Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail

[Peter Miller]

Apologies about being very late to respond to this issue.

I did use the historic:railway=* tag for old railway for a period of time
having come across it somewhere in the DB. It was good because it was
possible to tag which sort of railway it was

However... I now only use it in very particular circumstances because it
was hard to pick railway features out of the DB. I now always use a current
railway purpose using a railway tag, for example railway=rail, abandoned,
proposed or construction etc.

If however there is also a secondary value for the tag, for example a
former or proposed value then I would also use historic:railway=* or
proposed:railway=*.

For example with a railway that is currently part of a light_rail system
but was formerly part of a main line railway the tagging would be
railway=light_rail, historic:railway=rail.

In one extreme case I found an old canal which then converted into a
mainline railway and is now a cycleway which I think I tagged as tagged
waterway=abandoned, historic:waterway=canal, railway=abandoned,
historic:railway=rail, highway=cycleway. If there was a plan to bring the
canal back into use (which there wasn't) I would have also addded
proposed:waterway=canal!

This allows one to reliably use the railway tag itself to pick up all ways
that have relevance to a railway map without having to check loads of
prefixes and also allow the feature to contain a lot of temporal
information.

I will put it on my very long list to do a cleanup of the orphan
historic:railway tags which I added and which are not on ways with a
railway tag unless someone does it first.

Does that make sense?


Regards,



Peter



On 13 May 2013 17:10, Andy Allan  wrote:

> On 13 May 2013 11:49, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>
> > Would there be any opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to
> > railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground?
>
> I don't oppose the change in principle, but we need to be clear what
> you intend for all the various values. railway:historic = rail,
> railway:historic = light_rail and railway:historic = tram can't all go
> into one railway=dismantled tag without losing information. I expect
> you intend to use another tag (dismantled = light_rail etc) but that's
> worth stating.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>



-- 

Peter Miller CEO

+44(0) 7774 667213

ITO World Ltd - Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 5753174

Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ.

Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ.

Telephone - 01473 272225

www.itoworld.com

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager
or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or
make copies thereof.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail

[Andy Allan]

On 13 May 2013 11:49, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> Would there be any opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to
> railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground?

I don't oppose the change in principle, but we need to be clear what
you intend for all the various values. railway:historic = rail,
railway:historic = light_rail and railway:historic = tram can't all go
into one railway=dismantled tag without losing information. I expect
you intend to use another tag (dismantled = light_rail etc) but that's
worth stating.

Cheers,
Andy

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail

[Lester Caine]

sk53.osm wrote:

I don't think Richard's original post was an invitation to discuss arcane quirks
of Britain's historical railway system.

I have raised the issue of wholesale tag changing several times recently, and as
this tagging is clearly not with the consensus of mappers either in the UK or
elsewhere, I would suggest it be reverted.

Casual changing of tags can create a lot of work for people. That is one of the
reasons why it needs to be discussed. In this case the different tag could have
been added rather than obliterate a widely used tag convention.

I would support a reversion of these edits, and ask the contributor to consult
with this list first.


Screwing the ordering of the thread up totally ...
My point to Richard was that there MAY be a valid use for a different tag. 
Richard was asking if he could change it, but part of the reason for local 
tagging differences IS because of arcane quirks ...
That is not to say that this tags is right ... there is room to clean up a 
number of the railway related tags ... just that it may be flagging a difference 
that 'abandoned' looses.


Given the amount of work now being done on additional railway information on the 
map, proper expansion of the fine detail is important.



On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Richard Fairhurst mailto:rich...@systemed.net>> wrote:

I've just been bitten by the minority, largely undocumented usage of
railway:historic=rail on a bunch of dismantled/abandoned railways in
Britain. Having exported some OSM data and done a few days' manual
processing on it, I belatedly find that various lines are missing due to not
taking account of this tag and I'm going to have to do a whole bunch more
work. :(

Taginfo/Taginfo GB suggest that railway:historic=rail is not used much
elsewhere in the world, and that railway=abandoned, =disused and =dismantled
remain the popular choices. No client software appears to take any notice of
railway:historic=rail.

Would there be any opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to
railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground?

The only documentation I could find (on a wiki discussion page, of all the
obscure places):

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Talk:Railways#railway:__historic.3Dxxx_or_former:__railway.3Dxxx_in_place_of___railway.3Dabandoned.__2Fdismantled.3F





--
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-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail

[sk53.osm]

I don't think Richard's original post was an invitation to discuss arcane
quirks of Britain's historical railway system.

I have raised the issue of wholesale tag changing several times recently,
and as this tagging is clearly not with the consensus of mappers either in
the UK or elsewhere, I would suggest it be reverted.

