[Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail

[Peter Miller]

Apologies about being very late to respond to this issue.

I did use the historic:railway=* tag for old railway for a period of time
having come across it somewhere in the DB. It was good because it was
possible to tag which sort of railway it was

However... I now only use it in very particular circumstances because it
was hard to pick railway features out of the DB. I now always use a current
railway purpose using a railway tag, for example railway=rail, abandoned,
proposed or construction etc.

If however there is also a secondary value for the tag, for example a
former or proposed value then I would also use historic:railway=* or
proposed:railway=*.

For example with a railway that is currently part of a light_rail system
but was formerly part of a main line railway the tagging would be
railway=light_rail, historic:railway=rail.

In one extreme case I found an old canal which then converted into a
mainline railway and is now a cycleway which I think I tagged as tagged
waterway=abandoned, historic:waterway=canal, railway=abandoned,
historic:railway=rail, highway=cycleway. If there was a plan to bring the
canal back into use (which there wasn't) I would have also addded
proposed:waterway=canal!

This allows one to reliably use the railway tag itself to pick up all ways
that have relevance to a railway map without having to check loads of
prefixes and also allow the feature to contain a lot of temporal
information.

I will put it on my very long list to do a cleanup of the orphan
historic:railway tags which I added and which are not on ways with a
railway tag unless someone does it first.

Does that make sense?


Regards,



Peter



On 13 May 2013 17:10, Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13 May 2013 11:49, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
>
> > Would there be any opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to
> > railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground?
>
> I don't oppose the change in principle, but we need to be clear what
> you intend for all the various values. railway:historic = rail,
> railway:historic = light_rail and railway:historic = tram can't all go
> into one railway=dismantled tag without losing information. I expect
> you intend to use another tag (dismantled = light_rail etc) but that's
> worth stating.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>



-- 

Peter Miller CEO

+44(0) 7774 667213

ITO World Ltd - Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 5753174

Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ.

Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ.

Telephone - 01473 272225

www.itoworld.com

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager
or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or
make copies thereof.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20130704/4da4fd63/attachment.html>