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.com>wrote: > On 2013-04-13 23:02, Marc Gemis wrote : > > ... > > So why two lines for an abandoned railway and the cycleway/footway on it ? > Can't they be combined ? > > > What to do is explained in the OSM wiki at ... > Railways<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railways> > > Abandoned - The track has been removed and the line may have been reused > or left to decay but is still clearly visible, either from the replacement > infrastructure, or purely from a line of trees around an original cutting > or embankment. Use railway<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway> > =abandoned <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned>. > Where it has been reused as a cycle path then add > highway<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway> > =cycleway <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway>. > Consider adding a end_date<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:end_date> > =* tag or more specifically a > railway:end_date<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:railway:end_date&action=edit&redlink=1> > =* tag. > > It applies even if it now looks like a cycleway or anything but if you can > still clearly see where the railway has been. If Mapnik, Garmin or other > doesn't display or use that correctly, they say that you must file a > renderer bug. > > Cheers, > > André. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
