wannes wrote: > > Should abandoned railwaylines that are no longer visible on the terain > > be mapped? Anyhow, in my opinion they should not be rendered. It makes > > the map on some points a bit confusing. > > > > In my opinion it only makes sense to map / render abandoned railway > > lines that still are visible on the terrain, as there is an example here > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.128111&lon=4.443291&zoom=18&layers=B > >000FTF > > In my opinion these sould not be mapped as a railway when they became > tracks or cycleways. > When there is nothing left, nothing should be mapped. > When there are railroads left, but no longer used (like some old > military railroad in brasschaat, or the old railroad on de kaaien in > Antwerp) they should (may) be mapped as abandoned.
railway=disused is for railways still there but not used anymore (kaaien) railway=abandoned is for railways no longer there btw, officially the military railroad from Kapellen to Brasschaat is still in use (even if it probably hasn't seen a train this year). It should therefore still be mapped as a normal railway. Disused railways would in most cases be disconnected from the main rail network. Now, should those abandoned tracks be mapped? Sure, why not? railway=abandoned is just a tag made for it, implying that it isn't there anymore. And it's just fun to see their influence in today's street and housing patterns. But it probably doesn't make much sense to render them on normal maps. The Mapnik rendering has been changed already a few times between showing them and not showing them. Ben _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