Casual changing of tags can create a lot of work for people. That is one of
the reasons why it needs to be discussed. In this case the different tag
could have been added rather than obliterate a widely used tag convention.

I would support a reversion of these edits, and ask the contributor to
consult with this list first.

Jerry


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> I've just been bitten by the minority, largely undocumented usage of
> railway:historic=rail on a bunch of dismantled/abandoned railways in
> Britain. Having exported some OSM data and done a few days' manual
> processing on it, I belatedly find that various lines are missing due to
> not taking account of this tag and I'm going to have to do a whole bunch
> more work. :(
>
> Taginfo/Taginfo GB suggest that railway:historic=rail is not used much
> elsewhere in the world, and that railway=abandoned, =disused and
> =dismantled remain the popular choices. No client software appears to take
> any notice of railway:historic=rail.
>
> Would there be any opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to
> railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground?
>
> The only documentation I could find (on a wiki discussion page, of all the
> obscure places): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**
> wiki/Talk:Railways#railway:**historic.3Dxxx_or_former:**
> railway.3Dxxx_in_place_of_**railway.3Dabandoned.**2Fdismantled.3F
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
> __**_
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail

[Lester Caine]

Barnett, Phillip wrote:

BR is unlikely ever to do that and the information is not
 > visible on the ground, but it is available information.
 >
 > --
 > Lester Caine - G8HFL

They certainly are unlikely ever to do that.
Unless this lot succeed .. http://www.bringbackbritishrail.org/ :-)


In the case of my local line BR may not open it, but GWR preservation has an 
option to continue the line north and given the land slip problems going south 
it may be a cheaper option for them :)


--
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-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail

[Barnett, Phillip]

>

PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 207 430 4474
F
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?

-Original Message-
> From: Lester Caine [mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk]
> Sent: 13 May 2013 12:56
> To: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail
>
. BR is unlikely ever to do that and the information is not
> visible on the ground, but it is available information.
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL

They certainly are unlikely ever to do that.
Unless this lot succeed .. http://www.bringbackbritishrail.org/  :-)
Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically 
stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our 
systems. ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail

[Lester Caine]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Taginfo/Taginfo GB suggest that railway:historic=rail is not used much elsewhere
in the world, and that railway=abandoned, =disused and =dismantled remain the
popular choices. No client software appears to take any notice of
railway:historic=rail.

Would there be any opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to
railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground?

The only documentation I could find (on a wiki discussion page, of all the
obscure places):
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#railway:historic.3Dxxx_or_former:railway.3Dxxx_in_place_of_railway.3Dabandoned.2Fdismantled.3F


There is a special case, but I'm not sure that is what you are actually seeing. 
While the track bed may have been lifted, a number of 'historic' lines still 
have statutory orders in place designating them as 'protected'. For instance the 
line up from Broadway extending the GWR track from Toddington has to be treated 
as if it is active and the Broadway Bypass had to have a bridge built to allow 
for an electrified line to be run through. BR is unlikely ever to do that and 
the information is not visible on the ground, but it is available information.


--
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-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail

[Richard Fairhurst]

I've just been bitten by the minority, largely undocumented usage of 
railway:historic=rail on a bunch of dismantled/abandoned railways in 
Britain. Having exported some OSM data and done a few days' manual 
processing on it, I belatedly find that various lines are missing due to 
not taking account of this tag and I'm going to have to do a whole bunch 
more work. :(


Taginfo/Taginfo GB suggest that railway:historic=rail is not used much 
elsewhere in the world, and that railway=abandoned, =disused and 
=dismantled remain the popular choices. No client software appears to 
take any notice of railway:historic=rail.


Would there be any opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to 
railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground?


The only documentation I could find (on a wiki discussion page, of all 
the obscure places): 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#railway:historic.3Dxxx_or_former:railway.3Dxxx_in_place_of_railway.3Dabandoned.2Fdismantled.3F


cheers
Richard

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Kev js1982]

Done - I now remember where I first saw them jumping out at me!

On 6 July 2012 21:49, Andy Allan  wrote:

> On 6 July 2012 21:43, Kev js1982  wrote:
> > I've noticed a stack of stations showing up on the map recently labelled
> > "VillageName Station" which just seams wrong and to have them show up on
> the
> > default rendering seams even more wrong.
> >
> > They are tagged railway=station; disused=yes
>
> Please feel free to fix them, as per
>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-April/011460.html
>
> The combination railway=station; disused=yes should not be used.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Andy Allan]

On 6 July 2012 21:43, Kev js1982  wrote:
> I've noticed a stack of stations showing up on the map recently labelled
> "VillageName Station" which just seams wrong and to have them show up on the
> default rendering seams even more wrong.
>
> They are tagged railway=station; disused=yes

Please feel free to fix them, as per

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-April/011460.html

The combination railway=station; disused=yes should not be used.

