On 12 September 2015 22:55:07 GMT+01:00, Russ Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote: >moltonel writes: > > Still, I'd like to add one reason: none of the other tags you > > mentioned have such a vehement, uncompromising, relentless champion > >There is no "compromise", Moltonel. "Compromise" is where you get your >way, and delete my hard work. Can you see how this is not acceptable? >Whereas, from my point of view, you can compromise by accepting that >abandoned railways have a place in OSM. They don't get rendered >anymore, so they're not a problem there. You can hide them in JOSM. I >don't know if ID lets you hide ways. Compared to all the things that >*should* be mapping but aren't, having a few things that are mapped >that "shouldn't" be, simply isn't a problem.
Again, you're seeing this as an all or nothing amd don't seem to even notice any in-between. Either "win the debate" fully or lose, either map abandoned railroads completely or not a all. For what it's worth, even if I went on a mad armchair-maping rampage and deleted all that I feel does not belong in OSM, there'd be maybe 75 to 90% of your railway work left (but of course this won't happen, as I only map places I know, and always discuss potentialy controversial edits with other contributors, changing nothing if unsure). Since you apparently missed all the compromises I made, let me spell them out : * I actually approve maping abandoned railways in general (not strictly a compromise since it was my starting opinion, but it seems that some other contributors are less keen on maping them). * I now would leave a railway=abandoned tag on a perfectly-converted highway=*. Pethaps at most I'd contact the maper to suggest taking out the railway tag in such cases, but I'd let him/her decide. * I do not like "former railway route" relations, but I can leave them be. * I tried to define objective and conservative criterias on when a railway section really doesnt belong in OSM, such as when a building has been built on top, when a bridge is gone, or when a field's crops grow uniformly well. * Interestingly, my criterias seem to match your criterias for railway=dismantled. I've tried a few times to steer the discusion back on the narrower 'dismantled' case to avoid what otherwise looks like a blanket rejection of abandoned railways. * I'd be fine with OSM supporting maping the past properly (better than OHM). Maybe something like a variation on the lifecycle prefixes, so you could tag "past:railway=rail @ 1800s - 1975" instead of "railway=dimantled". And some toolset support. >Please, compromise, rather than demand that I compromise by giving in >completely! A compromise is when *both* parties meet somewhere in the middle. What steps have you taken towards that middle ground ? -- Vincent Dp _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
