[OSM-talk] New road style for Default Map style - pull requested is opened

[Mateusz Konieczny]

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1736 - review
of the code and comments are welcomed.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Lester Caine]

On 11/08/15 12:10, Warin wrote:
> I'd prefer to retain the data .. even if it is old. Untill such time as
> new features are made on the ground.

Which around here is new track being relaid ...
We had this debate recently on gb list over railway viaducts
disappearing because the line was removed ... some abandoned lines are
not open to public access, but their existence is still real even if the
actual rail has been removed.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-08-11 12:15 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel :

> An abandoned line with some rails is almost certainly a topographical
> feature, called "old railway grade" in the USGS topo maps.   I can see
> your point where the only trace is lot shapes.
>



+1, and even by the wiki these would not (if at all) mapped as
railway=abandoned but as dismantled or sth like that (and this tag is maybe
not to be used because dismantled (absent) features should not be mapped).



>   But I see a lot of
> things where there is clearly a cut/fill topography and the railbed
> itself is a feature on the ground.
>


+1, looking only for tracks is too few. When the railbed is there it could
be mapped with a railway tag IMHO.

cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Warin]

On 11/08/2015 8:07 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 08/11/2015 07:09 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:

Now, you might think "Goddamnit, does Russell have to start again?"
Yes, I have to start again. I was in north-western Pennsylvania last
weekend looking for the Corry Junction Rail Trail. Problem: it hasn't
been entered into OSM yet. But that's not a problem, right? Because OF
COURSE the railway is there, marked as abandoned, right?

Errr... you are looking for a trail that follows an abandoned railway
line, and you complain that the abandoned railway line is missing from OSM?

If you were complaining that the trail isn't there then I'd understand,
and you'd have my full support for adding it. But complaining instead
that the abandoned railway isn't there...?


Say there is a railway line ...

OSM has it mapped

Then say the railway line becomes abandoned ...

I think OSM should retain the data and simply tag it as abandoned

Then say the abandoned railway line become a rail trail

Now OSM has the data of where the old railway line was .. and a simple 
additional tag results in the addition!



I'd prefer to retain the data .. even if it is old. Untill such time as 
new features are made on the ground.


Why?

Because the new features may chose to use some (if not all) properties 
of the old features. And that would make the old data usefull for 
entering the new data.



So, for me, I'd try to retain the data at least untill it is overwritten 
by new data. The old data could be retagged abandoned:store=baker for 
example. Won't be rendered but there for future use if wanted.



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Greg Troxel]

Frederik Ramm  writes:

> No, surely not, if there are actual rails on the ground then I'd say
> they should be mapped. An abandoned railway line having some rails in
> some places is not, however, sufficient reason to map the whole
> abandoned railway line even where tracks are removed.

An abandoned line with some rails is almost certainly a topographical
feature, called "old railway grade" in the USGS topo maps.   I can see
your point where the only trace is lot shapes.  But I see a lot of
things where there is clearly a cut/fill topography and the railbed
itself is a feature on the ground.

Deleting something with a comment by someone who has actually been there
and looked is one thing.   I think Russ is objecting to remote
deletionists who aren't actually observing if there is a ground feature,
in a particular case when  Russ  knows full well there IS a ground
feature.


pgp46VKtacT7b.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 08/11/2015 07:09 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Now, you might think "Goddamnit, does Russell have to start again?"
> Yes, I have to start again. I was in north-western Pennsylvania last
> weekend looking for the Corry Junction Rail Trail. Problem: it hasn't
> been entered into OSM yet. But that's not a problem, right? Because OF
> COURSE the railway is there, marked as abandoned, right? 

Errr... you are looking for a trail that follows an abandoned railway
line, and you complain that the abandoned railway line is missing from OSM?

If you were complaining that the trail isn't there then I'd understand,
and you'd have my full support for adding it. But complaining instead
that the abandoned railway isn't there...?

> 1) on the bing aerials you can see where the railroad went perfectly
> fine. It's a line that goes through people's yards, there is a node
> from the TIGER data where it used to cross the roads, there is a tree
> line the whole way, buildings are aligned to the railbed, people's
> driveways bend out of the way of the railbed, etc.

Yes, and therefore it is totally ok to map the buildings as they are,
the bent driveways, and other stuff that is there. This is not an excuse
to map an abandoned railway that isn't there.

I can understand that mapping historical railway lines is of interest to
some. I find it a very interesting topic myself, and I'd love to have a
project where I can simply say "give me the railway landscape as it was
in 1915". People who come up with a project to make that happen have my
respect. OpenStreetMap, however, is not that project.

> 2) THERE ARE STILL FREAKING RAILS ON THE SOUTH END. What the hell??
> This is crazy stuff, it's just crazy. Yes, they're not very long, but
> they're still connected to the national railroad network. How can
> somebody legitimately delete that's obviously there? Answer: they
> can't.

