Re: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways
This means that the separate track should be removed for the 3 cases I listed, or not ? On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:31 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote: On 2013-04-13 23:02, Marc Gemis wrote : ... So why two lines for an abandoned railway and the cycleway/footway on it ? Can't they be combined ? What to do is explained in the OSM wiki at ... Railwayshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railways Abandoned - The track has been removed and the line may have been reused or left to decay but is still clearly visible, either from the replacement infrastructure, or purely from a line of trees around an original cutting or embankment. Use railwayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway =abandoned http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned. Where it has been reused as a cycle path then add highwayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway =cycleway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway. Consider adding a end_datehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:end_date =* tag or more specifically a railway:end_datehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:railway:end_dateaction=editredlink=1 =* tag. It applies even if it now looks like a cycleway or anything but if you can still clearly see where the railway has been. If Mapnik, Garmin or other doesn't display or use that correctly, they say that you must file a renderer bug. Cheers, André. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways
No, highway and cycleway should not share any ways. The only thing which may be acceptable is reusing the same nodes for two different ways, but only if they are on exactly the same location, which is actually quite rare. In quite a lot of cases there will be an offset, or it will diverge a little bit from the original railway track. Ben On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: This means that the separate track should be removed for the 3 cases I listed, or not ? On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:31 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote: On 2013-04-13 23:02, Marc Gemis wrote : ... So why two lines for an abandoned railway and the cycleway/footway on it ? Can't they be combined ? What to do is explained in the OSM wiki at ... Railwayshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railways Abandoned - The track has been removed and the line may have been reused or left to decay but is still clearly visible, either from the replacement infrastructure, or purely from a line of trees around an original cutting or embankment. Use railwayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway =abandoned http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned. Where it has been reused as a cycle path then add highwayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway =cycleway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway. Consider adding a end_datehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:end_date =* tag or more specifically a railway:end_datehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:railway:end_dateaction=editredlink=1 =* tag. It applies even if it now looks like a cycleway or anything but if you can still clearly see where the railway has been. If Mapnik, Garmin or other doesn't display or use that correctly, they say that you must file a renderer bug. Cheers, André. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways
For the first two examples there is no doubt that there are still remains of a railway, but I still wonder whether it makes much sense to leave the railway tag on this http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.1060394346714lon=4.379757642745972zoom=17 especially on the parking area and to a lesser extend in the first part parallel to Voetweg 32. If the line was not on the map, I would never have known that there has been a railway. I don't know of any visual clues there. Of course the Spoorweglaan gives away that there used to be a railway :-) On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ben Laenen benlae...@gmail.com wrote: No, highway and cycleway should not share any ways. The only thing which may be acceptable is reusing the same nodes for two different ways, but only if they are on exactly the same location, which is actually quite rare. In quite a lot of cases there will be an offset, or it will diverge a little bit from the original railway track. Ben On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: This means that the separate track should be removed for the 3 cases I listed, or not ? On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:31 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote: On 2013-04-13 23:02, Marc Gemis wrote : ... So why two lines for an abandoned railway and the cycleway/footway on it ? Can't they be combined ? What to do is explained in the OSM wiki at ... Railwayshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railways Abandoned - The track has been removed and the line may have been reused or left to decay but is still clearly visible, either from the replacement infrastructure, or purely from a line of trees around an original cutting or embankment. Use railwayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway =abandoned http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned. Where it has been reused as a cycle path then add highwayhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway =cycleway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway. Consider adding a end_datehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:end_date =* tag or more specifically a railway:end_datehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:railway:end_dateaction=editredlink=1 =* tag. It applies even if it now looks like a cycleway or anything but if you can still clearly see where the railway has been. If Mapnik, Garmin or other doesn't display or use that correctly, they say that you must file a renderer bug. Cheers, André. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
[OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways
While mapping my RWN walk near Hulshout / Westmeerbeek I noticed that there were 2 cycleways next to one another, running from north to south: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.063594818115234lon=4.8265814781188965zoom=16 One was simply mapped as highway=cycleway, the other had more tags and was also part of an RCN relation. Further investigation showed that the former used to be a railway=abandoned, but was changed to a cycleway in December 2012. The ways are pretty long, running from Herentals to Leuven. The abandoned railroad way has ID 116738269. I decided to reverse that way to railway=abandoned, but I'm not happy with it. It shows to parallel lines on a map (I know, don't tag for the renderer), but wouldn't it be better to add the railway=abandoned to the cycleway. ? Similar situation here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.06616973876953lon=4.476719498634338zoom=17 and here http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.1060394346714lon=4.379757642745972zoom=17 in this case I wonder how you can see it, no remains are left. So why two lines for an abandoned railway and the cycleway/footway on it ? Can't they be combined ? m ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