Cheers,
Andy

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Kev js1982]

I've noticed a stack of stations showing up on the map recently labelled
"VillageName Station" which just seams wrong and to have them show up on
the default rendering seams even more wrong.

They are tagged railway=station; disused=yes

e.g.
"Widmerpool Station" http://osm.org/go/eu8kWOCCe--
"Plumtree Station" http://osm.org/go/eu8PnPm7t- (closed 1949)
(in those two examples the track is in situ, and for those Londoners on
here your shiny new tube trains got there test runs on there)
"Edwalton Station" http://osm.org/go/eu8aIQFA3- (closed 1949)

While I'm on the subject of Railway Tagging the the Nottingham (Midland)
station seams to have been micromapped to a bit too much detail -e.g.
Mapnik now renders "Platform 4/5 Canopy", "Footpath No. 21 (demolished)",
"Lift Shaft", "Stairs", "Porte-Cohére" (etc) in addition to the useful
stuff like "WH Smith", "Ticket Office", and the debatibly useful stuff
(e.g. "Karlsruhe Friendship Bridge" which will be carrying NET (the tram)
over the station once construction is complete).  "The Milk Dock" has been
turned into a cycle parking area but the rendering is completely obscured
by the highway=service area=yes placed there - can it really be A highway
when it's full of bike racks?

What should be done here - nothing, remove the names or what?

Kev



On 4 July 2012 19:40, Donald Noble  wrote:

> On 4 July 2012 09:39, Craig Loftus  wrote:
> > I think highway=no is typically used as a temporary tag to try to stop
> > remote mappers from adding something from a source that is not up to
> > date.
> > …  However, what
> > is the argument for keeping connections between sections of dismantled
> > railway, that have since been split by modern developments?
> >
>
> In some places, the abandoned railway is visible on aerial imagery,
> but has since been developed over. I would say this is a very similar
> situation to the roads.
>
> As to connecting things up, perhaps that is just OCD and trying to
> make things neat and tidy :p
>
>
> > As an aside, how would one map a dismantled railway bridge? And, how
> > would one map an intact but disused bridge from which the railway
> > tracks have been removed?
> >
>
> For an example of a dismantled bridge with old embankments on either
> side, I would map these as r=abandoned, and the route where the bridge
> used to be as r=dismantled.
>
> This has 2 benefits IMO: it shows other mappers that the ex railway
> has been mapped in a bit more detail than just a single rough way; and
> it may be of use to some users of OSM data, as Peter alluded to.
>
> For the intact bridge, I think this is a relatively clear case of
> r=abandoned, as there is something on the ground to map that is part
> of an abandoned railway.
>
> regards, Donald
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Donald Noble]

On 4 July 2012 09:39, Craig Loftus  wrote:
> I think highway=no is typically used as a temporary tag to try to stop
> remote mappers from adding something from a source that is not up to
> date.
> …  However, what
> is the argument for keeping connections between sections of dismantled
> railway, that have since been split by modern developments?
>

In some places, the abandoned railway is visible on aerial imagery,
but has since been developed over. I would say this is a very similar
situation to the roads.

As to connecting things up, perhaps that is just OCD and trying to
make things neat and tidy :p


> As an aside, how would one map a dismantled railway bridge? And, how
> would one map an intact but disused bridge from which the railway
> tracks have been removed?
>

For an example of a dismantled bridge with old embankments on either
side, I would map these as r=abandoned, and the route where the bridge
used to be as r=dismantled.

This has 2 benefits IMO: it shows other mappers that the ex railway
has been mapped in a bit more detail than just a single rough way; and
it may be of use to some users of OSM data, as Peter alluded to.

For the intact bridge, I think this is a relatively clear case of
r=abandoned, as there is something on the ground to map that is part
of an abandoned railway.

regards, Donald

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Peter Miller]

On 4 July 2012 09:39, Craig Loftus  wrote:

> > However, there are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been
> > realigned or ripped up, should these also be removed from the database?
>
> I think highway=no is typically used as a temporary tag to try to stop
> remote mappers from adding something from a source that is not up to
> date. In practice they probably sit around in the database in
> perpetuity, but it still seems quite different to actively map
> dismantled and abandoned railway lines.
>

highway=no was a dirty hack suggested as a placeholder for a road name that
was in OS Locator that related to a road that didn't exist. Rather than
manage a separate DB of such features with all the associated complexity
someone suggested we pop it in as a non-road. This is currently often
essential for people who which to get to 100% on the OSM Analysis stats we
run (http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main).


