Someoneelse wrote: >> I notice that abandoned railways are now being rendered on Mapnik. > > This was discussed a bit on talk-gb recently: > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2008-December/003369.html > > (and related messages) > > There are/were quite a few "railway=abandoned" features marked around > the Derby/Notts border in the UK. Although many have been reused as > cycle tracks etc., many haven't, and of those that haven't there's > often nothing left visible on the ground at all. In those cases I've > gone for "railway=dismantled", rather than just deleting the way > entirely, as it seems a shame to remove information that someone else > has added that isn't actually "wrong". > > Way 27144373 is an example - it's a section of the former Great > Central railway that runs more-or-less parallel with a former colliery > railway (the GCR was actually the later addition, but by the time of > the NPE mapping the colliery railway appears to have become disused). > A modern cycle trail follows much of the GCR, but not this bit (it > follows the older colliery railway). > > However, way 14837306 here: > http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.19174&lon=-1.22413&zoom=15&layers=B000FTFT > > shows a problem with this approach - Mapnik renders the name, but not > the actual way. This is one where some sections probably justify > being left as "railway=abandoned", as there is more evidence on the > ground (although rendering it on a "standard map" is likely to cause > confusion). > Changing a tag from railway=abandoned to railway=dismantled just to stop it rendering is one of the no-nos in OSM: tagging for the renderer. It would be much better to tag the line correctly and fix the renderer so they don't render on the Mapnik map. Then a railway map or historic map could render it properly.
Cheers, Chris _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
