Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

> -Original Message- > From: moltonel 3x Combo [mailto:molto...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 6:54 PM > To: EthnicFood IsGreat <ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com> > Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 15.09.2015 um 00:54 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo : > > If it wasn't clear already, railway=dismantled, end_date, or any > system that mixes past and present in the same namespace is IMHO not > acceptable. I agree that end_date is not a desirable way

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 15/09/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > thing is, a dismantled railway has no end_date, it only has a start_date and > will continue to be a dismantled railway, till the end of time Yes. On 15/09/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 15/09/15 08:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> If it wasn't clear already, railway=dismantled, end_date, or any >> > system that mixes past and present in the same namespace is IMHO not >> > acceptable. > > I agree that end_date is not a desirable way to add stuff. > > railway=dismantled on

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 15.09.2015 um 10:18 schrieb Lester Caine : > > The crux of the problem here is 'end_date' and if it is to be supported > or not. I'm perfectly happy that features which exist on the ground need > to be documented, and even having removed the tracks, a

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 14/09/2015 18:40, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote: Russ is a railfan. I am a railfan. We are a group of people for whom railroads hold a lot of interest and nostalgia. Being able to see locations of abandoned railways in OSM is very desirable for us. I'll guess there a lots of OSMers who are

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-15 12:02 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > I don't understand how a feature can be both "dismantled till the end > of time" and "in the present". > this depends on the tags you use to describe it. If you say it is a not being any more thing, it will likely remain like

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 15/09/2015 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: thing is, a dismantled railway has no end_date, it only has a start_date and will continue to be a dismantled railway, till the end of time To check, did you mean abandoned railway? Dismantled railways *could* return to full usage (I'm not

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-15 13:42 GMT+02:00 Dave F. : > On 15/09/2015 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> thing is, a dismantled railway has no end_date, it only has a start_date >> and will continue to be a dismantled railway, till the end of time >> > > To check, did you mean

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-15 13:42 GMT+02:00 Dave F. : > Again to check, how would you tag this: > > https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/35511/175632/f/1296319-Hill-of-Slane-church-ruins-2-1.jpg > Is this not acceptable?: > historic=castle > ruins=yes > I would prefer tagging like

[OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Russ is a railfan. I am a railfan. We are a group of people for whom railroads hold a lot of interest and nostalgia. Being able to see locations of abandoned railways in OSM is very desirable for us. (Not to mention that some of them will eventually be converted to rail trails, and so their

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 14/09/2015, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote: > I guess we're asking that an exception to the "verifiable features only" rule > be made for these features. IMHO the exception that you are asking for is not to the "verifyable only" rule but to the "presently existing"

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

I will not continue to discuss other issues as at this point everybody exchanged opinions and repeating the same makes no sense. But... On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 17:55:07 -0400 Russ Nelson wrote: > and they aren't making more abandoned railroads anymore (Beeching is > dead, and

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 12 September 2015 22:55:07 GMT+01:00, Russ Nelson wrote: >moltonel writes: > > Still, I'd like to add one reason: none of the other tags you > > mentioned have such a vehement, uncompromising, relentless champion > >There is no "compromise", Moltonel. "Compromise" is where

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

> it's about scoring points and winning the argument. Unfortunately I think that is the way OSM has gone. There seems little regard for requirements or what are we trying to do or what our end users, the people who use the maps, would like. HOT is slightly different they at least recognise they

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Ian Dees writes: > > Why do I bother responding to questions like this? FWOMPT! > > I think that's a question we all want to know, Russ. Oh, well, if you want to assure me that deletionists have no respect from others in the OSM community, and their edits will be treated as vandalism and

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

> (I've been trying not to comment too much, but I'm in the camp that > deletionism is harmful to the community - it upsets people far more than > it helps, even when correct, and especially when not correct.) > > I also tried not to comment, but I'm in that same camp. There is really no harm in

