[OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

phil at trigpoint.me.uk phil at trigpoint.me.uk
Tue Aug 25 08:52:23 UTC 2015



On Tue Aug 25 09:12:15 2015 GMT+0100, Jo wrote:
> For what it's worth, I'm in favour of tagging dismantled railways as
> 
> railway=dismantled
+1
> 
> Even if it does pass through newly built buildings.
-1
I passionately believe dismantled railways should both be in openstreetmap and be rendered,  but only where they actually still exist on the ground. They are important landscape features, and are shown by our biggest competitor in terms of maps for walkers. 

Existing as a road, cycleway, footpath,  then leave the tags.

Where they have been built on, then they no longer belong in openstreetmap. 

Rendering would highlight to local mappers that they exist in the database and provide an impetus to fix where they exist and where they don't. 

Phil (trigpoint)


 
> Polyglot
> 
> 2015-08-25 9:52 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>:
> 
> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 6:09 PM, moltonel 3x Combo <moltonel at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 22/08/2015, John Eldredge <john at jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> >> > So, if you are looking for a route without steep grades, a former
> >> > railway is a natural choice.
> >>
> >> Do people actually do this ?
> >
> >
> > Yes, I do.
> >
> >
> >> It sounds like a strawman argument to me.
> >> I do a fair bit of walking and cycling, and when planing a trip I look
> >> at the global topographic data but it never occured to me to look for
> >> railroads. Why use the local railroad hint when you've got the global
> >> DEM data ?
> >
> >
> > DEM is great for showing large differences in elevation, but it tends to
> > suffer a bit when it comes to subtle cues.  Compare
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14953012 ,
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14939296 ,
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199770540 , and
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14943691 to the roughly parallel highway
> > OK 11.  These segments are likely (but not yet formally proposed) to be an
> > extension of the Osage Prairie Trail, closing the gap from metro Tulsa to
> > the capitol of the Osage Nation and a yet to be determined distance farther
> > north along the former railroad.  That grade, just from standard railroad
> > engineering practices, is unlikely to be steeper than 2% for any
> > significant distance and extremely unlikely to be steeper than 4%.  OK 11,
> > however, is a rollercoaster of a highway with many steep grades, some of
> > which are easily past 8%.  The DEM really glosses over this thanks to Tulsa
> > and Pawhuska only being about 100 feet difference in elevation.  The
> > intervening terrain is pocked with rolling hills and cliffs formed from
> > erosion, with the highest point on the highway being about 1000 feet.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Jolla


More information about the talk mailing list