Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Hans De Kryger writes: > On Apr 2, 2015 7:08 AM, "EthnicFood IsGreat" > wrote: > > > > It's apparent to me that consensus will never be reached on whether or > not abandoned railroads belong in OSM (at least the way it is currently > configured), given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue. That's > why I think moving them to OHM is a good compromise. I don't like it, but > I would rather do that than see this data lost forever. At least in OHM, > the data still lives, and can always be moved back to OSM later if a > solution to the problem of historic features can be found. > > +1 Okay, but Hans, what Mark wrote is incoherent. The people who want to delete the dismantled portions of abandoned railroads from OSM want to delete them. Those of us who want the context of the dismantled portions to stay next to the merely abandoned or disused portions, do NOT want to delete them. This is a binary choice: stay or go. There is no compromise. Framing the choice to delete them as a compromise is simply a falsehood. With your +1, you are NOT COMPROMISING, you are saying that true things in OSM should be deleted. Let's just be clear on that: true things in OSM, which can often be verified in the field, are being deleted, people are supporting that, and it's NOT A COMPROMISE. -- --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-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On Apr 2, 2015 7:08 AM, "EthnicFood IsGreat" wrote: > > It's apparent to me that consensus will never be reached on whether or not abandoned railroads belong in OSM (at least the way it is currently configured), given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue. That's why I think moving them to OHM is a good compromise. I don't like it, but I would rather do that than see this data lost forever. At least in OHM, the data still lives, and can always be moved back to OSM later if a solution to the problem of historic features can be found. > > Mark > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > +1 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Serge Wroclawski writes: > Propertly boundaries is something that people have wanted, and > we've resisted putting in OSM, despite it being useful for a > variety of people. For much more practical reasons, mostly that they would blow up the database and introduce a huge number of ways that every editor would immediately add to the JOSM 'hide' list. The scale is completely different. The number of railways tagged as dismantled (or as abandoned which ought to be dismantled) is miniscule in comparison. > I see people who want to know what to do when they encounter a > feature they can't see on the ground. If it's not TIGER data and it has tags, leave it there. Seems like a simple rule to me. If you don't understand why the editor added it, ask them. -- --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-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > But if you can't discover them while on the ground, eg if there's been > a building placed over it, if the area has been paved over, or is now > used as a field, then I see two problems: > > 1. It's not possible to validate > 2.The railroad is no longer present, by definition Such railroads are definitely possible to locate, precisely because of their linear nature. Sometimes the signs are the curve of a wall, or a strange row of trees. Sometimes the signs are subtle, such as a series of gas pipeline markers. But they can be validated. Disused railroads are different than playgrounds or demolished buildings. The boundary between "inactive" and "active" is somewhat subtle: some lines linger on with one train per year for decades. The boundary between "abandoned" and "razed" is subtle: it often happens in bits and chunks. But the linear nature of a railroad is not subtle. To understand what remains, you want to understand the linear nature: railroads (almost always) connect to other railroads. * Making sense of a remaining railroad feature (e.g. a tunnel) requires understanding where the tracks went.* The process of trail building, for example, is reclaiming all of those legal right of ways, or negotiating alternative routes. I oppose deletion of a railroad until all of it is gone. As long as bits remain, the connecting context is important. It's minimally verifiable as well, as a "boots on the ground" mapper can visit the visible parts, and infer the connections. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On 2015-04-04 05:23, Serge Wroclawski wrote: On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: Brad Neuhauser writes: If you want to know how serious abandonfans are, I've see people go looking in farmer's fields with a metal detector looking for spikes, and dig down 12" to find one. I've seen people go into a farmer's field looking for chunks of coal that fell off coal trains. I've knocked on people's doors to ask them if they know anything about the railroad in their backyard. That shows an incredible level of dedication, but in OSM we generally don't require specialized equipment to contribute, including validation. The evidence of dismantled railroads is out there, and it should be in OSM to help people find it. What would you do about someone who was cleverly adding tracks that didn't exist? Imagine if there was a vandal who was clever. We'll call this vandal User V. User V decides to have a bit of fun and makes dismantled railroad ways. How do you propose we, as a community, handle User V? My normal way of handling such a matter, in or out of a DWG context, would be to go to the place and see if I see what they see. But my understanding from your mail (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that I personally have the expertise to make that determination? Who does? What makes one mapper more qualified than another