On 21/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Am 20.08.2015 um 14:59 schrieb Pieren <pier...@gmail.com>: >> >> where is the railway here ? were are the rails ? > > there aren't any rails, but there is a railbed, this cutting wouldn't make > sense for a cycleway, would it? (inappropriate effort)
IMHO (and I've been arguing against mapping railway=abandoned in many cases), I think that in this case tagging railway=abandoned (along with highway=cycleway and cutting=yes) is acceptable, meaning that I don't think the tag should be deleted, but I wouldn't add it myself. For: even an on the ground unmoving observer would easily figure out that this was a railway. Against: it is neither a railway nor abandoned, it is a cycleway, the characteristics of which can be fully described without refering to its railway origin. There has to be a point in a way's physical evolution when we can stop tagging railway=abandoned, where do you draw the line ? The "it was a railway" fact can if desired be kept in a relation with start/end tags (a rare case where these can work). _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
