On 22.04.2013 17:43, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Masi Master <masi-mas...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> >> Am 18.04.2013, 17:22 Uhr, schrieb Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:33 AM, André Pirard >> <a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> From OSM-talk-be, with best regards. I put the questions before >> the >>>> replies ;-) >>>>>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:31 PM, André Pirard >>>>>> <a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 2013-04-13 23:02, Marc Gemis wrote : >>>>>>>> ... [ full message ] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So why two lines for an abandoned railway and the >> cycleway/footway >>>>>>>> on it ? Can't they be combined ? >>>>>>> What to do is explained in the OSM wiki at ... Railways >>>>>>>> Abandoned - The track has been removed and the line may have >> been >>>>>>>> reused or left to decay but is still clearly >>>>>>visible, >> either >>>>>>>> from the replacement infrastructure, or purely from a line of >> trees >>>>>>>> around an original cutting or >>>>>>embankment. Use >>>>>>>> railway=abandoned. Where it has been reused as a cycle path >> then >>>>>>>> add >>>>>>highway=cycleway. Consider adding a end_date=* tag or >> >>>>>>>> more specifically a railway:end_date=* >>>>>>tag. >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Marc Gemis >> <marc.ge...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> This means that the separate track should be removed for the 3 >> >>>>>>>> cases I listed, or not ? >>>>>>> On 2013-04-14 23:11, Ben Laenen wrote : >>>>>>>> No, highway and cycleway should not share any ways. The only >> thing >>>>>>>> which may be acceptable is reusing the >>>>>>same nodes for two >> >>>>>>>> different ways, but only if they are on exactly the same >> location, >>>>>>>> which is actually quite rare. >>>>>>In quite a lot of cases >> there >>>>>>>> will be an offset, or it will diverge a little bit from the >>>>>>>> original railway track. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ben >>>>>>> >>>> IMVHO, there is no railway if there are no rails, just a cycleway, >> just >>>> one way. >>>> And the intention may be to add information that there was a >> railway >>>> there, the genesis. >>>> How then explain the wiki rules: "railway=abandoned" and "add >>>> highway=cycleway to railway=abandoned" instead of "add ...???... >>>> to >>>> highway=cycleway"? >>> >>> Hi. I have a bit of an interest in rail trails. For those not well >>> versed in them, these are where an old train line has been >>> decommissioned, the rails have >been pulled up, and a bike path runs >> >>> where the trains used to. Usually the bike path has to diverge from >> the >>> original alignment at certain points, where >the land has been sold, >> or >>> there's a bridge missing or something. >>> >>> So, there are few options for tagging: >>> >>> 1) A single way: "railway=abandoned | highway=cycleway | name=Blah >> Rail >>> Trail | surface=unpaved" (usually with a cycle route relation as >> well) >>> Advantages: >>> - easy, can quickly convert a mapped train line into a rail trail >>> - preserves the relationship between bike path and train line (eg, >> it's >>> easy for a data consumer to pull out ways that are rail trails) >>> - can use this information for rendering (eg, show the bike path in >> a >>> special way when it's a rail trail, and don't render the train line >> >>> directly) >>> >>> Disadvantages >>> - tag clashes, particularly "name=" - is this the name of the bike >> path, >>> or of the former train line? >>> >>> 2) Two ways, not sharing nodes >>> Advantages: >>> - keep information separate, retain everything about the train line >>> Disadvantages: >>> - messy for editing, rendering >>> >>> 3 Two ways, sharing nodes >>> Advantages: >>> - "clean", most precise >>> Disadvantages: >>> - really bad for editing (hard to select between multiple colinear >> ways) >>> - really bad for rendering (totally unpredictable which of the two >> ways >>> will show, maybe they both will and will look terrible) >>> >>> Steve >> >> Hi, >> i think using the same way and add tags is the best solution: >> The railway has no sharp corners and no extreme incline, so it is >> generally good for cycling. The tag railway=abandoned on a cycleway >> can be >> an indicator for a non-hilly (=power-saving) cycleway. >> If you use solution 2) or 3), you don't know easily, that this is a >> cycleway without strong incline. >> >> The railway name (and other properties) can be add by relation, >> old_name >> or railway:name >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > How do you recommend handling situations where a railroad bridge has been > removed, and the cycleway diverts in order to make a grade crossing across > the roadway that the bridge had formerly passed over? Simply reusing the > railroad way would mean that the map would falsely indicate that the bridge > was still present, which doesn't match the injunction to "map the ground > truth".
Think the easiest way is to use one way if the ways are on top and otherwise two. You could use a relation for the routes but it might not be needed. There is no problem with railway=abandond/dismantled ... For different names we already have several solutions. Eberything else referring to the former railway should be prepended with "railway:" Is this so complicated ? My two cents fly _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
