sent from a phone

> Am 08.09.2015 um 01:49 schrieb Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com>:
> 
> I don't believe anyone's advocating the removal of existing entities.
> In your viaduct case above, keep the viaduct entity, remove the 
> railway=abandoned tag, use the historical tag to describe the past of the 
> viaduct (which exists) but don't use it to describe the railway (which 
> doesn't).


I believe you are oversimplifying things by just looking at the tracks and if 
they are there it is some kind of railway and in absence of tracks it has 
nothing more to do with railway.

First of all, we don't currently know a tag for a viaduct entity in OSM, we 
only have a viaduct property for railway and highway entities (bridge=viaduct) 
to denote that they are on a viaduct.

Even if we "had" an established way to tag viaducts independently from ways 
running over them, we would still likely want to tag whether the viaduct was 
built for roads or for railway.
IMHO railway=abandoned fits into this idea, and solves these issues.

Before continuing this discussion we should define the possible states we want 
to map/recognize, i.e. disused, abandoned, (dismantled, razed) and agree on 
their meaning.
People continue to write about railway=abandoned as if it described former 
railways with no traces whatsoever left, while to others it means traces are 
left.


cheers 
Martin 
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Reply via email to