Mike N. wrote: > So they are present, and don't hurt anything. None of the > 'standard maps' will bother to render them. A railway > map could use them if it needed to. I delete them if they > go through current buildings or parking lots also.
Yes, that's a sensible attitude. I think it's also worth noting that "what's on the ground" is slightly in the eye of the beholder. I'm not really a railway archaeologist, but I do know quite a bit about old canals. There are places, even in redeveloped town centres, where the canal seems to be obliterated to the untrained eye; but if you know what you're looking for, the clues are there to see, even amongst the car parks. In those circumstances, a =dismantled tag makes sense. I guess one railway equivalent is where a bridge across a river has been removed. It's not "railway=abandoned", it's clearly more than that. But there are usually bridge abutments still standing on either side, maybe even some stonework left in the river. Again, "railway=dismantled" seems appropriate there. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/railway-abandoned-and-mapping-things-that-are-not-there-any-more-tp5716334p5716356.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
