Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-28 Thread Dave F.
On 28/09/2010 10:28, M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/9/28 Dave F.: For those who want to keep historic records (& I think there should be), they should take a record of current data at regular intervals& keep it in a separate database. that's not a good option: those datasets will diverge m

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-28 Thread Noel David Torres Taño
On Martes 28 Septiembre 2010 10:28:56 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer escribió: [...] > an abandoned railway is current data. It is an abandoned railway > currently (as long as you don't excavate all foundations and draining > layers and remove them together with bridges and tunnels, you will > still have most

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-28 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/9/28 Dave F. : > For those who want to keep historic records (& I think there should be), > they should take a record of current data at regular intervals & keep it in > a separate database. that's not a good option: those datasets will diverge more and more, and in the end all connection/to

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-28 Thread Peter Wendorff
On 28.09.2010 02:48, John Smith wrote: On 28 September 2010 10:38, Dave F. wrote: If historic data was kept within OSM it would become far to cluttered. Not if this data was filtered by default, and only shown if requested. The present method of showing everything is limiting for a number of

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Dave F. wrote: > On 28/09/2010 02:41, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Dave F. wrote: >>> >>> On 28/09/2010 01:41, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Strawman. We're only talking about former railway alignments. >>> >>> Hmm... not su

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Dave F.
On 28/09/2010 02:41, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Dave F. wrote: On 28/09/2010 01:41, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Strawman. We're only talking about former railway alignments. Hmm... not sure you understand the meaning of the straw man argument. - You're (sic)

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Dave F. wrote: > On 28/09/2010 01:41, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> Strawman. We're only talking about former railway alignments. > > Hmm... not sure you understand the meaning of the straw man argument. > > - > > You're (sic) statement "Because we don't only map

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Dave F.
On 28/09/2010 01:41, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Dave F. wrote: On 28/09/2010 01:11, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Dave F. wrote: But only add what is actually visibly there now. Not what was there fifty years ago. What was there 5

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Dave F. wrote: >> I disagree. How can it be vandalism if it's not there anymore? > > Because we don't only map what's currently there. To expand on this: http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/old_name/ http://osmdoc.c

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread John Smith
On 28 September 2010 10:38, Dave F. wrote: > If historic data was kept within OSM it would become far to cluttered. Not if this data was filtered by default, and only shown if requested. The present method of showing everything is limiting for a number of reasons. ___

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Dave F. wrote: > On 28/09/2010 01:11, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Dave F. wrote: >>> >>> But only add what is actually visibly there now. Not what was there fifty >>> years ago. >> >> What was there 50 years ago is useful, > > I

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Dave F.
On 28/09/2010 01:11, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Dave F. wrote: But only add what is actually visibly there now. Not what was there fifty years ago. What was there 50 years ago is useful, I agree and removing it would be vandalism. I disagree. How can it b

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:23 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/9/28 Nathan Edgars II : >> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Dave F. wrote: >>> But only add what is actually visibly there now. Not what was there fifty >>> years ago. >> >> What was there 50 years ago is useful, and removing it w

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/9/28 Nathan Edgars II : > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Dave F. wrote: >> But only add what is actually visibly there now. Not what was there fifty >> years ago. > > What was there 50 years ago is useful, and removing it would be > vandalism. You can argue about whether Mapnik should show

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Dave F. wrote: > But only add what is actually visibly there now. Not what was there fifty > years ago. What was there 50 years ago is useful, and removing it would be vandalism. You can argue about whether Mapnik should show it, but don't remove it.

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Dave F.
On 27/09/2010 22:01, John F. Eldredge wrote: On 09/27/2010 12:17 PM, Dave F. wrote: On 27/09/2010 17:37, Lennard wrote: And when I cycle such a thing and want to map it, it's: highway=cycleway And I'm done. How am I to know there used to be rails infrastructure there, years (and years) ago

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Richard Welty
On 9/27/10 5:01 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: You might well have the remains of an old railway, such as an embankment, that was still present and useful as a landmark, but had not been turned into a cycleway. one reason to keep the abandoned railways in place is that in fact they are still freq

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Liz
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:39:53 +0200 Lennard wrote: > That's one thing I've never really understood with railway=abandoned > either. Sure, many of them have been converted into might fine > cycleways, but that's just what they are now: cycleways. You can abandon a railway and still have a someth

