[Talk-us] perceptions of OHM and other similar projects

Bryce Nesbitt bryce2 at obviously.com
Thu Apr 16 17:51:59 UTC 2015

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
> The problem, as I see it, is that railroads are a contiguous
> whole. Yet some people seem to think that a railroad should be shopped
> up along its length, with part of it appearing in OSM (where you can
> see it on the ground), and part of it appearing in OHM (where it has
> been bulldozed away)....
> Relations are completely broken.

+10 on all this.

It seems the deletion argument is related to "clutter".  I prefer to
see the entire railroad
in "context".

> Michael DuPont wrote
>I still dont understand why we dont support multiple layers. It would seem to be the most logical thing to do and the api could support that so simple >clients could download a different layers each time.

There are editor solutions to this, short of layers.

Nothing says an editor can't hide all boundary relations or abandoned
railways, in order to ease editing.
The razed sections of the abandoned railway need not confuse anybody.

More information about the Talk-us mailing list