> As others have mentioned, railway=dismantled seems fine. However, what
> is the argument for keeping connections between sections of dismantled
> railway, that have since been split by modern developments?
>

Personally I would love it if we are able to extract a routable rail
network from OSM for certain times in the past. I am sure some railway
enthusiast groups will love our historic railway mapping which is better if
complete. Here is a project I have proposed which is sitting waiting for
some love to digitise the world's historic public transport timetables, and
in particular some UK historic railway timetables. (
https://openbradshaws.wordpress.com/)

>
> As an aside, how would one map a dismantled railway bridge? And, how
> would one map an intact but disused bridge from which the railway
> tracks have been removed?
>

My personal preference would be to prefix any tag that is no longer
relevant with 'historic:' (rather than the :historic postfix). This would
fit with prefixes of proposed: and construction: but this is probably
getting to be something that would benefit from being discussed on the
tagging list..

For your above example I would like to use: railway=dismantled;bridge=yes
(or historic:railway=rail;bridge=yes)

If the bridge had been removed I would use:
railway=dismantled;historic:bridge=yes (or
historic:railway=rail;historic:bridge=yes)

If there was a proposed cycle route across a former railway bridge which
would have to be rebuilt I would be tempted to use:
historic:railway=rail;historic:bridge=yes;proposed:bridge=yes;proposed:highway=cycleway


Regards,


Peter



>
> Craig
>
> On 3 July 2012 22:47, Donald Noble  wrote:
> > As someone who has added a few railway=dismantled ways to the map, I
> > thought I might add in my reasoning.
> >
> > Railways, by their nature, link places and are pretty much continuous.
> > So in areas (like Glasgow) where there are sections of old railway
> > infrastructure visible on the ground I have mapped these as r=disused
> > or r=abandoned depending on whether the tracks are still in-situ. But
> > I find it useful if these can be linked by sections of r=dismantled
> > (or some other tag) that reflects that there was a railway there, even
> > if all traces are now gone, as this can make sense of the remnants
> > that are there.
> >
> > I appreciate there is a line between mapping what is on the ground and
> > creating a database of historic routes, and perhaps dismantled
> > railways crosses that line (if you'll excuse the pun). However, there
> > are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been realigned or
> > ripped up, should these also be removed from the database?
> >
> > Personally, I wouldn't map a long section where there once was a
> > railway but it has now been completely obliterated by this complex
> > housing estate and shopping centre, but I have mapped a place where an
> > abandoned railway was obliterated by a carpark but the remains of it
> > are visible on either side (and on 3ish year old bing imagery).
> >
> > This doesn't really address the OP regarding railway:historic=rail
> > versus railway=dismantled, which I have no real views on, as neither
> > appears on most map renderings. Although I have recently changed a
> > couple of railway=station+disused=yes nodes to
> > railway:historic=station, where there is no visible evidence left on
> > the ground (and so they are no use for navigation), so maybe
> > railway:historic=rail keeps things tidier.
> >
> > regards, Donald
> >
> >
> > --
> > Donald Noble
> > http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.or

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Craig Loftus]

> However, there are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been
> realigned or ripped up, should these also be removed from the database?

I think highway=no is typically used as a temporary tag to try to stop
remote mappers from adding something from a source that is not up to
date. In practice they probably sit around in the database in
perpetuity, but it still seems quite different to actively map
dismantled and abandoned railway lines.

As others have mentioned, railway=dismantled seems fine. However, what
is the argument for keeping connections between sections of dismantled
railway, that have since been split by modern developments?

As an aside, how would one map a dismantled railway bridge? And, how
would one map an intact but disused bridge from which the railway
tracks have been removed?

Craig

On 3 July 2012 22:47, Donald Noble  wrote:
> As someone who has added a few railway=dismantled ways to the map, I
> thought I might add in my reasoning.
>
> Railways, by their nature, link places and are pretty much continuous.
> So in areas (like Glasgow) where there are sections of old railway
> infrastructure visible on the ground I have mapped these as r=disused
> or r=abandoned depending on whether the tracks are still in-situ. But
> I find it useful if these can be linked by sections of r=dismantled
> (or some other tag) that reflects that there was a railway there, even
> if all traces are now gone, as this can make sense of the remnants
> that are there.
>
> I appreciate there is a line between mapping what is on the ground and
> creating a database of historic routes, and perhaps dismantled
> railways crosses that line (if you'll excuse the pun). However, there
> are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been realigned or
> ripped up, should these also be removed from the database?
>
> Personally, I wouldn't map a long section where there once was a
> railway but it has now been completely obliterated by this complex
> housing estate and shopping centre, but I have mapped a place where an
> abandoned railway was obliterated by a carpark but the remains of it
> are visible on either side (and on 3ish year old bing imagery).
>
> This doesn't really address the OP regarding railway:historic=rail
> versus railway=dismantled, which I have no real views on, as neither
> appears on most map renderings. Although I have recently changed a
> couple of railway=station+disused=yes nodes to
> railway:historic=station, where there is no visible evidence left on
> the ground (and so they are no use for navigation), so maybe
> railway:historic=rail keeps things tidier.
>
> regards, Donald
>
>
> --
> Donald Noble
> http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Donald Noble]

As someone who has added a few railway=dismantled ways to the map, I
thought I might add in my reasoning.

Railways, by their nature, link places and are pretty much continuous.
So in areas (like Glasgow) where there are sections of old railway
infrastructure visible on the ground I have mapped these as r=disused
or r=abandoned depending on whether the tracks are still in-situ. But
I find it useful if these can be linked by sections of r=dismantled
(or some other tag) that reflects that there was a railway there, even
if all traces are now gone, as this can make sense of the remnants
that are there.

I appreciate there is a line between mapping what is on the ground and
creating a database of historic routes, and perhaps dismantled
railways crosses that line (if you'll excuse the pun). However, there
are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been realigned or
ripped up, should these also be removed from the database?

Personally, I wouldn't map a long section where there once was a
railway but it has now been completely obliterated by this complex
housing estate and shopping centre, but I have mapped a place where an
abandoned railway was obliterated by a carpark but the remains of it
are visible on either side (and on 3ish year old bing imagery).

This doesn't really address the OP regarding railway:historic=rail
versus railway=dismantled, which I have no real views on, as neither
appears on most map renderings. Although I have recently changed a
couple of railway=station+disused=yes nodes to
railway:historic=station, where there is no visible evidence left on
the ground (and so they are no use for navigation), so maybe
railway:historic=rail keeps things tidier.

regards, Donald


-- 
Donald Noble
http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Peter Miller]

On 2 July 2012 16:19, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
>  > I started using railway:historic=xxx in place of railway=dismantled
> > for cycletracks etc in response to a comment through OSM
> > messaging that one editor had found it confusing to suddenly
> > have cyclepaths being rendered as railways in Potlatch due the
> > railway=xxx tag (although that is not a good reason to make
> > the change in itself.)
>
> Indeed not. That's a 30-second change to P2 to change the rendering order.
> Put a trac ticket in and someone will change the stylesheet!
>

Good. It is now on trac. Thanks Shaun.


> > As for the best venue to discuss tagging, I signed off the main talk a
> > long time ago as it took far too much time to keep up with.
> > I now use the wiki as my main place for global tagging discussions.
>
> There is a tagging@ list now, of course.
>

However... that email list is very busy and currently full of discussions
about mapping 'larger mini-roundabouts' and eclectic other topics. I am
glad people are using it, but the wiki is also a productive place to
discuss tagging and is a lot more focused. For railways the 'talk:Railways'
page is pretty good. Personally I won't be signing up the talk-tagging but
will keep an eye on it from time to time.

Re Potlatch: thanks for sorting out the rendering Richard!


Regards,



Peter




>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/railway-historic-rail-tags-tp5714652p5714762.html
> Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Richard Fairhurst]

Shaun McDonald wrote:
> https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4467 has been created for this.

...nd fixed.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/railway-historic-rail-tags-tp5714652p5714776.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Shaun McDonald]

On 2 Jul 2012, at 16:19, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
> > I started using railway:historic=xxx in place of railway=dismantled 
>> for cycletracks etc in response to a comment through OSM 
>> messaging that one editor had found it confusing to suddenly 
>> have cyclepaths being rendered as railways in Potlatch due the 
>> railway=xxx tag (although that is not a good reason to make 
>> the change in itself.)
> 
> Indeed not. That's a 30-second change to P2 to change the rendering order.
> Put a trac ticket in and someone will change the stylesheet!

https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4467 has been created for this.

Shaun
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Miller wrote:
> I started using railway:historic=xxx in place of railway=dismantled 
> for cycletracks etc in response to a comment through OSM 
> messaging that one editor had found it confusing to suddenly 
> have cyclepaths being rendered as railways in Potlatch due the 
> railway=xxx tag (although that is not a good reason to make 
> the change in itself.)

Indeed not. That's a 30-second change to P2 to change the rendering order.
Put a trac ticket in and someone will change the stylesheet!

> As for the best venue to discuss tagging, I signed off the main talk a 
> long time ago as it took far too much time to keep up with. 
> I now use the wiki as my main place for global tagging discussions.

There is a tagging@ list now, of course.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/railway-historic-rail-tags-tp5714652p5714762.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Peter Miller]

On 1 July 2012 22:49, Dave F.  wrote:

> On 30/06/2012 15:11, SomeoneElse wrote:
>
>>Obviously "mapping things that aren't there any more" is a bigger
>>issue
>>
> Has there been discussion about this outside talk:railway? If there hasn't
> I'm a bit annoyed that a niche user group didn't discuss it with the wider
> world.
>
> You're correct it has been discussed before but I thought there was a
> conclusion - that OSM is not a historic document.
>
> It there is physical evidence of something from days gone by then tag it
> as such but if the landscape has totally obliterated it, leave it be. If
> Peterito wants to create a 'railways of the past map' he should use OSM as
> the _current_ background and import old ways from a separate database.
>
> One of the problems is where do you stop? I live in a city that's goes
> back beyond Roman occupation. If OSM were to be totally inclusive &
> complete in a historic sense then my patch would be a right PITA to move
> around within the editors, let alone amend anything.
>

Apologies about not raising it earlier, but as is the nature of some of
these missions sometimes,they start with small tweeks in one's home patch
and then sometimes become much bigger. It had been my intention to mention
it on this list in due course.

By way of background, I have been doing a general GB cleanup on old
railways to ensure that they are correctly designated as
disused/abandoned/dismantled and that more former railways that are now
footpaths/cyclepaths are tagged as such. Here is a map on ITO Map showing
how railways have been reused:
http://www.itoworld.com/map/26#

Regarding the mapping of obliterated railway lines (often tagged as
railway=abandoned in the past), it was initially my view that this
information should not be in OSM and I spent some time removing it where I
found it. There was then a discussion and agreement that railway=dismantled
should be used for this purpose (which doesn't render on the standard
mapping and therefore doesn't make the map look odd where it crosses a
built-up area the way abandoned does). I know that it is not normally the
case to map removed features, but the community seemed to have agreed that
it should be included. Personally I feel that this is appropriate given the
huge legacy of railways for the UK.

While doing this I found railway:historic being used somewhere, I believe
it was in Cornwall and liked the fact that it retained more information
about the type is railway, ie if it had been a mainline railway, a
funicular railway or a miniature railway.

I started using railway:historic=xxx in place of railway=dismantled for
cycletracks etc in response to a comment through OSM messaging that one
editor had found it confusing to suddenly have cyclepaths being rendered as
railways in Potlatch due the railway=xxx tag (although that is not a good
reason to make the change in itself.)

As for the best venue to discuss tagging, I signed off the main talk a long
time ago as it took far too much time to keep up with. I now use the wiki
as my main place for global tagging discussions. You will see that there
have been a good number of discussions on talk:railways (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways) over the years including
on this topic. I do however agree that since my mapping has been done in
the UK that I should also have mentioned it here. Apologies for not doing
so. All we need to agree now is how to go forward on this one.

Responding to comments below. Use of railway=abandoned for lines across
housing estates is definitely wrong. Some suggest railway=dismantled, some
remove them. Personally I think we are very close to a routeable historic
railway network in advance of the 60th anniversary of the Beeching Cuts
which is in March 2013.


Regards,



Peter




>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
>
>
>
> __**_
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Chris Hill]

Lester Caine  wrote:

>We still NEED some usable mechanism to maintain historic information.
>On the whole the map is just growing, so just a valid start date is all
>that is needed. But increasingly we have modern history where roads are
>remodelled, and moving the history of those changes to something other
>than the main database just seems pointless?
>
>- Original message -
>> I agree with Dave F here,   where would you stop.
>> 
>> I've been updating some streetnames around the SW, and noticed that
>> there   are now railway=abandoned going through towns and villages
>where
>> there are   no remains of the tracks visible. (Housing estates
>clearly
>> built over any   remnants of old lines)
>> 
>> Where there is physical evidence of an embankment, cutting, old track
>> route,   then by all means record it.     (I've done this myself, as
>it
>> helps to   explain the topography)   but this is not a historic
>document.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Jason W (UniEagle)
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: Dave F.
>> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 10:49 PM
>> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
>> 
>> On 30/06/2012 15:11, SomeoneElse wrote:
>> > Obviously "mapping things that aren't there any more" is a bigger
>> > issue
>> Has there been discussion about this outside talk:railway? If there
>> hasn't I'm a bit annoyed that a niche user group didn't discuss it
>with
>> the wider world.
>> 
>> You're correct it has been discussed before but I thought there was a
>> conclusion - that OSM is not a historic document.
>> 
>> It there is physical evidence of something from days gone by then tag
>it
>> as such but if the landscape has totally obliterated it, leave it be.
>If
>> Peterito wants to create a 'railways of the past map' he should use
>OSM
>> as the _current_ background and import old ways from a separate
>database.
>> 
>> One of the problems is where do you stop? I live in a city that's
>goes
>> back beyond Roman occupation. If OSM were to be totally inclusive &
>> complete in a historic sense then my patch would be a right PITA to
>move
>> around within the editors, let alone amend anything.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Dave F.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> 
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

You might, I don't, so 'we' might not be the right way to phrase this. I've 
heard this before but I don't see any progress, nor much enthusiasm from most 
people. 

Personally, I'm interested in a map (and data) that reflects what I see today. 
Since 'historic' is completely open-ended it is unrealistic to propose adding 
any or all of that to OSM. Adding a ruin, that exists on the ground now and I 
can visit, is completely different from adding a feature that did exist but 
does not now. 
-- 
Cheers, Chris
OSM User chillly

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Lester Caine]

We still NEED some usable mechanism to maintain historic information. On the 
whole the map is just growing, so just a valid start date is all that is 
needed. But increasingly we have modern history where roads are remodelled, and 
moving the history of those changes to something other than the main database 
just seems pointless?

- Original message -
> I agree with Dave F here,   where would you stop.
> 
> I've been updating some streetnames around the SW, and noticed that
> there   are now railway=abandoned going through towns and villages where
> there are   no remains of the tracks visible. (Housing estates clearly
> built over any   remnants of old lines)
> 
> Where there is physical evidence of an embankment, cutting, old track
> route,   then by all means record it.     (I've done this myself, as it
> helps to   explain the topography)   but this is not a historic document.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jason W (UniEagle)
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Dave F.
> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 10:49 PM
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
> 
> On 30/06/2012 15:11, SomeoneElse wrote:
> > Obviously "mapping things that aren't there any more" is a bigger
> > issue
> Has there been discussion about this outside talk:railway? If there
> hasn't I'm a bit annoyed that a niche user group didn't discuss it with
> the wider world.
> 
> You're correct it has been discussed before but I thought there was a
> conclusion - that OSM is not a historic document.
> 
> It there is physical evidence of something from days gone by then tag it
> as such but if the landscape has totally obliterated it, leave it be. If
> Peterito wants to create a 'railways of the past map' he should use OSM
> as the _current_ background and import old ways from a separate database.
> 
> One of the problems is where do you stop? I live in a city that's goes
> back beyond Roman occupation. If OSM were to be totally inclusive &
> complete in a historic sense then my patch would be a right PITA to move
> around within the editors, let alone amend anything.
> 
> Cheers
> Dave F.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[J.Woollacott]

I agree with Dave F here,  where would you stop.

I've been updating some streetnames around the SW, and noticed that there 
are now railway=abandoned going through towns and villages where there are 
no remains of the tracks visible. (Housing estates clearly built over any 
remnants of old lines)


Where there is physical evidence of an embankment, cutting, old track route, 
then by all means record it.   (I've done this myself, as it helps to 
explain the topography)  but this is not a historic document.


Cheers

Jason W (UniEagle)

-Original Message- 
From: Dave F.

Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 10:49 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

On 30/06/2012 15:11, SomeoneElse wrote:

   Obviously "mapping things that aren't there any more" is a bigger
   issue

Has there been discussion about this outside talk:railway? If there
hasn't I'm a bit annoyed that a niche user group didn't discuss it with
the wider world.

You're correct it has been discussed before but I thought there was a
conclusion - that OSM is not a historic document.

It there is physical evidence of something from days gone by then tag it
as such but if the landscape has totally obliterated it, leave it be. If
Peterito wants to create a 'railways of the past map' he should use OSM
as the _current_ background and import old ways from a separate database.

One of the problems is where do you stop? I live in a city that's goes
back beyond Roman occupation. If OSM were to be totally inclusive &
complete in a historic sense then my patch would be a right PITA to move
around within the editors, let alone amend anything.

Cheers
Dave F.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Dave F.]

On 30/06/2012 15:11, SomeoneElse wrote:

   Obviously "mapping things that aren't there any more" is a bigger
   issue
Has there been discussion about this outside talk:railway? If there 
hasn't I'm a bit annoyed that a niche user group didn't discuss it with 
the wider world.


