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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:05:30 +0100
"Dave F." <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:

> On 08/09/2015 07:01, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:49:48 +0100
> > "Dave F." <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> 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).
> > Note that it is not necessary to use "historical tag" for existing
> > viaduct. man_made=bridge seems to fit well.
> 
> The historical tag can be used to indicate that the viaduct was 
> previously used as a railway. It should be used in conjunction with 
> other tags such as man_made.

Is there anything **currently** making clear (or at least indicating)
that it is constructed as a railway bridge? Is there any difference?

Historical data should not be added and if present - removed.