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread John F. Eldredge
On 09/27/2010 12:17 PM, Dave F. wrote: > On 27/09/2010 17:37, Lennard wrote: >> And when I cycle such a thing and want to map it, it's: >> >> highway=cycleway >> >> And I'm done. How am I to know there used to be rails infrastructure >> there, years (and years) ago? > > If you know - tag it; if no

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/9/27 Dave F. : >> http://www.23hq.com/dieterdreist/photo/6058662 > That's clearly not a bridge & I wouldn't even bother tagging it. well, it once was a bridge. I wouldn't tag it as bridge either. > Where as clearly this is even though no traffic passes over it: > http://www.publow-with-p

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Dave F.
On 27/09/2010 17:37, Lennard wrote: And when I cycle such a thing and want to map it, it's: highway=cycleway And I'm done. How am I to know there used to be rails infrastructure there, years (and years) ago? If you know - tag it; if not - don't. It's not vital, but could be useful. But I

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Lennard
On 27-9-2010 17:48, Dave F. wrote: Many railways in the UK, following Doctor Beeching's cuts, were abandoned, but much infrastructure, such as bridges, remain, & are unused. If there's a usable bridge, it's bridge=yes. If there's no usable bridge, it's ruins=bridge or not even that. is leg

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Lennard
On 27-9-2010 16:57, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Well, you presumably would have an intermediate step in which the railway is no longer being used for train traffic, but the rails and crossties (also known as sleepers) have not yet been taken up, so it isn't suitable yet for use as a cycleway.

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Dave F.
On 27/09/2010 17:10, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/9/27 Lennard: On 27-9-2010 16:25, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: What about abandoned=yes ? And expect every data consumer to have to parse that in addition to whatever bridge=* value you leave on the data. What's not there anymore is just t

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/9/27 Lennard : > On 27-9-2010 16:25, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: >> >> What about abandoned=yes ? > > And expect every data consumer to have to parse that in addition to whatever > bridge=* value you leave on the data. What's not there anymore is just that: > not there anymore. It doesn't de

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Dave F.
On 27/09/2010 15:39, Lennard wrote: On 27-9-2010 16:25, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: What about abandoned=yes ? And expect every data consumer to have to parse that in addition to whatever bridge=* value you leave on the data. What's not there anymore is just that: not there anymore. It do

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread john
t :Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge >From :mailto:l...@xs4all.nl Date :Mon Sep 27 09:39:53 America/Chicago 2010 On 27-9-2010 16:25, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: > What about abandoned=yes ? And expect every data consumer to have to parse that in addition to whatever bridge=* value you l

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Lennard
On 27-9-2010 16:25, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: What about abandoned=yes ? And expect every data consumer to have to parse that in addition to whatever bridge=* value you leave on the data. What's not there anymore is just that: not there anymore. It doesn't deserve a bridge=* tag. That's

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Noel David Torres Taño
What about abandoned=yes ? Noel er Envite ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/9/27 Dave F. : >  On 27/09/2010 13:51, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> I agree that this is the same problem. It isn't a good reason to keep >> bridge=abandoned IMHO. You could workaround with railway=abandoned, >> abandoned=tram, but for bridge the wiki states: bridge=  and >> "abandoned" is

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Dave F.
On 27/09/2010 13:51, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I agree that this is the same problem. It isn't a good reason to keep bridge=abandoned IMHO. You could workaround with railway=abandoned, abandoned=tram, but for bridge the wiki states: bridge= and "abandoned" is clearly not part of a typology vo

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
2010/9/27 Nathan Edgars II : > > This is the same as railways: you can have railway=tram or > railway=abandoned, so how do you tag an abandoned tramway? I agree that this is the same problem. It isn't a good reason to keep bridge=abandoned IMHO. You could workaround with railway=abandoned, abando

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread Nathan Edgars II
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:50 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > recently there was introduced some weird stuff in bridge: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge > >bridge=yes >bridge=aqueduct >bridge=viaduct >bridge=swing >bridge=abandoned >bridge=... > > I'm fine wi

Re: [Tagging] inconsistencies in bridge

2010-09-27 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
I already proceeded and removed "abandoned" cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging