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

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Mon Jan 4 16:01:34 UTC 2021

There is also the corresponding Wikipeda article for this line: Wolverton

In this specific case it looks as if the entire length of the former
railway has been converted to a foot-cycle-bridle path. You may want to
create cycle route if its signposted, and then put into the description
that it corresponds to this former railway.
Note that the western part of it is part of the National Cycle Network
Route 6.


On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 at 13:42, Peter Neale via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> >Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:28:00 +0100
> >From: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at gmx.at>
> >To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not
>  >   exist?
> >Message-ID: <1MuDbx-1k8vfg0Q5l-00uaXI at mail.gmx.com>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> >
> >On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 08:52:54 +0100 (CET)
> >Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >> > The question is whether we are willing to accept some railway=razed
> to fill the gaps to have former railway routes complete, >where otherwise
> there are some observable traces.
> >> >
> >> No, we should delete such segments (except cases where people are very
> likely to believe
> >> that this section still exist due to a very recent removal).
> >One such example could be when a cycleway was created on top. No idea
> >honestly but I could imagine that ballast is not always removed in that
> >case but used as a base(?).
> >I would definitely delete railway tags if they would have remained till
> >then although I am not sure everybody here would agree with me since
> >there might still remain "traces" like some heaps of ballast stones on
> >the sides. I presume in theory in some jurisdictions this could even by
> >done by a corporation owning (and retaining) the way of right for a
> >railway. *In theory* they could then build it back later. This might be
> >a ridiculous example, at least from today's perspective but I'd be
> >interested if someone would disagree to remove the tags then.
> >
> >--
> >Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
> Near me is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34656093#map=15/52.0782/-0.7467
> It is a shared (not-segregated!) cycleway and footway.  It is called "The
> Railway Walk", so there is a clue in the title that it has some
> relationship to a (former) railway line.
> Following the same line (for most of its length) is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38919559#map=14/52.0722/-0.7654, which
> is tagged "railway=abandoned".
> I should probably review the tagging and change it to railway=dismantled,
> as the track and ballast have been removed and replaced with tarmac and
> street lights, but I do not consider it to be "razed", as the new path
> still follows the original line, running along the original embankment,
> under the original bridges and there is the odd platform still there and
> the odd gradient marker also.
> So, in this specific case, I think there is enough evidence still on the
> ground to justify retaining it as an object in OSM.
> Best regards, Peter
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210104/aebd1ecb/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list