No, surely not, if there are actual rails on the ground then I'd say
they should be mapped. An abandoned railway line having some rails in
some places is not, however, sufficient reason to map the whole
abandoned railway line even where tracks are removed.

> 3) The majority of it is a rail-trail. And not y'know, two weedy ruts
> from an ATV trespassing. No, this rail-trail has a stone dust base,
> permissive gates (with a hole not big enough for an ATV), and tactile
> crossings. This is a *serious* rail-trail.

I see nothing against mapping this "rail-trail" as a proper track on OSM
if that's what it is today. Just not as an abandoned railway.

Anyone who maps the trail as an abandoned railway with an intended "side
meaning" of there also being a trail will risk this information to be
removed; map it as what it is, instead of what it was, and you'll be fine.

> And the railroad way that would be the trail got deleted. 

Yes, the trail should have been mapped as a trail, not as a railroad.

> If you have
> ever said "delete things you don't see", then you need to shut the
> hell up, because you are making the map worse. Just stop!

Delete things you don't see (with some notable exceptions, abandoned
railways not being among them).

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/08/2015 06:09, Russ Nelson wrote:

Okay, this has to stop. ...


Here's what seems to have happened.  Via P1 undelete you can see:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/11896835/history

Someone's spotted that the TIGER way is iffy (via P1 it's possible to 
see that it clearly was), and they're starting to draw it in more 
accurately (in their next changeset, in fact).  Unfortunately that then 
got deleted here by someone (who's now the subject of a long-term block):


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/131281945/history

It got re-added a year ago:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24647010

and deleted 4 months ago:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/259134943/history

by someone who's made exactly 2 edits to OSM, so I suspect this example 
is a cockup rather than a conspiracy.  As everyone else has already 
said, a changeset discussion comment saying "something appears to have 
gone wrong; can I help" would surely be the way forward here?


Cheers,

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Christian Pietzsch]

Hi
deleting abandoned railways if they are still clearly visible on the ground
isn't okay.
Near my hometown we have one of these rail trails.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/247337009
It has been a light rail track and now it is used as asphalt cycle way. As
you can see it is tagged as railway=abandoned and as highway=cycleway and
gets rendered as cycleway. So it seems the tagging and rendering should be
fine for this kind of ways.
As Andrew already said, try to talk with the one who deleted the railways.
In this case it might be a problem:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/30174498
The person only made two changesets four months ago.

In the future the best practice might be:

   - Check who deleted the railway (for example using
   http://zverik.osm.rambler.ru/whodidit/)
   - try to contact the person (don't be harsh! allways try assume they
   made it by accident or lack of knowledge)
   - revert the changeset/part of the chagneset

Reverting the changeset without the permission of the the person might lead
to an edit war so becareful.



2015-08-11 8:59 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 11/08/2015 4:37 PM, Andrew Wiseman wrote:
>
> Hi Russ,
>
> I would suggest you contact who is saying that or deleting it (if you can see 
> who that is,) and talk to them, nicely, about your concerns. I bet it's just 
> that people probably aren't familiar with the concept of abandoned railroads 
> as a tag. If they don't see a railroad track where there's a railroad tag, 
> they probably just delete it, thinking that's what you do. The unused: tag 
> (or whatever you use) is not super well known, in my opinion.
>
>
> Appears to be a continuing problem.
>
> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/33455/what-happened-to-the-abandoned-railroads
>
> In part it may arise from the OSM mantra 'tag what is on the ground'.
> If the abandoned railway is now a 'rail trail' then it should be tagged as a 
> path/track, as that is what is on the ground.
>
> the tag is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned
> and says "A tag to map former railways, where the rails have been removed but 
> the route is still visible in some way.
>
> If the rails are still in place use railway 
> =disused 
>  instead."
>
> That does lack any link to rail trial tagging... in fact OSM looks to lack 
> any guide on 'rail trails'.
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads

[Warin]

On 11/08/2015 4:37 PM, Andrew Wiseman wrote:

Hi Russ,

I would suggest you contact who is saying that or deleting it (if you can see 
who that is,) and talk to them, nicely, about your concerns. I bet it's just 
that people probably aren't familiar with the concept of abandoned railroads as 
a tag. If they don't see a railroad track where there's a railroad tag, they 
probably just delete it, thinking that's what you do. The unused: tag (or 
whatever you use) is not super well known, in my opinion.


Appears to be a continuing problem.

https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/33455/what-happened-to-the-abandoned-railroads

In part it may arise from the OSM mantra 'tag what is on the ground'.
If the abandoned railway is now a 'rail trail' then it should be tagged as a 
path/track, as that is what is on the ground.

the tag is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned
and says "A tag to map former railways, where the rails have been removed but 
the route is still visible in some way.

If the rails are still in place userailway =disused 
  instead."


That does lack any link to rail trial tagging... in fact OSM looks to lack any 
guide on 'rail trails'.

 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk