On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 8:13 AM Nikulainen, Jukka K < jukka.nikulai...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
In particular the "=abandoned" and "=disused" tags would I think be of > great distinguishing value. For example car drivers could be interested > whether a given section of a highway has possible railway traffic or not, > whereas bicycles should be warned of the existence of rail tracks on a > highway irrespective of possible traffic on them. > Yes, it's useful to know if the rails are disused. I think they wouldn't be abandoned because that would mean they, and the road surface around them, would be allowed to fall into disrepair and cause problems for other traffic. I think they'd be ripped out rather than abandoned, especially as they do cause problems for cyclists. However, I don't like =disused because that would throw away the knowledge of what they were previously for, tram/train/whatever. I also don't like it because we already have two other ways of indicating disuse. One is the lifecycle namespace, so disused:*=*, but that has the problem that many renderers treat disused:*=* as meaning "do not render." The other is the deprecated disused=yes. Disused=yes is deprecated in favour of the lifecycle namespace but it is still useful precisely because the feature is rendered as though it is still physically present and there are cases (this is one of them) when that is the right thing to do. However, that would require mapping the rails as a separate way (sharing the same nodes as the road) otherwise disused=yes would mean the road was also disused. So it may be the best option is embedded_rails=disused. Giving a third way of mapping disused objects. :( -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
