On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Warin, Jack,
your comments are really off my main point.
We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different
opinions on whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in
OSM. In the middle of that discussion the abandoned railway wiku page
gets completely rewritten by one of the participants in the thread
explicitly stating that razed railways should be /removed/ from OSM.
This is basically against good practice in OSM.
In addition the statement that where roads trace razed/dismantled
railways, the reference to the fact that they do, should be removed is
clearly wrong. Worldwide there are many thousands of km of roads and
cycle routes that retrace exactly former railway lines . what is wrong
with adding railway=dismantled (orrazed) to the ways that make up the
road or the cycle route.
Railway installations are major sites present in our environment,
The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are gone,
no longer here, vanished.
The one I am thinking of has visible things at one end and a few bits
elsewhere, those I would leave on OSM as they 'exist'.
But to map it where there is nothing left.. to me that is deceptive. The
other mapper has extended one of the things I left mapped so that an
embankment runs over roads, through car-parks, a building and a playing
field. That does not exist now, it may have decades ago ... but not
today and not for quite a few years.
and there is no good reason to remove them from the map, whether they
are actively used or only indirectly "visible".
Just two other observations to put this in context:
We have plenty of underground water courses, oil or gas pipelines
where only few objects on the surface indicate their underground
existence - no-one would object to having them in the map data,
including the underground parts.
Agreed - because they exist. I know there is an underground railway near
me because I use it, it is not viable 'on the ground'. There is a
drainage channel near me that I can see as entry and exit places .. its
precise route I don't know so I use the est sources to estimate its
route. I do my best to map things that exist. I don't think OSM is the
place for things that no longer exist in any physical way.
Another completely different indication that old stuff could be of
interest to tourists: when I moved to the UK from continental Europe
in 1978 I was positively surprised to see, on the standard OS maps for
hikers, references to Roamn and Saxon sites galore, tyipiclley in the
form of "site of ..." and of many country paths and tracks labeled
with their Roman or Saxon names, even though the present-day structure
is much younger - they only retrace the Roman way like the present-day
street in the first example on the wiki page retraces a former railway..
If there is something to see there .. then map that. I would not map a
railway as a railway if all that can be seen is a board that has
information about the old railway, I would map it as a tourist sign only
- not a railway.
Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today,
map it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM.
BTW I am not saying that OSM map data are incomplete without mapping
old raylways, I am only asking to not remove those that are mapped,
and to not write in the wiki that they should be removed.
BTW 2: wiki pages in general should not invite mappers to remove
already mapped objects, but only correct mapping errors.
On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 05:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 6/6/20 8:02 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I need to reopen this thread.
>
> I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the
> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have
been
> replaced by roads with the same geometry. To the contrary this
is one
> of the more fortunate cases where the original route has been
> conserved, and it is easy to travel along a historical railroad.
> I admit that I have a faible for industrial archeology (like former
> railways, watermills, old canals) but they do have touristic
value and
> for that reason should be in OSM.
As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a
railway route here nothing remains of the railway.
If something remains then map the remains, not the bits that no
longer
exist.
Where an old railway route passes through private residential houses,
commercial buildings, car parking area .. I don't think that
should be
in OSM yet people map it...
A historian/archeologist may have interest in documenting the old
railway route and facilities, they can and should use OHM.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
