Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
Richard Mann writes: > Unless you operate to peculiar safety standards, there'll probably be > a stop sign on the track some way either side of the former > crossing(probably set for the stopping distance of the heaviest train > operating at linespeed, and taking the gradient into account - which > could easily be a mile away). So there'll be quite a length of track > that's "disused". I'd probably tag the railway as abandoned, and > remove the level crossing, if it looks like a permanent situation. If the tracks are gone, I tag it railway=abandoned. If the tracks are still there, I tag it railway=disused, even if it's disconnected from the main line. Railroads in New York will *often* disconnect tracks they aren't currently using because tracks connected to the national rail network are taxed at a higher rate. Of course, land with no tracks at all is taxed even lower, so rails quickly get ripped up here. Have I ever said how much I hate the greedy hand of government? I much prefer the invisible hand of markets. Invisible hands don't levy taxes and cause tracks to be unnecessarily ripped up!!! -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
True, but it might well derail a locomotive in the winter. I once saw a locomotive derailed by mud that had flowed across the track, then frozen.. Fortunately, the locomotive was moving slowly enough that it didn't cause a catastrophic accident. Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless -Original message- From: Russ Nelson To: Richard Weait Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thu, May 26, 2011 05:04:31 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled Richard Weait writes: > What should be done with a level_crossing, when trains may cross no longer? > > The junction was a level_crossing, but has been repaved and > re-sculpted. The rails are now covered by 0.3 - 0.4 m of asphalt > which appears to have been laid directly over the tracks. So the > railway hardware appears to still be there, but unusable. The rails > continue both directions from the level_crossing. > > To this point, I have left the level_crossing tag in place; it can > still serve as a waypoint, I suppose. 30cm of asphalt on a warm sunny day is no barrier to a 170 ton locomotive. Think of a marshmellow being run over by a car. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
Richard Weait wrote:
> Any thoughts or widely accepted customs regarding this?
I'd use a length of either railway=disused or railway=abandoned.
IMX it only takes a year or so for a disused railway, often called OOU in
the UK ("out of use"), to become unsuitable for trains to "turn up and go".
On occasion the problem is just a bit of overgrowth, but more frequently,
there'll be something serious that needs addressing before trains can pass
again: signalling, skewed or stolen rails, washed-out trackbed. A bit of
tarmac across the rails is probably the least of these problems.
So, given that "disused" means "permanent way still largely in place but
some work required to get it back in place", I'd be tempted to stick with
railway=disused even despite the odd bit of tarmac. (The example that
springs to mind most readily in the UK is the Amlwch branch, for those who
know it.)
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/level-crossing-leveled-tp6404088p6406306.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
On 26 May 2011 18:53, Richard Mann wrote: > Unless you operate to peculiar safety standards, there'll probably be > a stop sign on the track some way either side of the former > crossing(probably set for the stopping distance of the heaviest train > operating at linespeed, and taking the gradient into account - which > could easily be a mile away). So there'll be quite a length of track > that's "disused". I'd probably tag the railway as abandoned, and > remove the level crossing, if it looks like a permanent situation. I hit this when I first started mapping, there is a lot of track about the place, and the crossings are still there, but tarred over, rather than ripped up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
Unless you operate to peculiar safety standards, there'll probably be a stop sign on the track some way either side of the former crossing(probably set for the stopping distance of the heaviest train operating at linespeed, and taking the gradient into account - which could easily be a mile away). So there'll be quite a length of track that's "disused". I'd probably tag the railway as abandoned, and remove the level crossing, if it looks like a permanent situation. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
Richard Weait writes: > What should be done with a level_crossing, when trains may cross no longer? > > The junction was a level_crossing, but has been repaved and > re-sculpted. The rails are now covered by 0.3 - 0.4 m of asphalt > which appears to have been laid directly over the tracks. So the > railway hardware appears to still be there, but unusable. The rails > continue both directions from the level_crossing. > > To this point, I have left the level_crossing tag in place; it can > still serve as a waypoint, I suppose. 30cm of asphalt on a warm sunny day is no barrier to a 170 ton locomotive. Think of a marshmellow being run over by a car. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
* Richard Weait [2011-05-25 15:10 -0400]: > HI all, > > What should be done with a level_crossing, when trains may cross no longer? I usually have the disused raily intersect the road but don't tag a level_crossing on the intersection. In some cases (where the tracks have been torn up rather than just paved over), I'll split the railway into three pieces and tag the part that crosses the road as abandoned rather than disused. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- When you say "I wrote a program that crashed Windows", people just stare at you blankly and say "Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*". -- Linus Torvalds --- -- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
On 26 May 2011 05:10, Richard Weait wrote: > HI all, > > What should be done with a level_crossing, when trains may cross no longer? > > The junction was a level_crossing, but has been repaved and > re-sculpted. The rails are now covered by 0.3 - 0.4 m of asphalt > which appears to have been laid directly over the tracks. So the > railway hardware appears to still be there, but unusable. The rails > continue both directions from the level_crossing. > > To this point, I have left the level_crossing tag in place; it can > still serve as a waypoint, I suppose. > > Any thoughts or widely accepted customs regarding this? I usually tag them as level_crossings, but some kind of disused tag might be more suitable ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] level_crossing, leveled
HI all, What should be done with a level_crossing, when trains may cross no longer? The junction was a level_crossing, but has been repaved and re-sculpted. The rails are now covered by 0.3 - 0.4 m of asphalt which appears to have been laid directly over the tracks. So the railway hardware appears to still be there, but unusable. The rails continue both directions from the level_crossing. To this point, I have left the level_crossing tag in place; it can still serve as a waypoint, I suppose. Any thoughts or widely accepted customs regarding this? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