You're correct it has been discussed before but I thought there was a 
conclusion - that OSM is not a historic document.


It there is physical evidence of something from days gone by then tag it 
as such but if the landscape has totally obliterated it, leave it be. If 
Peterito wants to create a 'railways of the past map' he should use OSM 
as the _current_ background and import old ways from a separate database.


One of the problems is where do you stop? I live in a city that's goes 
back beyond Roman occupation. If OSM were to be totally inclusive & 
complete in a historic sense then my patch would be a right PITA to move 
around within the editors, let alone amend anything.


Cheers
Dave F.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Philip Barnes]

I had spotted some of these, same mapper, near Whitchurch, and must
admit it has concerned me as previously it had shown on the map as a
tracked. 

It is still visible on the ground, but now not visible on the map. This
seems wrong to me, my feeling it should be reverted. Was going to
contract the mapper, but you have beaten me to it.

What should we do? I have not explored it yet, as new top the area, but
imagine it is walked and one of the tracks used within Fenns Moss nature
reserve. Other paths now join an invisible way.


Phil
--


Sent from my Nokia N9




On 30/06/2012 15:11 SomeoneElse wrote:



I've noticed a few of these popping up recently, e.g.:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933

 and

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933

y
 .


It seems to be being used as an alternative to "railway=abandoned"
(or as sometimes mapped "railway=dismantled"). The first of those
examples is a not-obviously-visible-on-the-ground one, but the
second is still visible as the route of a former railway.


I mentioned it to the author a few days ago and he pointed me at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933 , where apparently
some discussion is going on. I mention this here because I suspect
that, like many users of OSM data, I don't read the wiki every day
to see if someone is about to replace "tag X" with "tag Y" in the data.


Aside from that "railway:historic = rail" doesn't seem to
distinguish between (1) "there was a railway here, and you can still
see the route now" from (2) "there was a railway here, but you can't
still see the route any more".


(1) has been universally mapped as "railway=abandoned"; (2) has
either been:
o mapped as railway=abandoned
o mapped as railway=dismantled
o not mapped (because there's nothing there on the ground now)


Obviously "mapping things that aren't there any more" is a bigger
issue than just railways and had been done to death on mailing lists
and elsewhere (e.g.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933

). Suffice to say, we don't have a good answer to that right now
other than "don't except in special cases *". However former
railways often are still visible and are useful, if not yet used for
something else.


I'm raising this first on talk-gb rather than internationally
because (a) that's where I've seen the changes made and (b) the UK
suffered from a lot of NPE-traced "railway=abandoned" that weren't
really, with no features being left on the ground.


Cheers,
Andy


* Like a pub that I walked past on Thursday that is about to succumb
to the ongoing Tescoification of Britain.


___

Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[SomeoneElse]

   I've noticed a few of these popping up recently, e.g.:
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933
    and
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/77277743/histor
   y
    .

   It seems to be being used as an alternative to "railway=abandoned"
   (or as sometimes mapped "railway=dismantled").  The first of those
   examples is a not-obviously-visible-on-the-ground one, but the
   second is still visible as the route of a former railway.

   I mentioned it to the author a few days ago and he pointed me at
   http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways , where apparently
   some discussion is going on.  I mention this here because I suspect
   that, like many users of OSM data, I don't read the wiki every day
   to see if someone is about to replace "tag X" with "tag Y" in the data.

   Aside from that "railway:historic = rail" doesn't seem to
   distinguish between (1) "there was a railway here, and you can still
   see the route now" from (2) "there was a railway here, but you can't
   still see the route any more".

   (1) has been universally mapped as "railway=abandoned"; (2) has
   either been:
   o mapped as railway=abandoned
   o mapped as railway=dismantled
   o not mapped (because there's nothing there on the ground now)

   Obviously "mapping things that aren't there any more" is a bigger
   issue than just railways and had been done to death on mailing lists
   and elsewhere (e.g.
   
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/4th_Dimension/Archive
   ).  Suffice to say, we don't have a good answer to that right now
   other than "don't except in special cases *".  However former
   railways often are still visible and are useful, if not yet used for
   something else.

   I'm raising this first on talk-gb rather than internationally
   because (a) that's where I've seen the changes made and (b) the UK
   suffered from a lot of NPE-traced "railway=abandoned" that weren't
   really, with no features being left on the ground.

   Cheers,
   Andy

   * Like a pub that I walked past on Thursday that is about to succumb
   to the ongoing Tescoification of Britain.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb