[Talk-us] Creating relations for abandoned railway lines

Kristian M Zoerhoff kristian.zoerhoff at gmail.com
Tue Jan 11 20:59:55 GMT 2011


On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:06:44PM +0100, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 10 January 2011 17:23, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff
> > <kristian.zoerhoff at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> type = route
> >> route = train
> >> operator = Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co.
> >> 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.
> 
> At some point route=historic was a preset or on the wiki (I don't
> remember), I think it would work better here.
> 
> Something like:
> route=historic
> historic=railway
> following the convention of avoiding misleading the tools, which
> usually just look at the one tag that interests them (route=railways
> for example).

I like this; it's certainly more accurate than saying abandoned=yes on the 
relation (which is incorrect, anyway; the ways are abandoned, but the 
relationship between them still holds). And not confusing the tools is 
always a good thing (I do engineering software support for a living, so I'm 
painfully aware of what happens when garbage goes in).

-- 

Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerhoff at gmail.com



More information about the Talk-us mailing list