[Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

Andy Robinson ajrlists at gmail.com
Tue Jul 14 21:24:22 UTC 2015

We could take that line of thought further. A viaduct/bridge etc actually has nothing to do with a railway per se. It’s a structural object in its own right. What we should be doing is rendering the bridge structure first and then if appropriate putting a way over the top if the structure is in use in some way - whether original railway (current or disused), unofficial footpath or designated cycleway etc.

Vauxhall/Bordesley Viaduct in Birmingham was built to carry a railway over it but was never used because the rail connection was never made. Its currently tagged as railway=disused but that’s not really true.


-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Townsend [mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com] 
Sent: 14 July 2015 21:31
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

On 14/07/2015 20:24, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> The only significant difference seems to be that the latter is tagged:
>     railway=disused
> rather than "abandoned". In actual fact, "unused" would be more 
> appropriate, as it was never used.

It looks like it was recently changed from "abandoned" to "disused".  
Call me a cynic, but I wonder if that was someone simply "tagging for the renderer"?  If there are no in-situ rails, it's not "disused".



Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4821 / Virus Database: 4365/10222 - Release Date: 07/13/15

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list