On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:24:27AM -0500, Richard Weait 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. > > abandoned = yes > > > > It's that last tag I'm unsure of. Is abandoned = yes allowed/understood in > > relations? > > Dear Kristian, > > It is most likely that no relation is required to group them together. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
I've thought about this some more today, and I think this specific case does qualify as a relation. I'm not trying to group multiple, disparate lines operated by a railraod into a collection; there's just a single line, but due to adaptive reuse of the Right of Way, I've been forced to break it into multiple ways. I don't see this as much different from a state highway that travels on multiple streets, or even a road that's broken into multiple ways so one segment can be tagged as a bridge or tunnel. It's a singular, logical relation, from end-to-end. Now, if the E&BE had ever run multiple lines, then I can see the objection to putting them into a relation. That's not the case, however. I do see the need for care here. We don't want someone tagging every line operated by Union Pacific as being part of one huge relation, for example. However, tt would be perfectly acceptable (to me, anyway), to tag an individual named railroad subdivision with a relation, though, assuming it had to be broken into segments for things like bridges/tunnels. It's a fine line to walk, that's for sure. Oh, and I now see that I don't need to tag the relation as abandoned, as all the ways have this tag (except for the portion tagged as "preserved" at the Illinois Railway Museum). Anyway, there's still time to change my mind, as I have other things I want to clean up before I add this relation. Man, do I have a love/hate relationship with TIGER right now. -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us