Apologies about being very late to respond to this issue.
I did use the historic:railway=* tag for old railway for a period of time
having come across it somewhere in the DB. It was good because it was
possible to tag which sort of railway it was
However... I now only use it in very particular
I've just been bitten by the minority, largely undocumented usage of
railway:historic=rail on a bunch of dismantled/abandoned railways in
Britain. Having exported some OSM data and done a few days' manual
processing on it, I belatedly find that various lines are missing due to
not taking
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Taginfo/Taginfo GB suggest that railway:historic=rail is not used much elsewhere
in the world, and that railway=abandoned, =disused and =dismantled remain the
popular choices. No client software appears to take any notice of
railway:historic=rail.
Would there be any
]
Sent: 13 May 2013 12:56
To: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail
. BR is unlikely ever to do that and the information is not
visible on the ground, but it is available information.
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
They certainly are unlikely ever to do that.
Unless
I don't think Richard's original post was an invitation to discuss arcane
quirks of Britain's historical railway system.
I have raised the issue of wholesale tag changing several times recently,
and as this tagging is clearly not with the consensus of mappers either in
the UK or elsewhere, I
sk53.osm wrote:
I don't think Richard's original post was an invitation to discuss arcane quirks
of Britain's historical railway system.
I have raised the issue of wholesale tag changing several times recently, and as
this tagging is clearly not with the consensus of mappers either in the UK or
On 13 May 2013 11:49, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Would there be any opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to
railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground?
I don't oppose the change in principle, but we need to be clear what
you intend for all
I've noticed a stack of stations showing up on the map recently labelled
VillageName Station which just seams wrong and to have them show up on
the default rendering seams even more wrong.
They are tagged railway=station; disused=yes
e.g.
Widmerpool Station http://osm.org/go/eu8kWOCCe--
Plumtree
On 6 July 2012 21:43, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote:
I've noticed a stack of stations showing up on the map recently labelled
VillageName Station which just seams wrong and to have them show up on the
default rendering seams even more wrong.
They are tagged railway=station;
Done - I now remember where I first saw them jumping out at me!
On 6 July 2012 21:49, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 July 2012 21:43, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote:
I've noticed a stack of stations showing up on the map recently labelled
VillageName Station which just
However, there are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been
realigned or ripped up, should these also be removed from the database?
I think highway=no is typically used as a temporary tag to try to stop
remote mappers from adding something from a source that is not up to
date. In
On 4 July 2012 09:39, Craig Loftus craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote:
However, there are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been
realigned or ripped up, should these also be removed from the database?
I think highway=no is typically used as a temporary tag to try to stop
On 4 July 2012 09:39, Craig Loftus craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think highway=no is typically used as a temporary tag to try to stop
remote mappers from adding something from a source that is not up to
date.
… However, what
is the argument for keeping connections between
On 2 July 2012 15:00, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
Responding to comments below. Use of railway=abandoned for lines across
housing estates is definitely wrong. Some suggest railway=dismantled, some
remove them.
Leaving aside other issues; these terms are confusing, and seem
) but this is not a historic
document.
Cheers
Jason W (UniEagle)
-Original Message-
From: Dave F.
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 10:49 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
On 30/06/2012 15:11, SomeoneElse wrote:
Obviously mapping
On 1 July 2012 22:49, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 30/06/2012 15:11, SomeoneElse wrote:
Obviously mapping things that aren't there any more is a bigger
issue
Has there been discussion about this outside talk:railway? If there hasn't
I'm a bit annoyed that a niche user
Peter Miller wrote:
I started using railway:historic=xxx in place of railway=dismantled
for cycletracks etc in response to a comment through OSM
messaging that one editor had found it confusing to suddenly
have cyclepaths being rendered as railways in Potlatch due the
railway=xxx tag
On 2 Jul 2012, at 16:19, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Peter Miller wrote:
I started using railway:historic=xxx in place of railway=dismantled
for cycletracks etc in response to a comment through OSM
messaging that one editor had found it confusing to suddenly
have cyclepaths being rendered
I've noticed a few of these popping up recently, e.g.:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/77277743/history and
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/77277743/histor
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/77277743/historyy
I had spotted some of these, same mapper, near Whitchurch, and must
admit it has concerned me as previously it had shown on the map as a
tracked.
It is still visible on the ground, but now not visible on the map. This
seems wrong to me, my feeling it should be reverted. Was going to
contract the
20 matches
Mail list logo