mapper? This question gets to the heart of this project, which is that we don't make people take tests to map in OSM. This is such a generalist project that anyone can contribute. Now you're saying that, in essence, some features can only be evaluated by certain users. I don't think that's really what you mean, but that's what I'm hearing. Let me reframe the question. Instead of "Yes they should be in OSM" or "No they shouldn't be in OSM", here's the new question: If a user deleted an object that a layperson can't see in OSM, what do you think the process be for evaluating that edit should be? I appreciate your emphasis on verification. The community necessarily puts in a lot of effort into data integrity, but we don't really promote the more manual side of QA. As OSM grows in profile, our defenses against vandalism will increasingly be tested. Personally, I don't find ground verification to be nearly as fun as mapping, but if someone's going to volunteer to do that work, we shouldn't throw needless obstacles in their way. We should assume that verifiers are every bit as diverse as the OSM community at large, rather than a lowest common denominator group of laypeople. I'd be much better at verifying administrative boundaries than mountain biking trails. You shouldn't trust me to make good calls on mtb:scale= values, but don't stop a skilled cyclist from using that important tag and another skilled cyclist from verifying it. On the other hand, mappers who feel the need to rely on detective work should document that work, for example by adding a note= tag or accompanying that railway=abandoned with some additional clues. If it really comes down to spikes you've dug out of the ground, an OSM diary post with photos can go a long way. We all love a good story! -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Russ, Replies in-line. I also mention my work in the DWG, but I'm not representing the DWG here, just reporting on what happened. On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Brad Neuhauser writes: > > So, is the argument here that we should no longer delete features that no > > longer exist, just retag them? Is the argument that we generally should > > delete such features, but railways are a special case where we shouldn't? > > Yes, they are, because railroads went continuously from point A to > point B, and they leave their mark on the world. This is really the core of the issue. We're not talking about unused railroads, where the tracks remain, but ones where the track does not exist. > Maybe you don't see > it. Maybe I don't see it when I add a railroad=dismantled. But maybe I > can USE THE MAP to do field work to find it. But if you can't discover them while on the ground, eg if there's been a building placed over it, if the area has been paved over, or is now used as a field, then I see two problems: 1. It's not possible to validate 2.The railroad is no longer present, by definition Let's look at #1 in context. If there was once a battlefield in an area, but it's now a shopping center, what clues would I look for to determine that there was a battlefield here? If there were signs there, that might be doable, but in the absence of it, then I have don't know how I'd identify a battlefield from a regular field. Maybe an expert could. They could tell me that a certain land feature was indicative of a bunker being there once, but without training, I couldn't find it. As for the second problem, the way I see it is that a battlefield that's now a shopping center is now a shopping center in OSM. I don't think you'd disagree with me here, just as I don't think you'd disagree that a former playground in NYC that gets demolished and a tower put in its place is no longer a playground. > That's why I'm making a > fuss -- because having even dismantled railroads in OSM is > *useful*. It's useful to me, it's useful to railfans, it's useful to > rail-trail creators, it's useful to property managers, it's useful to > surveyors. I hear you. This is something you care deeply about, that you've put enormous sweat equity into in both time and effort, and you're concerned about your work being for naught. That's something I don't think anyone is forgetting, but in case you feel that it's being lost in the discussion, let me be as clear as I can in saying "Thank you for doing this hard work, Russ." That said, and not diminishing from it, the question before us is about whether or not this data belongs in this particular dataset, and utility is not the only measure we use. Propertly boundaries is something that people have wanted, and we've resisted putting in OSM, despite it being useful for a variety of people. Similarly, we've had people who wanted to put in sea routes which change weekly into OSM. That's also *possible* to map, but something that has been generally discouraged because despite its utility, is hard to verify. > I don't understand why people are so eager to delete accurate and > useful data, that people have spent hours, days, weeks, months, years, > and decades adding. I don't see people who are eagar to delete data. I see people who want to know what to do when they encounter a feature they can't see on the ground. The issue came to my attention because we had a user (User A) complaining about another user (User B) who had deleted a few dismantled rail lines. User A contacted the DWG regarding this and wanted User B to have administrative action taken against them. I looked at what User B did, looked at the changeset comments, looked at the discussions about it, and User B reports that they went to the area, manually surveyed it, created new data where there were unmapped features, and removed features which they could not see with boots on the ground. This area isn't anywhere near me, so I was stuck using the Bing imagery, but what I saw was that some of what was being deleted had