[OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

moltonel 3x Combo moltonel at gmail.com
Fri Aug 21 08:49:11 UTC 2015

On 21/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 20.08.2015 um 14:59 schrieb Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com>:
>> where is the railway here ? were are the rails ?
> there aren't any rails, but there is a railbed, this cutting wouldn't make
> sense for a cycleway, would it? (inappropriate effort)

IMHO (and I've been arguing against mapping railway=abandoned in many
cases), I think that in this case tagging railway=abandoned (along
with highway=cycleway and cutting=yes) is acceptable, meaning that I
don't think the tag should be deleted, but I wouldn't add it myself.

For: even an on the ground unmoving observer would easily figure out
that this was a railway.

Against: it is neither a railway nor abandoned, it is a cycleway, the
characteristics of which can be fully described without refering to
its railway origin. There has to be a point in a way's physical
evolution when we can stop tagging railway=abandoned, where do you
draw the line ? The "it was a railway" fact can if desired be kept in
a relation with start/end tags (a rare case where these can work).

More information about the talk mailing list