Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
I've noticed a stack of stations showing up on the map recently labelled VillageName Station which just seams wrong and to have them show up on the default rendering seams even more wrong. They are tagged railway=station; disused=yes e.g. Widmerpool Station http://osm.org/go/eu8kWOCCe-- Plumtree Station http://osm.org/go/eu8PnPm7t- (closed 1949) (in those two examples the track is in situ, and for those Londoners on here your shiny new tube trains got there test runs on there) Edwalton Station http://osm.org/go/eu8aIQFA3- (closed 1949) While I'm on the subject of Railway Tagging the the Nottingham (Midland) station seams to have been micromapped to a bit too much detail -e.g. Mapnik now renders Platform 4/5 Canopy, Footpath No. 21 (demolished), Lift Shaft, Stairs, Porte-Cohére (etc) in addition to the useful stuff like WH Smith, Ticket Office, and the debatibly useful stuff (e.g. Karlsruhe Friendship Bridge which will be carrying NET (the tram) over the station once construction is complete). The Milk Dock has been turned into a cycle parking area but the rendering is completely obscured by the highway=service area=yes placed there - can it really be A highway when it's full of bike racks? What should be done here - nothing, remove the names or what? Kev On 4 July 2012 19:40, Donald Noble drno...@gmail.com wrote: 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
On 6 July 2012 21:43, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote: I've noticed a stack of stations showing up on the map recently labelled VillageName Station which just seams wrong and to have them show up on the default rendering seams even more wrong. They are tagged railway=station; disused=yes Please feel free to fix them, as per http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-April/011460.html The combination railway=station; disused=yes should not be used. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
Done - I now remember where I first saw them jumping out at me! On 6 July 2012 21:49, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2012 21:43, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote: I've noticed a stack of stations showing up on the map recently labelled VillageName Station which just seams wrong and to have them show up on the default rendering seams even more wrong. They are tagged railway=station; disused=yes Please feel free to fix them, as per http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-April/011460.html The combination railway=station; disused=yes should not be used. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
However, there are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been realigned or ripped up, should these also be removed from the database? 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. In practice they probably sit around in the database in perpetuity, but it still seems quite different to actively map dismantled and abandoned railway lines. As others have mentioned, railway=dismantled seems fine. However, what is the argument for keeping connections between sections of dismantled railway, that have since been split by modern developments? 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? Craig On 3 July 2012 22:47, Donald Noble drno...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has added a few railway=dismantled ways to the map, I thought I might add in my reasoning. Railways, by their nature, link places and are pretty much continuous. So in areas (like Glasgow) where there are sections of old railway infrastructure visible on the ground I have mapped these as r=disused or r=abandoned depending on whether the tracks are still in-situ. But I find it useful if these can be linked by sections of r=dismantled (or some other tag) that reflects that there was a railway there, even if all traces are now gone, as this can make sense of the remnants that are there. I appreciate there is a line between mapping what is on the ground and creating a database of historic routes, and perhaps dismantled railways crosses that line (if you'll excuse the pun). However, there are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been realigned or ripped up, should these also be removed from the database? Personally, I wouldn't map a long section where there once was a railway but it has now been completely obliterated by this complex housing estate and shopping centre, but I have mapped a place where an abandoned railway was obliterated by a carpark but the remains of it are visible on either side (and on 3ish year old bing imagery). This doesn't really address the OP regarding railway:historic=rail versus railway=dismantled, which I have no real views on, as neither appears on most map renderings. Although I have recently changed a couple of railway=station+disused=yes nodes to railway:historic=station, where there is no visible evidence left on the ground (and so they are no use for navigation), so maybe railway:historic=rail keeps things tidier. regards, Donald -- Donald Noble http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://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 tags