other features on, such as houses where the rail line had been. In my capacity as a DWG member, I basically punted, saying "We have two users who are both acting in good faith. User A believes the railroads should stay despite no evidence on the ground, and User B believes that former railroads that don't have visible evidence should be removed." Both parties are are acting within what they believe to be community mapping standards for data in OSM, and neither one is acting with malice. In this thread, I see people basically playing out this same dispute. There's no consensus between groups on this issue- both parties are acting on what they believe to be good faith. My *personal* view is that OHM is a far better fit for this, because not only could you have the tracks, but you could capture data about them, such as what rail companies they used to serve, and what speeds they used to support. I
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Brad Neuhauser writes: > So, is the argument here that we should no longer delete features that no > longer exist, just retag them? Is the argument that we generally should > delete such features, but railways are a special case where we shouldn't? Yes, they are, because railroads went continuously from point A to point B, and they leave their mark on the world. Maybe you don't see it. Maybe I don't see it when I add a railroad=dismantled. But maybe I can USE THE MAP to do field work to find it. That's why I'm making a fuss -- because having even dismantled railroads in OSM is *useful*. It's useful to me, it's useful to railfans, it's useful to rail-trail creators, it's useful to property managers, it's useful to surveyors. I don't understand why people are so eager to delete accurate and useful data, that people have spent hours, days, weeks, months, years, and decades adding. I have pre-OSM GPS tracks from mapping old railroads that date from 2002. I've added them, painstakingly, one at a time, and joined them into the existing data as appropriate. I've been mapping railroads since before OSM was a gleam in Steve Coast's eye. If you want to know how serious abandonfans are, I've see people go looking in farmer's fields with a metal detector looking for spikes, and dig down 12" to find one. I've seen people go into a farmer's field looking for chunks of coal that fell off coal trains. I've knocked on people's doors to ask them if they know anything about the railroad in their backyard. The evidence of dismantled railroads is out there, and it should be in OSM to help people find it. -- --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-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Greg Morgan wrote: On the ground, meanwhile, >> you'd tend to find no trespassing signs on railbanked ROWs, no? In general, no. Trespassing signs tend to appear on encroachments (where neighbours are using the railroad right of way without formal permission). But the corridors themselves tend to be completely unmaintained. The railroad companies are profit driven, and don't spend time on corridors of no current utility. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote: > On 2015-03-31 00:36, Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 03/31/2015 08:04 AM, Natfoot wrote: >> >>> There is so many situations where to his naked eye on the ground he may >>> not be able to see it. To a person like myself I can still find the >>> signs on the earth of where the railroad once was. >>> >> >> Then map the signs that *are*, but not the railroad which - as you >> correctly say - once *was*. >> > > For many rights of way, the main remaining feature is a greenway cutting > across farmland -- something you can easily armchair map, even. Personally, > I'd rather map that ROW as a railway=abandoned way than as a natural=wood > area, just as I avoid mapping roads as areas. On the ground, meanwhile, > you'd tend to find no trespassing signs on railbanked ROWs, no? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/330316713 Yep! Mapped that back in March 2015. These are significant navigation features, if it rendered. The desert will preserve these features for years. It is also a feature that should not be moved into OSH. Perhaps copied but not moved. Regards, Greg ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
> > > I'm fully with Russ and Greg on this one. For the few vocal deletionists > who > seem to have ants in their pants about this, may I suggest that you just > learn to read 'railway=abandoned' as 'manmade=former_railway_grade', which > is entirely verifiable and consistent with OSM's approach of meaningful > broad-brush duck tagging. Thanks. > > I don't get what's with this "deletionist" talk. It's hyperbolic name-calling which I don't think is a helpful way to resolve issues. We ALL delete stuff from OSM. "Let ye that have never deleted a node cast the first stone!" That is, if a building exists, we tag it. If it is disused, we tag it as such. If it falls into ruin, we can tag that. If it is removed (demolished, burned down, etc), usually, it is deleted. There is provision for some tagging like demolished:building=* on the life cycle page, but it's not used in the majority of cases. (sidebar: for an example where this is used, and a new building has been built and added to OSM at the same location, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/183167659) So, is the argument here that we should no longer delete features that no longer exist, just retag them? Is the argument that we generally should delete such features, but railways are a special case where we shouldn't? Which leads to one more thing, I think there's an important distinction to be made in this conversation between the tags railway=abandoned and railway=razed. According to the railway wikipage, railway=abandoned means "the track has been removed and the line may have been reused or left