On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:23:12AM -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff > <kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, all. > > > > I've been working on adding some abandoned railway lines in my area, and > > I've been wondering how to group them together. The line I'm working on > > right now (the former Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co. line) has been re-used > > in some areas as public streets, bike paths, service roads, and even a > > railway museum, so I've had to break the line into quite a few ways. I'd > > like to group them back together with a relation, but I'm not sure if > > anyone's done this for an abandoned railway line, or if this is even the > > right thing to do. My plan was to create a new relation like so: > > > > type = route > > route = train > > operator = Elgin & Belvidere Electric Co. > This should be unabbreviated: Elgin and Belvidere Electric Company.
Good catch. > > abandoned = yes > > > > It's that last tag I'm unsure of. Is abandoned = yes allowed/understood in > > relations? > > I think what you want to use is route=railway, not route=train. The > latter would include trackage (if any) owned by other companies that > the E&BE used to reach downtown terminals, while the former would be > the single line owned and operated by the E&BE. Good point. EB&E used long-abandoned and paved over streetcar trackage at either end, which it did not own. I have no intention of tagging that trackage right now, though I may get to that at some point. -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
