[OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Sep 8 08:07:48 UTC 2015



sent from a phone

> Am 08.09.2015 um 01:49 schrieb Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com>:
> 
> I don't believe anyone's advocating the removal of existing entities.
> In your viaduct case above, keep the viaduct entity, remove the railway=abandoned tag, use the historical tag to describe the past of the viaduct (which exists) but don't use it to describe the railway (which doesn't).


I believe you are oversimplifying things by just looking at the tracks and if they are there it is some kind of railway and in absence of tracks it has nothing more to do with railway.

First of all, we don't currently know a tag for a viaduct entity in OSM, we only have a viaduct property for railway and highway entities (bridge=viaduct) to denote that they are on a viaduct.

Even if we "had" an established way to tag viaducts independently from ways running over them, we would still likely want to tag whether the viaduct was built for roads or for railway.
IMHO railway=abandoned fits into this idea, and solves these issues.

Before continuing this discussion we should define the possible states we want to map/recognize, i.e. disused, abandoned, (dismantled, razed) and agree on their meaning.
People continue to write about railway=abandoned as if it described former railways with no traces whatsoever left, while to others it means traces are left.


cheers 
Martin 


More information about the talk mailing list