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Dave F. writes: > On 12/09/2015 03:18, Russ Nelson wrote: > > Dave F. writes: > > > > Because when I see a spike, or a lump of coal, or a "road" > > > > which is level where no road needed to be but a railroad did, I map > > it > > > > as an abandoned railroad. > > > > > >

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > Respect to Russ for standing up for his principles in the face of all this > bullying. Nobody has given a *consistent* answer yet. Why are "former > railway lines" which are no longer immediately evident on the ground >

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Frederik Ramm writes: > But that's how far my "convictions" go - as long as I don't survey where > Russ draws his abandoned railway lines, we're fine. In terms of reaching a detente, I think that's a very important point. I would never delete something unless I had walked

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

moltonel writes: > Still, I'd like to add one reason: none of the other tags you > mentioned have such a vehement, uncompromising, relentless champion There is no "compromise", Moltonel. "Compromise" is where you get your way, and delete my hard work. Can you see how this is not acceptable?

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Mateusz Konieczny writes: > (2) railway=abandoned includes both cases where railway is still > present and cases where railway no longer exists so automation is > impossible Jesus. Railway=disused is a railway that is no longer used but where the track remains and infrastructure is in place.

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 9/12/2015 3:02 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: If I were trying to drum up support for OSM in the US, I'd probably also welcome someone who maps abandoned railways, so that I'm not alone at the monthly meetup There's some truth to that in the US - one of the 3 regular mappers here in a several

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Dave F. writes: > > On 12/09/2015 03:18, Russ Nelson wrote: > > > Dave F. writes: > > > > > Because when I see a spike, or a lump of coal, or a "road" > > > > > which is level where no road needed to be but a

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Respect to Russ for standing up for his principles in the face of all this bullying. Nobody has given a *consistent* answer yet. Why are "former railway lines" which are no longer immediately evident on the ground forbidden so vehemently in OSM when so many other artefacts from the past are

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Hi, On 09/12/2015 08:16 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > Respect to Russ for standing up for his principles in the face of all > this bullying. Well, to be fair, what you call "bullying" is mostly people standing up for their principles. > Why are > "former railway lines" which are no longer

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 12 September 2015 20:02:31 GMT+01:00, Frederik Ramm wrote: >Hi, > >On 09/12/2015 08:16 PM, Colin Smale wrote: >> Respect to Russ for standing up for his principles in the face of all >> this bullying. > >Well, to be fair, what you call "bullying" is mostly people

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 16:25:18 -0400 Greg Troxel wrote: > > Frederik Ramm writes: > > > But that's how far my "convictions" go - as long as I don't survey > > where Russ draws his abandoned railway lines, we're fine. > > In terms of reaching a detente, I

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 22:26:40 -0400 Russ Nelson wrote: > Dave F. writes: > > > Don't destroy other people's mapping. Why is this not obvious? > > > > What's obvious is that it's a track. > > May I make a suggestion that I don't really want you to take? If you > really

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 12.09.2015 um 00:11 schrieb Dave F. : > > highway=track > railway=abandoned > > The above doesn't really work, does it? for me it does work cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 12/09/2015 03:18, Russ Nelson wrote: Dave F. writes: > > Because when I see a spike, or a lump of coal, or a "road" > > which is level where no road needed to be but a railroad did, I map it > > as an abandoned railroad. > > Please give a list of tags you'd use to map the tracks

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 12 September 2015 03:26:40 GMT+01:00, Russ Nelson wrote: >If you *don't* do this, then your true opinion will be revealed that >you are in fact okay with people adding railway=abandoned to >highway=track, and you're just wasting everybody's time on the mailing >list by

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 12/09/2015 04:09, Warin wrote: On 12/09/2015 8:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote: Why shouldn't it work? It is perfectly easy to understand what is intended Which tag takes rendering precedence? . Anyway where is the list or definition of what constitutes a *primary* tag? The wiki. On

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 12.09.2015 um 16:35 schrieb Dave F. : > > Routes are relations, not ways. They're sympathetic to each other. They don't > conflict, & most importantly, both can exist currently. the routes don't exist physically, from this point of view they

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 12/09/2015 13:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone Am 12.09.2015 um 13:55 schrieb Dave F. : You're misunderstanding the purpose of tagging which is to allow renderers to differentiate entities & display them accurately & differently from each other.