to decay but is still clearly visible" and railway=razed means "all evidence of the line has been removed". Many of the reasons given in this thread for keeping ex-railway features seem to apply to abandoned, not razed. At this point I don't remember how this thread started (abandoned or razed), but if you look back at previous discussions (for ex http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway or the linked thread), it seems like most people have been OK in the end with keeping abandoned in OSM but not keen on the demolished/razed features. Brad > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Moving-historic-railroad-ways-from-OSM-to-OpenHistoricalMap-tp5839116p5839518.html > Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Greg Troxel writes: > More seriously, a wave of deletionism is really bad for the project in > terms of morale. +1 -- --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-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
EthnicFood IsGreat writes: > It's apparent to me that consensus will never be reached on whether or not > abandoned railroads belong in OSM (at least the way it is currently > configured), given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue. That's > why I think moving them to OHM is a good compromise. In what way is giving the deletionists what they want a "compromise"?? -- --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-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Mike N writes: > On 4/1/2015 10:51 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > I don't have an awful lot of use of OpenHistoricalMap because it's a > > faux-layer. > > What if OpenRailwayMap could pull from OpenHistoricalMap to do a > complete rendering, even though it's a faux-layer? Presumably they would do exactly that. The problem is that once you have two different representations of the same thing, in separate databases, they get out of synch with each other. Say that you're trying to use OSMAnd to find where a railroad went out in the field (which I do all the time). You get to a point where OSMAnd switches to OHM, and OHM has gotten out of sync (say, because the aerial photography got better). Now you're lost because the the railroad is no longer connected. It's off wherever. -- --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-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Frederik Ramm wrote: > The problem of OSM editors being confused by a strange line that > cuts through houses in the editor perhaps. Which is perhaps 0.1% of the (largely rural) abandoned railroads mapped in OSM, so largely immaterial to the discussion. And if you're confused by that 0.1%, heaven knows what you'll do when faced with the superfluity of admin boundaries in many parts of the world. (And let's not start on proposed highways.) I'm fully with Russ and Greg on this one. For the few vocal deletionists who seem to have ants in their pants about this, may I suggest that you just learn to read 'railway=abandoned' as 'manmade=former_railway_grade', which is entirely verifiable and consistent with OSM's approach of meaningful broad-brush duck tagging. Thanks. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Moving-historic-railroad-ways-from-OSM-to-OpenHistoricalMap-tp5839116p5839518.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On 4/2/15 4:27 PM, Paul Norman wrote: > On 3/29/2015 5:00 AM, Mark Bradley wrote: >> Can I export these ways from OSM and then import them into OHM? > The main technical problem with moving data from one OSM API to > another (e.g. OSM to OHM, OSM to dev server, OSM to OpenGeoFiction) is > making sure to get rid of the OSM IDs, as the other APIs will need to > generate their own. > > There are clever ways to do this, but one simple way is to put what > you want to move on its own layer in JOSM, convert the layer to GPX, > and convert it from GPX back to OSM. This leaves you with a completely > new way with an identical geometry. You can then copy the tags over. > > This works best with a small number of long complex ways. > note that when you bring data into OHM, it is good form to provide start_date and end_date tags to along with it. railways are not marked abandoned in OHM, rather they have temporal data about when they existed. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On 3/29/2015 5:00 AM, Mark Bradley wrote: Can I export these ways from OSM and then import them into OHM? The main technical problem with moving data from one OSM API to another (e.g. OSM to OHM, OSM to dev server, OSM to OpenGeoFiction) is making sure to get rid of the OSM IDs, as the other APIs will need to generate their own. There are clever ways to do this, but one simple way is to put what you want to move on its own layer in JOSM, convert the layer to GPX, and convert it from GPX back to OSM. This leaves you with a completely new way with an identical geometry. You can then copy the tags over. This works best with a small number of long complex ways. The correct way to do this would be to extract the ways into a file, invert all the IDs and ID references in the file, and upload it to the other API. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
I don't have time to wade into the controversy, but +1 to Russ's comments. Old railroad grades really are features. The USGS shows them on topos, and they're often really obvious. More seriously, a wave of deletionism is really bad for the project in terms of morale. Doing more than a one-off removal of something confused should receive the same scrutiny as mechanical edits. pgpdtca5VhlOx.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On , EthnicFood IsGreat wrote: It's apparent to me that consensus will never be reached on whether or not abandoned railroads belong in OSM (at least the way it is currently configured), given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue. That's why I think moving them to OHM is a good compromise. I don't like it, but I would rather do that than see this data lost forever. At least in OHM, the data still lives, and can always be moved back to OSM later if a solution to the problem of historic features can be found. +1 --Eric ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
It's apparent to me that consensus will never be reached on whether or not abandoned railroads belong in OSM (at least the way it is currently configured), given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue. That's why I think moving them to OHM is a good compromise. I don't like it, but I would rather do that than see this data lost forever. At least in OHM, the data still lives, and can always be moved back to OSM later if a solution to the problem of historic features can be found. Mark ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On 04/01/2015 10:42 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: Oh, I'd be HAPPY to argue with him. I can point to all sorts of ways to tell that a railroad used to go through, that most people don't know about. Certain types of fenceposts, property lines that line up with nothing but the railbed, back yards that are "too deep", roads that are S-shaped for no obvious reason, houses that line up with nothing but the railbed. I could go on and on. Unlike Russ, I'm neither a railfan or a history buff. (Well, I am a bit of a history buff, but for the purpose of this message you can assume I am not.) Instead, I'm writing this message as a hiker. I got drawn into this controversy because at one point I added one abandoned rail line in the Catskills. It had been a single-track two-foot-gage line with horses hauling cars bearing logs. It was built by a lumber company, and torn up once they'd harvested the tract. (The rails have been gone since 1911.) I tagged it as 'railway=abandoned' (or 'railway=dismantled', I no longer recall which) and immediately fell into this controversy. The last time I checked, the line is still in OSM, but is tagged 'highway=path'. I can say, with boots literally on the ground, that an abandoned rail grade is exactly what it is, in the field. It is not a maintained path. It is grown to trees. In some seasons, it is a thicket of blackberry, nettle and viburnum. It does take a trained eye to see where the rails ran. That said, it offers by far the easiest route up the mountain where it rests. The grade is still there, except for a few washouts and rock slides, and that means that the hiker who follows it will not need to scramble any rock ledges nor face any difficult stream crossings. But it does require off-trail navigation skills. In a wet summer, you _will_ lose the grade from time to time. There is no question that following it is a bushwhack hike. Showing it as a hiking trail is a mistake. When I observed this once before, I was accused of tagging for the renderer. It is not tagging for the renderer to observe that two objects that are tagged alike will render alike! If there is no distinction in the tagging, even an improved renderer will have no basis on which to make a choice. Since my hiking style often involves using century-abandoned infrastructure (rail grades, haul roads, cableways) on lands that have been returned to the wilderness, it is important to me that those objects remain on the map - and that they not be confused with active maintained trails! -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On 4/1/2015 10:51 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: I don't have an awful lot of use of OpenHistoricalMap because it's a faux-layer. What if OpenRailwayMap could pull from OpenHistoricalMap to do a complete rendering, even though it's a faux-layer? I'm personally not touching railway=dismantled in my areas, but I can see why new mappers would be confused by them and/or delete them. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > But "the map" *already* doesn't render abandoned railways, > much less razed railways. C'mon, let's not conflate the renderings with OSM. > I can understand if someone deletes a railway by hitting the wrong > key. I can understand if someone deletes a railway that is tagged > incorrectly as disused or abandoned when it should be tagged as > dismantled. > I can understand if somone goes to the location of an > abandoned railway, and doesn't see the evidence that an expert > sees. You're saying that these railways could be used for farming or build over, right? To me, having something else over where a railroad was indicates that the railroad is gone. There might be a legal right of way, but if someone else is using the land for some other purpose, then that's the current usage. This is similar to the NYC community gardens. Many community gardens in what the NYC government calls "abandoned lots". The government sees abandoned lots, but the community sees gardens. The gardens are visible from the ground, so I say they're gardens. But if someone builds over the previous community garden and puts up a building, the community garden is gone. In another mail, someone else (or maybe you) make the point that there's still a legal right, and therefore the railroad should stay. But then what does one do about someoen making fake abandoned railroad tags? How, with the only evidence being legal right, can I judge what's a real abandoned railroad and what's not a real abandoned railroad? It's enormously difficult to disprove the existence of something. - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On 2015-04-02 10:08, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/02/2015 06:15 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > I understand keeping a feature in OSM if there is a remnant of the > railroad, but there are areas where everything has been replatted, regraded > and redeveloped, yet there is still a "razed" feature in OSM (for one small > example, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?