[Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail
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 account of this tag and I'm going to have to do a whole bunch more work. :( 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 opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground? The only documentation I could find (on a wiki discussion page, of all the obscure places): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#railway:historic.3Dxxx_or_former:railway.3Dxxx_in_place_of_railway.3Dabandoned.2Fdismantled.3F cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail
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 opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground? The only documentation I could find (on a wiki discussion page, of all the obscure places): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#railway:historic.3Dxxx_or_former:railway.3Dxxx_in_place_of_railway.3Dabandoned.2Fdismantled.3F There is a special case, but I'm not sure that is what you are actually seeing. While the track bed may have been lifted, a number of 'historic' lines still have statutory orders in place designating them as 'protected'. For instance the line up from Broadway extending the GWR track from Toddington has to be treated as if it is active and the Broadway Bypass had to have a bridge built to allow for an electrified line to be run through. BR is unlikely ever to do that and the information is not visible on the ground, but it is available information. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail
PHILLIP BARNETT SERVER MANAGER 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 207 430 4474 F E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk WWW.ITN.CO.UK Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? -Original Message- From: Lester Caine [mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk] 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 this lot succeed .. http://www.bringbackbritishrail.org/ :-) Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail
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 would suggest it be reverted. Casual changing of tags can create a lot of work for people. That is one of the reasons why it needs to be discussed. In this case the different tag could have been added rather than obliterate a widely used tag convention. I would support a reversion of these edits, and ask the contributor to consult with this list first. Jerry On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 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 account of this tag and I'm going to have to do a whole bunch more work. :( 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 opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground? The only documentation I could find (on a wiki discussion page, of all the obscure places): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/** wiki/Talk:Railways#railway:**historic.3Dxxx_or_former:** railway.3Dxxx_in_place_of_**railway.3Dabandoned.**2Fdismantled.3Fhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#railway:historic.3Dxxx_or_former:railway.3Dxxx_in_place_of_railway.3Dabandoned.2Fdismantled.3F cheers Richard __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail
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 elsewhere, I would suggest it be reverted. Casual changing of tags can create a lot of work for people. That is one of the reasons why it needs to be discussed. In this case the different tag could have been added rather than obliterate a widely used tag convention. I would support a reversion of these edits, and ask the contributor to consult with this list first. Screwing the ordering of the thread up totally ... My point to Richard was that there MAY be a valid use for a different tag. Richard was asking if he could change it, but part of the reason for local tagging differences IS because of arcane quirks ... That is not to say that this tags is right ... there is room to clean up a number of the railway related tags ... just that it may be flagging a difference that 'abandoned' looses. Given the amount of work now being done on additional railway information on the map, proper expansion of the fine detail is important. On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net mailto:rich...@systemed.net wrote: 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 account of this tag and I'm going to have to do a whole bunch more work. :( 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 opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground? The only documentation I could find (on a wiki discussion page, of all the obscure places): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Talk:Railways#railway:__historic.3Dxxx_or_former:__railway.3Dxxx_in_place_of___railway.3Dabandoned.__2Fdismantled.3F http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways#railway:historic.3Dxxx_or_former:railway.3Dxxx_in_place_of_railway.3Dabandoned.2Fdismantled.3F -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] associatedParking relation
Copied to list too. An interesting idea, but I don't like the idea of namespacing roles: relations are complicated enough. At the moment the access tag should do this. I'd like to keep the relation simple for now so am very much looking for a convenient catch-all name for the business to which the parking relates (actually business may do perfectly well!) On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:41 PM, John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM, sk53.osm sk53@gmail.com wrote: The only thing I'm not sure about is having the role of the owning entity blank. Any suggestions for a name for the role. Note that the relation between parking owning entity is not necessarily m:1, it could be 1:m (e.g., take-aways sharing a car park), or even m:n. How about making the role indicate what use the owning entity makes of the parking, e.g. customers and staff (or perhaps parking:customers and parking:staff)? This could be useful when the owning entity owns several distinct types of parking. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail
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 the various values. railway:historic = rail, railway:historic = light_rail and railway:historic = tram can't all go into one railway=dismantled tag without losing information. I expect you intend to use another tag (dismantled = light_rail etc) but that's worth stating. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
