On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, but I'm not trolling. I just want to understand why the railway > people should get a different treatment. > If you're argument is to better understand why the landscape is like it is > now, then that is also true for razed streets [1] where the road used to > come closer to the buildings in the north of it, > Railways are much bigger scale. I see abandoned pipelines and power lines as having similar scale, and would be treatable just like railways. Any man made feature that cuts through kilometers of landscape should qualify. If useful mapabble parts of the old feature exist (e.g. some bridges and embankments), having the connecting way (e.g. the razed railway) is really helpful. There is almost no downside to the rest of the community. Any small downside can be mitigated with editor design. For a ski lift if a few towers still exist and are mapped, leave the way until the last tower is removed. ---- The prime benefit mentioned for deleting the rwailways has been "reducing editor confusion". And that's not a great argument, as there is already a need for editors to help reduce clutter, and doing so would solve the railway problem.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us