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

[Dave F.]

On 08/09/2015 09:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 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.

man_made=bridge
bridge=*

The above is meant to be the way to describe bridges with no current 
use. The latest version of Mapnik should render it but there appears to 
be something wrong atm.

> 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.

Something like an historical sub tag for the above example
man_made=bridge
bridge=*
historical=railway


> IMHO railway=abandoned fits into this idea, and solves these issues.

Not really. There is no railway.

> 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.

I think it been clearly stated many times

Cheers
Dave F.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus