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 not - don't. It's not vital, but could be > useful. > >> >> But I'm biased. We render them on the mapnik map, and that's mostly >> where my discomfort stems from. It would be fine to have the tags >> just for the purpose of generating dedicated railways maps that also >> show all the glory of past, but what the heck are they doing on the >> current map? > > I partially agree with you. > > If it's a physical entity that was an old railway line but is still > visible, such a bridge or a cutting/embankment, map & tag it, > including the railway=abandoned tag if you're aware of it. > > However if there is *no* visible evidence of it then it shouldn't be > mapped. OSM is for current data only. > > Historical maps should use OSM as background & overlay such data, but > *not* include it in the database? > > Cheers > Dave F.
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. In some cases, these remains might have interruptions in them, where part of the old railway right-of-way had been replaced by some newer construction. Different mappers may not all agree on how much of the old railway must remain for it to be worth marking on the map. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