#map=16/38.8663/-94.7943). > This seems like a good candidate for moving out of OSM to OHM. What problem would be solved by this action? The problem of OSM editors being confused by a strange line that cuts through houses in the editor perhaps. I can see how abandonend railroads where the bed is still visible in some way could be an issue of contention (even though I'd be in favour of not having them in OSM). But former railroads that have been built over by settlements are *clearly* not something that should be in OSM. Bye Frederik +1 /Stellan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Hi, On 04/02/2015 06:15 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > I understand keeping a feature in OSM if there is a remnant of the > > railroad, but there are areas where everything has been replatted, regraded > > and redeveloped, yet there is still a "razed" feature in OSM (for one small > > example, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?#map=16/38.8663/-94.7943). > > This seems like a good candidate for moving out of OSM to OHM. > > What problem would be solved by this action? The problem of OSM editors being confused by a strange line that cuts through houses in the editor perhaps. I can see how abandonend railroads where the bed is still visible in some way could be an issue of contention (even though I'd be in favour of not having them in OSM). But former railroads that have been built over by settlements are *clearly* not something that should be in OSM. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote: > > I'd imagine that most railbanked rights of way would be mapped with > railway=disused (inactive tracks, possibly overgrown) or railway=abandoned > (no tracks but an embankment, greenway, or clearing still present), as > opposed to something like railway=razed. [1] The tags' definitions > acknowledge physical characteristics rather than ownership. Depending on the climate, a corridor can become all but invisible on an air photo long before even the tracks are removed. There is no firm line between OSM's definition of physical characteristics on the ground. I've followed hundreds of miles of such corridors, and only those still "active" enough to be candidates for trail development, yet faced severe challenges staying on track as it were. These railbanked corridors are in a legal sense still active: they're still registered with the Surface Transportation Board, yet they can take a real eye and skill to actually find. Armchair deleting them because you can't find them on an air photo seems to go too far. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Brad Neuhauser writes: > I understand keeping a feature in OSM if there is a remnant of the > railroad, but there are areas where everything has been replatted, regraded > and redeveloped, yet there is still a "razed" feature in OSM (for one small > example, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?#map=16/38.8663/-94.7943). > This seems like a good candidate for moving out of OSM to OHM. What problem would be solved by this action? Making "the map" more correct? But "the map" *already* doesn't render abandoned railways, much less razed railways. It serves to make OpenRailwayMap less correct. That can't be a good thing. It makes the ITO subject-specific maps less correct. That can't be a good thing. I can understand if someone deletes a railway by hitting the wrong key. I can understand if someone deletes a railway that is tagged incorrectly as disused or abandoned when it should be tagged as dismantled. I can understand if somone goes to the location of an abandoned railway, and doesn't see the evidence that an expert sees. But surely the person who made those mistakes will not be unhappy if his mistake gets reverted and the tagging (if incorrect) gets fixed. -- --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-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
I understand keeping a feature in OSM if there is a remnant of the railroad, but there are areas where everything has been replatted, regraded and redeveloped, yet there is still a "razed" feature in OSM (for one small example, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?#map=16/38.8663/-94.7943). This seems like a good candidate for moving out of OSM to OHM. On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 4/1/15 3:14 AM, Mike Dupont wrote: > > Here in Kansas we have very many abandoned railways (and many pickup > trucks to replace them) that are turned into trails or paved over and still > visible. I would say if there is any sign of them left to keep the > information in some way. > > this is a circumstance for which i think we need to talk things out. > > given that OHM exists and works, the situation has evolved a > bit. i know that when i'm looking at inactive race facilities, there's > a very grey area when it comes to putting them in OHM vs OSM, > and i've not been as consistent as i should be about it, in large > part because i'm uncertain about where the dividing line really > should be, and to what extent i should take non-spatial data > into account. > > richard > > -- rwe...