[Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines

[Kristian M Zoerhoff]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:23:12AM -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> 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.

Good catch.
 
> > 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.

Good point. EB&E used long-abandoned and paved over streetcar trackage at 
either end, which it did not own. I have no intention of tagging that 
trackage right now, though I may get to that at some point.

-- 

Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerhoff at gmail.com