On Saturday 31 July 2010 14:23:11 Michał Borsuk wrote: > > There is actually a significant number of people that think we should > > _not_ map stuff that is no longer there. > > But IIRC the question was how to map a former railway line that is > older/more damaged than mothballed / overgrown with trees, but not yet > removed. That could be mapped.
If there are still traces then it could be mapped. There is a tag for that in use for ages: railway=abandoned Any variations are wrong (just kidding) But from the first post: >So I just searching for a suitable word for tagging traceless dissappeard >railways ... The problem with tagging something like that is: where to stop? I'm interested in railways too, so I find that interesting. Railways are relative sparse, so it won't clutter the map much. Next comes the historic society of "blah city" and they want to map the medieval street pattern. Half a year later they have a project about Roman times and want to map the castellum that once stood where now the city centre is. Or closer in time: How to map it when residential buildings are knocked down to expand the central business district with a bunch of office towers? Current practice is to delete what was there and draw the new stuff in it's place. -- m.v.g., Cartinus _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