@averillpark.net > Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting > OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux > Java - Web Applications - Search > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Minh Nguyen writes: > On the ground, meanwhile, you'd tend to find no trespassing signs > on railbanked ROWs, no? Railbanked railroads should always be tagged as railway=abandoned. The whole point is that they *haven't* been dismantled or razed or destroyed or whatever word you want to use for a railway that doesn't exist anymore. Legally, it's still a railroad right-of-way whether it has tracks or not. Even if a farmer has plowed it up, or someone has built a house on it, it's still legally a railroad right-of-way. Some dude in Whiteport, NY (right next to Whiteport School), thought that the railroad behind his house had been dismantled / destroyed / razed / whatever. He cut down the brush, and started mowing it. Eventually he put an above-ground swimming pool on it. Poor bastard now has a fence about five feet behind his house keeping him off the railroad right-of-way, now part of the Wallkill Valley Trail. -- --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-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Frederik Ramm writes: > Hi, > > On 03/31/2015 08:04 AM, Natfoot wrote: > > There is so many situations where to his naked eye on the ground he may > > not be able to see it. To a person like myself I can still find the > > signs on the earth of where the railroad once was. > > Then map the signs that *are*, but not the railroad which - as you > correctly say - once *was*. That doesn't make *any* sense, Frederik. The signs are only there because the railroad was there. We are not making a map as a random collection of fencelines, and embankments and cuts and shadows-on-farmers-fields and trees-on-stone-walls. That's complete nonsense. There *used* to be a railroad there and that's *why* there's a fenceline and embankment etc. Maps are for understanding, not collections of unrelated elements. I don't have an awful lot of use of OpenHistoricalMap because it's a faux-layer. OSM doesn't have layers (for better or worse), and trying to create them by using a completely separate database is a purposeful attempt to #FAIL. Since my goal isn't failure, but instead success, we're going to keep dismantled railways in OSM. -- --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-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Mark Bradley writes: > Hello list. I have been communicating with a mapper who says he has been > deleting abandoned railroads (the ones where the infrastructure is totally > removed). Oh dear. The deletionists have migrated from Wikipedia to here. How do we stop them? Isn't it bad enough that the main map doesn't render abandoned railroads anymore? Now he has to be deleting them? Exactly who are they hurting by keeping them in the database? How about doing the *right* thing, and mark them as railway=razed or railway=dismantled (I use the latter but I've seen the former). > As the premise of OSM is to only map ground-verifiable features > (other than certain boundaries), I didn't want to argue with him, Oh, I'd be HAPPY to argue with him. I can point to all sorts of ways to tell that a railroad used to go through, that most people don't know about. Certain types of fenceposts, property lines that line up with nothing but the railbed, back yards that are "too deep", roads that are S-shaped for no obvious reason, houses that line up with nothing but the railbed. I could go on and on. -- --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-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On 4/1/15 3:14 AM, Mike Dupont wrote: > Here in Kansas we have very many abandoned railways (and many pickup > trucks to replace them) that are turned into trails or paved over and > still visible. I would say if there is any sign of them left to keep > the information in some way. > this is a circumstance for which i think we need to talk things out. given that OHM exists and works, the situation has evolved a bit. i know that when i'm looking at inactive race facilities, there's a very grey area when it comes to putting them in OHM vs OSM, and i've not been as consistent as i should be about it, in large part because i'm uncertain about where the dividing line really should be, and to what extent i should take non-spatial data into account. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Here in Kansas we have very many abandoned railways (and many pickup trucks to replace them) that are turned into trails or paved over and still visible. I would say if there is any sign of them left to keep the information in some way. On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Frederik Ramm > wrote: > > On 03/31/2015 08:04 AM, Natfoot wrote: > >> There is so many situations where to his naked eye on the ground he may > >> not be able to see it. To a person like myself I can still find the > >> signs on the earth of where the railroad once was. > > > > Then map the signs that *are*, but not the railroad which - as you > > correctly say - once *was*. > > Bye > > Frederik > > For background, in the USA there is an intermediate step to > abandonment. A corridor can be "railbanked", > meaning the easements don't expire. It's not an active railway, but > it can be returned to rail service > via an administrative procedure. And in fact, that's happened. > Usually however these become trails, > a process that can take decades. > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://www.flossk.org Saving Wikipedia(tm) articles from deletion http://SpeedyDeletion.wikia.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On 2015-03-31 23:12, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: For background, in the USA there is an intermediate step to abandonment. A corridor can be "railbanked", meaning the easements don't expire. It's not an active railway, but it can be returned to rail service via an administrative procedure. And in fact, that's happened. Usually however these become trails, a process that can take decades. I'd imagine that most railbanked rights of way would be mapped with railway=disused (inactive tracks, possibly overgrown) or railway=abandoned (no tracks but an embankment, greenway, or clearing still present), as opposed to something like railway=razed. [1] The tags' definitions acknowledge physical characteristics rather than ownership. I don't think we need a tag about railbanking specifically, although a note tag may be helpful as a reminder to future mappers. The nice thing about railway=abandoned is that it can be combined with highway=cycleway once a rail trail is built on the old grade. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 03/31/2015 08:04 AM, Natfoot wrote: >> There is so many situations where to his naked eye on the ground he may >> not be able to see it. To a person like myself I can still find the >> signs on the earth of where the railroad once was. > > Then map the signs that *are*, but not the railroad which - as you > correctly say - once *was*. > Bye > Frederik For background, in the USA there is an intermediate step to abandonment. A corridor can be "railbanked", meaning the easements don't expire. It's not an active railway, but it can be returned to rail service via an administrative procedure. And in fact, that's happened. Usually however these become trails, a process that can take decades. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On 2015-03-31 00:36, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 03/31/2015 08:04 AM, Natfoot wrote: There is so many situations where to his naked eye on the ground he may not be able to see it. To a person like myself I can still find the signs on the earth of where the railroad once was. Then map the signs that *are*, but not the railroad which - as you correctly say - once *was*. For many rights of way, the main remaining feature is a greenway cutting across farmland -- something you can easily armchair map, even. Personally, I'd rather map that ROW as a railway=abandoned way than as a natural=wood area, just as I avoid mapping roads as areas. On the ground, meanwhile, you'd tend to find no trespassing signs on railbanked ROWs, no? -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Hi, On 03/31/2015 08:04 AM, Natfoot wrote: > There is so many situations where to his naked eye on the ground he may > not be able to see it. To a person like myself I can still find the > signs on the earth of where the railroad once was. Then map the signs that *are*, but not the railroad which - as you correctly say - once *was*. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Has this user assessed these areas against the Surface Transportation Board data bank and if the right of way is rail banked? There is so many situations where to his naked eye on the ground he may not be able to see it. To a person like myself I can still find the signs on the earth of where the railroad once was. We even have roadways that were built on old right of ways. I see this act as vandalism of data. Nathan P email: natf...@gmail.com On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote: > On 2015-03-29 05:00, Mark Bradley wrote: > >> Hello list. I have been communicating with a mapper who says he has >> been deleting abandoned railroads (the ones where the infrastructure is >> totally removed). As the premise of OSM is to only map >> ground-verifiable features (other than certain boundaries), I didn't >> want to argue with him, but I don't want to see this information lost >> either. I said I would look into transferring those ways to >> OpenHistoricalMap. Yesterday he sent me a message, saying he's >> identified two more abandoned railroads and he's giving me the >> opportunity to act on them before they get deleted. Can I export these >> ways from OSM and then import them into OHM? Or is there a better way >> or some other solution? >> > > Just wanted to point out that there's still a place in OSM for mapping > railroad rights-of-way where the tracks have been pulled out but the ROW is > still reserved and discernible. The Standard style no longer renders > railway=abandoned, but it can still be a useful navigational landmark. > > In any case, I've CC'd the OpenHistoricalMap list, where all the experts > hang out these days. > > -- > m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
On 2015-03-29 05:00, Mark Bradley wrote: Hello list. I have been communicating with a mapper who says he has been deleting abandoned railroads (the ones where the infrastructure is totally removed). As the premise of OSM is to only map ground-verifiable features (other than certain boundaries), I didn't want to argue with him, but I don't want to see this information lost either. I said I would look into transferring those ways to OpenHistoricalMap. Yesterday he sent me a message, saying he's identified two more abandoned railroads and he's giving me the opportunity to act on them before they get deleted. Can I export these ways from OSM and then import them into OHM? Or is there a better way or some other solution? Just wanted to point out that there's still a place in OSM for mapping railroad rights-of-way where the tracks have been pulled out but the ROW is still reserved and discernible. The Standard style no longer renders railway=abandoned, but it can still be a useful navigational landmark. In any case, I've CC'd the OpenHistoricalMap list, where all the experts hang out these days. -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Moving historic railroad ways from OSM to OpenHistoricalMap
Hello list. I have been communicating with a mapper who says he has been deleting abandoned railroads (the ones where the infrastructure is totally removed). As the premise of OSM is to only map ground-verifiable features (other than certain boundaries), I didn't want to argue with him, but I don't want to see this information lost either. I said I would look into transferring those ways to OpenHistoricalMap. Yesterday he sent me a message, saying he's identified two more abandoned railroads and he's giving me the opportunity to act on them before they get deleted. Can I export these ways from OSM and then import them into OHM? Or is there a better way or some other solution? Mark Bradley ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
