This means that the separate track should be removed for the 3 cases I
listed, or not ?
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:31 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.comwrote:
On 2013-04-13 23:02, Marc Gemis wrote :
...
So why two lines for an abandoned railway and the cycleway/footway on it ?
No, highway and cycleway should not share any ways. The only thing which
may be acceptable is reusing the same nodes for two different ways, but
only if they are on exactly the same location, which is actually quite
rare. In quite a lot of cases there will be an offset, or it will diverge a
little
For the first two examples there is no doubt that there are still remains
of a railway, but
I still wonder whether it makes much sense to leave the railway tag on this
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.1060394346714lon=4.379757642745972zoom=17
especially on the parking area and to a lesser
While mapping my RWN walk near Hulshout / Westmeerbeek I noticed that there
were 2 cycleways next to one another, running from north to south:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.063594818115234lon=4.8265814781188965zoom=16
One was simply mapped as highway=cycleway, the other had more tags and
