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 sections of dismantled > railway, that have since been split by modern developments? >
In some places, the abandoned railway is visible on aerial imagery, but has since been developed over. I would say this is a very similar situation to the roads. As to connecting things up, perhaps that is just OCD and trying to make things neat and tidy :p > As an aside, how would one map a dismantled railway bridge? And, how > would one map an intact but disused bridge from which the railway > tracks have been removed? > For an example of a dismantled bridge with old embankments on either side, I would map these as r=abandoned, and the route where the bridge used to be as r=dismantled. This has 2 benefits IMO: it shows other mappers that the ex railway has been mapped in a bit more detail than just a single rough way; and it may be of use to some users of OSM data, as Peter alluded to. For the intact bridge, I think this is a relatively clear case of r=abandoned, as there is something on the ground to map that is part of an abandoned railway. regards, Donald _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
