[talk-au] Converting railway= abandoned to highway=track

[Michael Collinson]

I think a much better option is to leave the railway=abandoned as is is 
and draw a new way using most but not all the same nodes for the new 
superimposed infrastructure. That way map makers who want to show old 
railway infrastructure can show the railway and choose to ignore the 
cycleway and vice versa. It avoids confusing cross-tagging and allows 
deviation between the two infrastructures.

Here is a classic example on the Bass Coast Rail Trail that frequently 
occurs, (best seen in an editor). The cycleway exactly runs along the 
old railway track to the west but due to an unsafe bridge and the need 
to cross the Bass Highway, deviates to the south east. However, the old 
railway is still clearly part of the landscape as an overgrown 
embankment and the unnavigable bridge is still there and a point of 
historical interest.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-38.54656&mlon=145.47110#map=19/-38.54656/145.47110

Mike

On 2021-02-14 04:57, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 12:27 PM Josh Marshall 
> <josh.p.marshall at gmail.com <mailto:josh.p.marshall at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     My proposal is to alter the ways associated with the track to
>     highway=track (it’s all wide enough for vehicles), but retain
>     railway=abandoned, and add all the missing ways to the above
>     relation.
>
>     My main reasoning behind this is to raise it’s visibility as a
>     walk and ride option, and allow routing along it, as current
>     routers (Strava, Komoot) ignore it altogether (much to my
>     annoyance). It’s what’s been done for locally, the Fernleigh Track
>     (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2269030
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2269030>), and elsewhere
>     eg The Great Victorian Rail Trail
>     (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1043265
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1043265>)
>
>     Now the other question is what should be done with the proposal as
>     far as adding tags. This way is on the old rail line and part of
>     the proposal, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243988974
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243988974> has
>     railway=abandoned, highway=proposed and proposed=cycleway. It’s
>     all accessible now, so it should be highway=track
>     (surface=unpaved), but then how to tag for the proposal?
>
>
> I agree, it should have highway=track now if someone could drive on 
> it. That video on the council website looks like some significant work 
> is going into this project.
>
> I'd drop the current "name=Richmond Vale Railway" tag (only if the 
> tracks have been removed), leave old_name, and add 
> "proposed:name=Richmond Vale Rail Trail". If the railway tracks remain 
> (as they do in some sections of imagery at some unknown date) and the 
> rail trail is a different alignment, you might need to map them 
> separately.
>
> --
> Jono
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20210214/a432bb1a/attachment.htm>