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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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.
___
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
What about abandoned=yes ?
Noel
er Envite
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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
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
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
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
I already proceeded and removed "abandoned"
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
34 matches
Mail list logo