Thanks, Michael, I will change that occasionally. Am Do., 21. Mai 2020 um 21:38 Uhr schrieb Michael Reichert < [email protected]>:
> Hi Eckhard, > > Am 21/05/2020 um 09.15 schrieb Eckhard M: > > I have seen that railway=owner_change is used not only for real > > owner changes but even for district borders etc. From my understanding > that > > is not meant by the definition of this tag. > > > > Example: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3933432097 > > > > I mean that the right way is like this: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3583040676 > > > > Even the the tag railway=border is used in wrong way I think. Is this > meant > > for federals state borders? > > No, railway=border is meant for locations where two distinct operators > of infrastructure meet at the boundary of two countries (e.g. boundary > locations between DB Netz (Germany) and ProRail (The Netherlands)). > > railway=owner_change is meant for locations where there is no national > border (e.g. DB Netz and a private infrastructure operator meeting). > > > Example: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2437528281 > > > > What do you all think? > > I changed a couple of these nodes into railway=site in Germany a few > weeks ago because they have a DS100 facility code (railway:ref=*) but I > am not against removing them completely because there is no > representation on the ground (apart from the boundary stones of the > border). > > Best regards > > Michael > >