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Dave F. wrote: > highway=track, railway=abandoned, that cause problems & is what I'm trying > to solve A hiking or cycling map could only show the former, a railway map the latter. It is similar to 2 hiking paths following the same

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 12/09/2015 15:13, Marc Gemis wrote: On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Dave F. > wrote: highway=track, railway=abandoned, that cause problems & is what I'm trying to solve A hiking or cycling map could only show the former, a

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Rendering precedence is a different subject to tagging. You know what happens to suggestions of tagging in a certain way for the purposes of influencing the appearance of a map... A search on the wiki for pages with the word primary only returns hits in connection with highway and schools. Can

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 12/09/2015 12:37, Colin Smale wrote: Rendering precedence is a different subject to tagging. You know what happens to suggestions of tagging in a certain way for the purposes of influencing the appearance of a map... You're misunderstanding the purpose of tagging which is to allow

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. Patronising answers don't help towards achieving consensus. I assume you are referring to the specific rendering on osm.org. Which is leading here? Does the map style dictate the data, or does the renderer have to adapt to the data? The correct

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 12.09.2015 um 13:55 schrieb Dave F. : > > You're misunderstanding the purpose of tagging which is to allow renderers to > differentiate entities & display them accurately & differently from each > other. > > *All* tagging is for the renderer,

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 12.09.2015 um 14:39 schrieb Colin Smale : > > It certainly causes something to render. Is building a primary tag? Same > here. Is it improper to have both on the same object? Of course not. it's usually lazy and not so good mapping to have

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 10/09/2015 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: more or less we're doing this. And adding what has been added in the meantime. E.g. people have added the names of the ruins of temples as the name of the temple (which is in some cases there as ruins in others hardly visible if not by reading

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 10/09/2015 04:15, Russ Nelson wrote: Look at these two photos and tell me what you can see, what you can "verify": https://goo.gl/photos/G41ehgPJyfEWcvwH7 https://goo.gl/photos/FfgSS5bDMQ3XW7MX8 What's this? Is it a trail or is it an abandoned railroad? See the spike? Where did it come from

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Why shouldn't it work? It is perfectly easy to understand what is intended. Anyway where is the list or definition of what constitutes a *primary* tag? On 2015-09-12 00:11, Dave F. wrote: > On 11/09/2015 03:07, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > >> But the primary key is definitely highway=track,

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 11/09/2015 03:07, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: But the primary key is definitely highway=track, perhaps with some secondary keys that hit at it's former use. +1 As I've said elsewhere there should only be one primary tag, any historical info should be secondary. highway=track

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Dave F. writes: > > Don't destroy other people's mapping. Why is this not obvious? > > What's obvious is that it's a track. May I make a suggestion that I don't really want you to take? If you really agree with Frederik that abandoned railways should not be mapped, and you think it's okay to

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Dave F. writes: > > Because when I see a spike, or a lump of coal, or a "road" > > which is level where no road needed to be but a railroad did, I map it > > as an abandoned railroad. > > Please give a list of tags you'd use to map the tracks in your photos. highway=track

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 12/09/2015 8:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote: Why shouldn't it work? It is perfectly easy to understand what is intended. Anyway where is the list or definition of what constitutes a *primary* tag? On 2015-09-12 00:11, Dave F. wrote: On 11/09/2015 03:07, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: But the

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

> > > > > What was situation in the past does not matter. > > > the world is not black and white, there is not just a railway or there > isn't. what if the railway bridge is removed ? [1] You still see part of the foundation of the bridge on the right bank [2]. Is that enough to draw the

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 10.09.2015 um 05:52 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > > I am not convinced that leftover rubbish makes it railroad. There is > plenty of old metal and coal in many other places. it is indeed an abandoned railroad not a railroad there will be other

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 10.09.2015 um 05:44 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > > (situation C) currently there is a trail -> trail should be mapped > (situation D) currently there is neither trail nor railway -> neither > trail nor railway may be mapped > > What was situation

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:52 PM, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 23:15:42 -0400 >> Russ Nelson wrote: >> >> > What's this? Is it a trail or is it an abandoned railroad? See the >> > spike? Where did it come from if not the abandoned

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > the world is not black and white This (or some other message) reminded of one other very accepted case where the verifiability could be contested, but isn't. People do map underground pipelines (water, drain, heat etc.), either interpolating between manholes or

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Sep 9, 2015 12:41 AM, "Bryce Nesbitt" wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Ian Dees wrote: >> >> Show him OSM for the abandoned rails that he can see and point him to OpenHistoricalMap for the historical, no-longer-present rails if he's

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Ian Dees writes: > Let's stop trying to generate conflict where there isn't any, Russ. I understand your desire to sweep conflict under the rug, to pretend it doesn't exist, to think that we only map what "we" can see. But *I* see an abandoned railroad here. Let's all sing Kumbaya, hug, and get

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Mateusz Konieczny writes: > On 7 Sep 2015 15:31:02 - > Russ Nelson wrote: > > > people who reject mapping abandoned railroads > > Nobody is against mapping abandoned railroads that are existing. Ian Dees writes: > If it used to be rails and now its a trail, we

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 23:23:06 -0400 Russ Nelson wrote: > Mateusz Konieczny writes: > > On 7 Sep 2015 15:31:02 - > > Russ Nelson wrote: > > > > > people who reject mapping abandoned railroads > > > > Nobody is against mapping abandoned railroads

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 23:15:42 -0400 Russ Nelson wrote: > Look at these two photos and tell me what you can see, what you can > "verify": > > https://goo.gl/photos/G41ehgPJyfEWcvwH7 > https://goo.gl/photos/FfgSS5bDMQ3XW7MX8 > > What's this? Is it a trail or is it an abandoned

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:49:48 +0100 "Dave F." wrote: > On 08/09/2015 00:07, Lester Caine wrote: > > On 07/09/15 23:16, Dave F. wrote: > >> I'm not sure there's been a discussion as you've mostly ignored the > >> basic comment made - it it's deleted in the real world it

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 08.09.2015 um 01:49 schrieb Dave F. : > > I don't believe anyone's advocating the removal of existing entities. > In your viaduct case above, keep the viaduct entity, remove the > railway=abandoned tag, use the historical tag to describe the past

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 8/09/2015 7:00 PM, Fabian Schmidt wrote: On 09/08/2015 12:16 AM, Dave F. wrote: I fail to understand why railways are singled out as a special case. If roads, buildings or woods get demolished, they get deleted. please have a look at the tag definition in the wiki: "where the rails have

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 7 Sep 2015 15:31:02 - Russ Nelson wrote: > We should map everything that doesn't move, and maybe a few things > that do. And completely destroyed railways are fitting neither category as things that are not existing neither move nor do not move. In addition - there

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 08/09/15 07:01, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> I don't believe anyone's advocating the removal of existing entities. >> > In your viaduct case above, keep the viaduct entity, remove the >> > railway=abandoned tag, use the historical tag to describe the past of >> > the viaduct (which exists) but

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 8/09/2015 6:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone Am 08.09.2015 um 01:49 schrieb Dave F. : I don't believe anyone's advocating the removal of existing entities. In your viaduct case above, keep the viaduct entity, remove the railway=abandoned tag,

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 09/08/2015 12:16 AM, Dave F. wrote: I fail to understand why railways are singled out as a special case. If roads, buildings or woods get demolished, they get deleted. please have a look at the tag definition in the wiki: "where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 08/09/2015 10:00, Fabian Schmidt wrote: On 09/08/2015 12:16 AM, Dave F. wrote: I fail to understand why railways are singled out as a special case. If roads, buildings or woods get demolished, they get deleted. please have a look at the tag definition in the wiki: "where the rails have

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 08.09.2015 um 13:58 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > > Historical data should not be added and if present - removed. what do you mean with "historical data", where do you draw the line? What about the old_name tags, do you advocate to remove them?

