[Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff
<kristian.zoerhoff at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> I've been working on adding some abandoned railway lines in my area, and
> I've been wondering how to group them together. The line I'm working on
> right now (the former Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co. line) has been re-used
> in some areas as public streets, bike paths, service roads, and even a
> railway museum, so I've had to break the line into quite a few ways. I'd
> like to group them back together with a relation, but I'm not sure if
> anyone's done this for an abandoned railway line, or if this is even the
> right thing to do. My plan was to create a new relation like so:
>
> type = route
> route = train
> operator = Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co.
This should be unabbreviated: Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company.

> abandoned = yes
>
> It's that last tag I'm unsure of. Is abandoned = yes allowed/understood in
> relations?

I think what you want to use is route=railway, not route=train. The
latter would include trackage (if any) owned by other companies that
the E&BE used to reach downtown terminals, while the former would be
the single line owned and operated by the E&BE.