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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:16:17 +0100
Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk> wrote:

> On 08/09/15 12:58, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> This is perhaps the sticking point?
> A structure exists due to the previous construction of say a railway
> and it gets 're-tasked' to something else. If it's called 'the old
> railway viaduct' then that is acceptable, but if it's just called
> 'the viaduct' one is not allowed to add in some way 'formally the xxx
> railway'?

I would map named bridge that no longer has railway as man_made=bridge
with appropriate name tag.

> formally the xxx railway

So bridge without railway is operated/owned by railway company? It seems
to fit operator/owner tag.

> Even 'site of xxx' has a precedent to map it if there is some marker
> visible on the ground but no other indication it ever existed.

Can you link examples? I am familiar with tagging marker itself, tagging
underground features (with source=*) and tagging visible features.