On 3/6/12 9:22 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
I just found the idea of saying "this is a railway - a never-built one, but
a railway nonetheless" a little extravagant.
umm, not never built. never completed. and in this case, a never completed
rail
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> I wouldn't agree with
> planned-but-abandoned features being stored except in unusual
> circumstances.
>
Key distinction is
planned-but-never-built (county plat book fantasy "roads"),
vs built, used, then abandoned
(subca
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Nah, it was rather about what the priority is. A constrution site could
> always be annotated with "this is planned to become a hotel", even though it
> isn't a hotel; and a cut could always be annotated with "this was once
> planned to becom
Am 5. März 2012 12:54 schrieb Frederik Ramm :
> I just found the idea of saying "this is a railway - a never-built one, but
> a railway nonetheless" a little extravagant.
I think that the feature in question is not a "never built one" but a
"never finished one", which makes some difference IMHO.
Hi,
On 03/05/12 12:16, Steve Bennett wrote:
It sounds like you want to create an extremely literal map devoid of any
information that is not literally "on the ground".
Nah, it was rather about what the priority is. A constrution site could
always be annotated with "this is planned to become a
On Mar 5, 2012 6:06 PM, "Frederik Ramm" wrote:
> I've run into the same argument with people tagging construction sites
for various kinds of buildings. I always maintained that the object in
question is primarily a construction site, and the fact that a hotel or
museum is being built is at most w
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 08:04, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I've run into the same argument with people tagging construction sites for
> various kinds of buildings. I always maintained that the object in question
> is primarily a construction site, and the fact that a hotel or museum is
> being built is
Hi,
On 03/05/12 05:48, Russ Nelson wrote:
> > how do you tag a never-completed railway which has significant important
> > landmark value in the current landscape?
>
> I think that what you are seeing is not a railway at all.
You're kidding, right? If you google search for "unfinis
Frederik Ramm writes:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/25/12 01:23, Richard Welty wrote:
> > how do you tag a never-completed railway which has significant important
> > landmark value in the current landscape?
>
> I think that what you are seeing is not a railway at all.
You're kidding, right? If you goo
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/25/12 01:23, Richard Welty wrote:
> > how do you tag a never-completed railway which has significant
> important
> > landmark value in the current landscape?
>
> I think that what you are seeing is not a railway at all.
>
> I suggest to tag what you see on
On Feb 26, 2012 7:42 PM, "Frederik Ramm" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On 02/25/12 01:23, Richard Welty wrote:
>>
>> how do you tag a never-completed railway which has significant important
>> landmark value in the current landscape?
>
>
> I think that what you are seeing is not a railway at all.
>
> I sug
Hi,
On 02/25/12 01:23, Richard Welty wrote:
how do you tag a never-completed railway which has significant important
landmark value in the current landscape?
I think that what you are seeing is not a railway at all.
I suggest to tag what you see on the ground, rather than whatever the
object
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> you could use abandoned_date (like start_date) and have the
> before/after completion part in another tag. Multiple things (date and
> status) for one key should possibly be avoided.
+1
Keep things simple for the person reusing the d
Am 26. Februar 2012 02:19 schrieb Richard Welty :
> abandoned=1859:before_completion
> abandoned=:before_completion
> abandoned=1958
>
> or something else. suggestions?
you could use abandoned_date (like start_date) and have the
before/after completion part in another tag. Multiple things (date a
On 2/25/12 11:14 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Richard has found one,
i wouldn't say i found one. the "Unfinished Railway" is rather famous in
Civil
War circles, given the impact it had on Second Manassas. i just walked along
a fair chunk of the historically significant part this past week with a
G
On 2/25/12 8:24 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
I favor railway=abandoned and then if necessary specialize from there.
The point about data consumers not knowing about new tags and therefore
building a semantic hierarchy to optimize for sensible behavior is a
strong one.
having thought about this on the
On Feb 26, 2012 3:15 AM, "Russ Nelson" wrote:
>
> It deserves its own tag. Not that I expect renderers to render it
> differently, but it would be nice if they did, and just having a note,
> with variable prose makes it unreasonable to expect them to do it.
>
Seems all up like the right solution
I agree with Russ here. I have more experience with abandoned RR, as
do most of us, since that 's what happened in the 20th C. ( Saddest
task in my professional life was snipping newly abandoned ways out of
my DOT GIS dataset in the 1980s.) But there are many more unfinished
RR's than we recall. Li
On 2/25/2012 07:07:12 Steve Bennett wrote:
> IMHO there is not much difference between a "almost completed then
> abandoned" and "completed then abandoned" railway, from the
> perspective of OSM.
When I'm out in the field chasing an unfinished railroad, it matters
very much. You see, unfinished
On 2/25/2012 09:15:48 NE2 wrote:
> Russ (and I) simply use railway=abandoned for this, with a note
> explaining the details. For example:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2021550 (needs a bit
> of work).
I do?? Last I knew, I tagged them railway=unfinished, and you
unilaterally c
On 2/25/2012 8:24 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
You probably already know this, but: in OSM railway=abandoned is what we
in the US would call "old railroad grade". railway=disused seems to
cover both what we would call "out of service" (a term within railroad
regulation, referring to tracks/ROW still
I favor railway=abandoned and then if necessary specialize from there.
The point about data consumers not knowing about new tags and therefore
building a semantic hierarchy to optimize for sensible behavior is a
strong one.
You probably already know this, but: in OSM railway=abandoned is what we
On 2/24/2012 10:06 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
On this, I'd consult Russ Nelson, the OSM diva of failed 19thC railroads.
Russ (and I) simply use railway=abandoned for this, with a note
explaining the details. For example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2021550 (needs a bit of work).
> any thoughts or suggestions?
IMHO there is not much difference between a "almost completed then
abandoned" and "completed then abandoned" railway, from the
perspective of OSM. Either way, it's not a present day railway, yet
there are some physical features that history buffs may be interested
in
On this, I'd consult Russ Nelson, the OSM diva of failed 19thC railroads.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> this is kind of an edge case, but a genuine one.
>
> how do you tag a never-completed railway which has significant important
> landmark value
> in the current landsc
this is kind of an edge case, but a genuine one.
how do you tag a never-completed railway which has significant important
landmark value
in the current landscape?
there is a railway cut and fill in the Manassas National Battlefield in
northern Virginia
which wasn't completed 150 years ago and
26 matches
Mail list logo
