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

[Nicolás Alvarez]

El martes, 8 de septiembre de 2015, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>
escribió:

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

I suspect he meant "formerly" instead of "formally". In fact, given the
context, that is how I (mis)read it at first.


-- 
Nicolás
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20150908/6326f131/attachment-0001.html>