On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 13:44, Jarek Piórkowski <ja...@piorkowski.ca> wrote:
> > Could we do similar with torn-up railways? > > Then the parts where rails or railbed are actually remaining could be > railway=abandoned or whatever, and parts with nothing remaining could > be plain ways in a relation like https://osm.org/way/498608783 > As I recall, the example Warin was complaining about was part of a relation linking sections of defunct railway in different states (razed, abandoned, etc.) It would certainly be possible to deal with portions that have been converted to roads, cycleways or footpaths by inserting them into the relation as what they are, rather than what they were (preferably with some tag indicating they followed the route of the former railway). That might get rid of some of the objections. That doesn't get around the problem of sections where buildings or fields or whatever have replaced the former railway. I doubt that argument will be settled as easily. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
