no reason to retain the
> >>>>>> (historical) information in OSM.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but
> >>>>>> where there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain
> >>>>> visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop,
> >>>>> road) have been made on top of their original site. So that
> >>>>> cabnot be used as a criteria to determine whether that should be
> >>>>> removed or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each
> >>>>> individual cases.
> >>>> Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was
> >>>> constructed over former railway and this section of railway
> >>>> remains somehow mappable in OSM?
> >>>>
> >>>> With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I
> >>>> can also imagine special cases of this remaining true.
> >>>>
> >>>> But entire factory?
> >>>>
> >>> It's not a factory, but how about a car dealership, two storage
> >>> rental facilities, a school bus parking lot, a sports park, and
> >>> about forty city blocks of other things?
> >>>
> >>> https://imgur.com/a/5YObPTP
> >>>
> >> Very interesting one. While I see point about part of the route, I
> >> would disagree about vertical segment where it is no longer
> >> recognizable - even from indirect effects like building arrangements
> >> (based on this aerial images! - maybe something is visible on the
> >> ground or on higher quality aerial images).
> >>
> >> I admit that it is something that while stretching "there is something
> >> on the ground" case is also having something on the ground.
> >>
> >> Do you have maybe photos from the ground? Or info where it is located?
> >> I want to add it to the wiki article, it would be a good case of
> >> something borderline.
> > It's in Spokane, Washington, north of the Spokane River between
> > Division and Market streets.  The railway was removed in the 1970s as
> > part of the redevelopment of the city center.
> >
> > The north-south segement on the west side of the image still has
> > evidence on the ground.  I don't have pictures of it, but the asphalt
> > on many of the minor roads there still has patches where the railroad
> > crossings were removed.  (The major roads have all been re-paved).
> > Additionally, only two buildings cross that part of the old rail route.
> > Everything else is parking lots, driveways, or just unused land.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200606/3c32727b/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list