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 08/09/15 12:58, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> The historical tag can be used to indicate that the viaduct was >> > previously used as a railway. It should be used in conjunction with >> > other tags such as man_made. > Is there anything **currently** making clear (or at least indicating) > that

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 08.09.2015 um 11:35 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > Buildings that are in ruin have the tag ruin=yes > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ruins this is discouraged tagging, similar to disused=yes etc. cheers Martin

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 08.09.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > The tag bridge=viaduct is not restricted to railways and highways! > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bridge%3Dviaduct > > Viaducts are also used for waterways... !

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:05:30 +0100 "Dave F." wrote: > On 08/09/2015 07:01, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:49:48 +0100 > > "Dave F." wrote: > > > >> > >> I don't believe anyone's advocating the removal of existing > >>

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 08/09/2015 12:58, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Is there anything **currently** making clear (or at least indicating) that it is constructed as a railway bridge? Is there any difference? Historical data should not be added and if present - removed. If it's a sub-tag of an existing entity, then

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > that it is constructed as a railway bridge? Is there any difference? > > Historical data should not be added and if present - removed. If anyone can add descriptive attributes of present features on present-in-osm objects, they shouldn't be deleted. A tag saying "this

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 08/09/2015 07:01, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:49:48 +0100 "Dave F." wrote: I don't believe anyone's advocating the removal of existing entities. In your viaduct case above, keep the viaduct entity, remove the railway=abandoned tag, use the

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 08/09/2015 09:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I believe you are oversimplifying things by just looking at the tracks and if they are there it is some kind of railway and in absence of tracks it has nothing more to do with railway. First of all, we don't currently know a tag for a viaduct

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 08.09.2015 um 13:05 schrieb Dave F. : > > slightly OT > man_made=bridge only appears to render when it is an enclosed way, but not a > linear one. yes, IMHO this is the desired behavior. Also buildings don't render when mapped as linear

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 08/09/2015, Fabian Schmidt wrote: > On 09/08/2015 12:16 AM, Dave F. wrote: >> I fail to understand why railways are singled out as a special case. If >> roads, buildings or woods get demolished, they get deleted. > > please have a look at the tag definition

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:44:16 +0300 Lauri Kytömaa wrote: > Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > that it is constructed as a railway bridge? Is there any difference? > > > > Historical data should not be added and if present - removed. > > If anyone can add descriptive attributes of

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:22:01 +0100 "Dave F." wrote: > On 08/09/2015 13:56, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 13:37:47 +0100 > > "Dave F." wrote: > > > >> This is one reason I believe linear ways tagged as man_made=bridge > >> should

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 08/09/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Am 08.09.2015 um 13:58 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : >> >> Historical data should not be added and if present - removed. > > what do you mean with "historical data", where do you draw the line? What > about

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:16:17 +0100 Lester Caine wrote: > On 08/09/15 12:58, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> The historical tag can be used to indicate that the viaduct was > >> > previously used as a railway. It should be used in conjunction > >> > with other tags such as

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 08/09/2015 13:44, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: Mateusz Konieczny wrote: that it is constructed as a railway bridge? Is there any difference? Historical data should not be added and if present - removed. A tag saying "this was a railway" is not historical (i.e. "gone"), but part of the life story

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

sent from a phone > Am 08.09.2015 um 14:37 schrieb Dave F. : > > This is one reason I believe linear ways tagged as man_made=bridge should be > rendered: > man_made=bridge > bridge=* > historical=railway that's not a reason, you could draw an area just like in any

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 13:37:47 +0100 "Dave F." wrote: > This is one reason I believe linear ways tagged as man_made=bridge > should be rendered: > man_made=bridge > bridge=* > historical=railway Please, see definition of man_made=bridge on the wiki.

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Dave F. wrote: > A 'life story' is historical. Historical doesn't mean 'gone'. Then that data shouldn't be 'gone' but just with a different key/tag, especially as long as the not-gone object exists. -- alv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

El martes, 8 de septiembre de 2015, Mateusz Konieczny escribió: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:16:17 +0100 > Lester Caine > wrote: > > > On 08/09/15 12:58, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > >> The historical tag can be used to indicate that the viaduct

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 08/09/2015 13:56, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 13:37:47 +0100 "Dave F." wrote: This is one reason I believe linear ways tagged as man_made=bridge should be rendered: man_made=bridge bridge=* historical=railway Please, see definition of

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 08/09/2015 14:39, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: Dave F. wrote: A 'life story' is historical. Historical doesn't mean 'gone'. Then that data shouldn't be 'gone' but just with a different key/tag, especially as long as the not-gone object exists. Yes. Please see my previous replies. Dave F. ---

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 8:55 AM, Ian Dees wrote: > Show him OSM for the abandoned rails that he can see and point him to > OpenHistoricalMap for the historical, no-longer-present rails if he's > excited about that. > Sigh. You present OHM like it's a vibrant project that gets

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Show him OSM for the abandoned rails that he can see and point him to OpenHistoricalMap for the historical, no-longer-present rails if he's excited about that. Let's stop trying to generate conflict where there isn't any, Russ. The goals behind OSM are fairly clear: we map what others can verify.

[OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

https://www.facebook.com/groups/abandonedrails/permalink/1044885352211646/ To everyone who thinks we shouldn't map abandoned railroads: THIS is the kind of mapping enthusiasm that you would have us reject forcefully. THIS is why Google Maps has people mapping for free. THIS is not the only person

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

2015-09-07 13:36 GMT-03:00 Maarten Deen : > On 2015-09-07 17:31, Russ Nelson wrote: >> >> https://www.facebook.com/groups/abandonedrails/permalink/1044885352211646/ > > > It's on facebook and I have to log in to see it. I don't have a facebook > account, so could someone post here

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 07/09/2015, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > 2015-09-07 13:36 GMT-03:00 Maarten Deen : >> On 2015-09-07 17:31, Russ Nelson wrote: >>> >>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/abandonedrails/permalink/1044885352211646/ >> >> >> It's on facebook and I have to log

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 07/09/2015, Russ Nelson wrote: > We need an authoritative statement that says that deleting abandoned > railroads is vandalism, and that people who do so in spite of being > warned not to, will be banned from the project. Please stop the name-calling. Two contributors

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 2015-09-07 17:31, Russ Nelson wrote: https://www.facebook.com/groups/abandonedrails/permalink/1044885352211646/ It's on facebook and I have to log in to see it. I don't have a facebook account, so could someone post here whay it says? Regards, Maarten

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

You appear to have completely misunderstood the discussion. No one said abandoned railways couldn't be mapped. Just that they shouldn't be mapped in OSM, because they *don't exist*. Abandoned tracks would be excellent as an OSM mashup imported from a separate database, which is actually what

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > I could go through the discussion over the last month and identify a > grand total of five people who reject mapping abandoned railroads. > Just like in any mailing list, there is a vast majority of people who have one

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 07/09/15 23:16, Dave F. wrote: > I'm not sure there's been a discussion as you've mostly ignored the > basic comment made - it it's deleted in the real world it gets deleted > in OSM. If there is still a trace of anything related to something being deleted ... it gets it's tags modified. You

Re: [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

On 08/09/2015 00:07, Lester Caine wrote: On 07/09/15 23:16, Dave F. wrote: I'm not sure there's been a discussion as you've mostly ignored the basic comment made - it it's deleted in the real world it gets deleted in OSM. If there is still a trace of anything related to something being deleted

  1   2   >