Toby Murray writes:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Peter Dobratz wrote:
I'm trying to get a better understanding of the railway=abandoned
tag and see what the community thinks about it.
FWIW there's been a similar discussion on
I'm trying to get a better understanding of the railway=abandoned tag
and see what the community thinks about it.
It seems that there are a handful of railroad enthusiast users that
are systematically adding current and former railways into OSM, and in
some cases re-adding railways that I have
On 07/12/2012 12:37 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
What makes railroads a special case?
Do we really want a bunch of railway=abandoned Ways running directly
through newly constructed runways, buildings, roads, parking lots,
etc?
I'm of two minds. A lot of my map projects relate to the back
Peter Dobratz wrote:
I'm trying to get a better understanding of the railway=abandoned
tag and see what the community thinks about it.
FWIW there's been a similar discussion on talk-gb recently.
The consensus seems to be railway=abandoned for railways where there's still
some physical trace
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Peter Dobratz wrote:
I'm trying to get a better understanding of the railway=abandoned
tag and see what the community thinks about it.
FWIW there's been a similar discussion on talk-gb recently.
The consensus
On 7/12/2012 12:37 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
It seems that there are a handful of railroad enthusiast users that
are systematically adding current and former railways into OSM, and in
some cases re-adding railways that I have removed. I have been
operating under the assumption that if a physical
I think it's important to separate there's a way in the db and
there's a line on some render.
Personally, I want to see old railway lines on the map. I find there's
almost always evidence along the line, but not always at some point.
So I think we need tags that are more like the USGS maps,
Mike N. wrote:
So they are present, and don't hurt anything. None of the
'standard maps' will bother to render them. A railway
map could use them if it needed to. I delete them if they
go through current buildings or parking lots also.
Yes, that's a sensible attitude.
I think it's also
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
I am of course one mapper who's been mapping former railways. (Russ Nelson
is another.) There is certainly value in seeing how the current
disconnected bits of railway infrastructure used to connect. I've also
mapped
On 7/12/2012 11:43 PM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
NE2,
So after I bring up that I don't think railways should be drawn through
buildings, and most people agree with me on that, you decide to do this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.762886lon=-71.430509zoom=18layers=M
Does 86 Central Street,
On 7/12/2012 10:45 PM, Mike N wrote:
On 7/12/2012 4:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
This is a strawman, since there will rarely be more than one former line
across a small area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone
wants to map all the former second tracks, sidings, and such,
11 matches
Mail list logo