On 4 July 2012 09:39, Craig Loftus craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote: However, there are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been realigned or ripped up, should these also be removed from the database? 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. In practice they probably sit around in the database in perpetuity, but it still seems quite different to actively map dismantled and abandoned railway lines. highway=no was a dirty hack suggested as a placeholder for a road name that was in OS Locator that related to a road that didn't exist. Rather than manage a separate DB of such features with all the associated complexity someone suggested we pop it in as a non-road. This is currently often essential for people who which to get to 100% on the OSM Analysis stats we run (http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main). As others have mentioned, railway=dismantled seems fine. However, what is the argument for keeping connections between sections of dismantled railway, that have since been split by modern developments? Personally I would love it if we are able to extract a routable rail network from OSM for certain times in the past. I am sure some railway enthusiast groups will love our historic railway mapping which is better if complete. Here is a project I have proposed which is sitting waiting for some love to digitise the world's historic public transport timetables, and in particular some UK historic railway timetables. ( https://openbradshaws.wordpress.com/) 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? My personal preference would be to prefix any tag that is no longer relevant with 'historic:' (rather than the :historic postfix). This would fit with prefixes of proposed: and construction: but this is probably getting to be something that would benefit from being discussed on the tagging list.. For your above example I would like to use: railway=dismantled;bridge=yes (or historic:railway=rail;bridge=yes) If the bridge had been removed I would use: railway=dismantled;historic:bridge=yes (or historic:railway=rail;historic:bridge=yes) If there was a proposed cycle route across a former railway bridge which would have to be rebuilt I would be tempted to use: historic:railway=rail;historic:bridge=yes;proposed:bridge=yes;proposed:highway=cycleway Regards, Peter Craig On 3 July 2012 22:47, Donald Noble drno...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has added a few railway=dismantled ways to the map, I thought I might add in my reasoning. Railways, by their nature, link places and are pretty much continuous. So in areas (like Glasgow) where there are sections of old railway infrastructure visible on the ground I have mapped these as r=disused or r=abandoned depending on whether the tracks are still in-situ. But I find it useful if these can be linked by sections of r=dismantled (or some other tag) that reflects that there was a railway there, even if all traces are now gone, as this can make sense of the remnants that are there. I appreciate there is a line between mapping what is on the ground and creating a database of historic routes, and perhaps dismantled railways crosses that line (if you'll excuse the pun). However, there are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been realigned or ripped up, should these also be removed from the database? Personally, I wouldn't map a long section where there once was a railway but it has now been completely obliterated by this complex housing estate and shopping centre, but I have mapped a place where an abandoned railway was obliterated by a carpark but the remains of it are visible on either side (and on 3ish year old bing imagery). This doesn't really address the OP regarding railway:historic=rail versus railway=dismantled, which I have no real views on, as neither appears on most map renderings. Although I have recently changed a couple of railway=station+disused=yes nodes to railway:historic=station, where there is no visible evidence left on the ground (and so they are no use for navigation), so maybe railway:historic=rail keeps things tidier. regards, Donald -- Donald Noble http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://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 tags
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
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
On 2 July 2012 15:00, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Responding to comments below. Use of railway=abandoned for lines across housing estates is definitely wrong. Some suggest railway=dismantled, some remove them. Leaving aside other issues; these terms are confusing, and seem to cover more than two situations. Once trains stop running lines can go through various stages: * No trains run, but everything else remains as was (possibly railway=disused ?) * The tracks are physically disconnected from the network, at one or both ends, and/ or intermediate junctions * The rails are removed, leaving the sleepers * The sleepers are removed, leaving the ballast * At any of the above stages, ancillary equipment such as signals can be disconnected, or removed. * The route is overgrown and wild, but is still discernible * The route is reused, as, say a footway or cycleway, but is still discernible * The route is built over and is no longer discernible Additionally, sometimes disused lines are interrupted by the demolition of bridges or viaducts; and more than one of the above can be the case in different parts of the same line. At any point (but usually not the last) the railway can be reinstated and trains resume running. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: We still NEED some usable mechanism to maintain historic information. On the whole the map is just growing, so just a valid start date is all that is needed. But increasingly we have modern history where roads are remodelled, and moving the history of those changes to something other than the main database just seems pointless? - Original message - I agree with Dave F here, where would you stop. I've been updating some streetnames around the SW, and noticed that there are now railway=abandoned going through towns and villages where there are no remains of the tracks visible. (Housing estates clearly built over any remnants of old lines) Where there is physical evidence of an embankment, cutting, old track route, then by all means record it. (I've done this myself, as it helps to explain the topography) but this is not a historic document. Cheers Jason W (UniEagle) -Original Message- From: Dave F. Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 10:49 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags On 30/06/2012 15:11, SomeoneElse wrote: Obviously mapping things that aren't there any more is a bigger issue Has there been discussion about this outside talk:railway? If there hasn't I'm a bit annoyed that a niche user group didn't discuss it with the wider world. You're correct it has been discussed before but I thought there was a conclusion - that OSM is not a historic document. It there is physical evidence of something from days gone by then tag it as such but if the landscape has totally obliterated it, leave it be. If Peterito wants to create a 'railways of the past map' he should use OSM as the _current_ background and import old ways from a separate database. One of the problems is where do you stop? I live in a city that's goes back beyond Roman occupation. If OSM were to be totally inclusive complete in a historic sense then my patch would be a right PITA to move around within the editors, let alone amend anything. Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb You might, I don't, so 'we' might not be the right way to phrase this. I've heard this before but I don't see any progress, nor much enthusiasm from most people. Personally, I'm interested in a map (and data) that reflects what I see today. Since 'historic' is completely open-ended it is unrealistic to propose adding any or all of that to OSM. Adding a ruin, that exists on the ground now and I can visit, is completely different from adding a feature that did exist but does not now. -- Cheers, Chris OSM User chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
On 1 July 2012 22:49, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 30/06/2012 15:11, SomeoneElse wrote: Obviously mapping things that aren't there any more is a bigger issue Has there been discussion about this outside talk:railway? If there hasn't I'm a bit annoyed that a niche user group didn't discuss it with the wider world. You're correct it has been discussed before but I thought there was a conclusion - that OSM is not a historic document. It there is physical evidence of something from days gone by then tag it as such but if the landscape has totally obliterated it, leave it be. If Peterito wants to create a 'railways of the past map' he should use OSM as the _current_ background and import old ways from a separate database. One of the problems is where do you stop? I live in a city that's goes back beyond Roman occupation. If OSM were to be totally inclusive complete in a historic sense then my patch would be a right PITA to move around within the editors, let alone amend anything. Apologies about not raising it earlier, but as is the nature of some of these missions sometimes,they start with small tweeks in one's home patch and then sometimes become much bigger. It had been my intention to mention it on this list in due course. By way of background, I have been doing a general GB cleanup on old railways to ensure that they are correctly designated as disused/abandoned/dismantled and that more former railways that are now footpaths/cyclepaths are tagged as such. Here is a map on ITO Map showing how railways have been reused: http://www.itoworld.com/map/26# Regarding the mapping of obliterated railway lines (often tagged as railway=abandoned in the past), it was initially my view that this information should not be in OSM and I spent some time removing it where I found it. There was then a discussion and agreement that railway=dismantled should be used for this purpose (which doesn't render on the standard mapping and therefore doesn't make the map look odd where it crosses a built-up area the way abandoned does). I know that it is not normally the case to map removed features, but the community seemed to have agreed that it should be included. Personally I feel that this is appropriate given the huge legacy of railways for the UK. While doing this I found railway:historic being used somewhere, I believe it was in Cornwall and liked the fact that it retained more information about the type is railway, ie if it had been a mainline railway, a funicular railway or a miniature railway. I started using railway:historic=xxx in place of railway=dismantled for cycletracks etc in response to a comment through OSM messaging that one editor had found it confusing to suddenly have cyclepaths being rendered as railways in Potlatch due the railway=xxx tag (although that is not a good reason to make the change in itself.) As for the best venue to discuss tagging, I signed off the main talk a long time ago as it took far too much time to keep up with. I now use the wiki as my main place for global tagging discussions. You will see that there have been a good number of discussions on talk:railways ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways) over the years including on this topic. I do however agree that since my mapping has been done in the UK that I should also have mentioned it here. Apologies for not doing so. All we need to agree now is how to go forward on this one. Responding to comments below. Use of railway=abandoned for lines across housing estates is definitely wrong. Some suggest railway=dismantled, some remove them. Personally I think we are very close to a routeable historic railway network in advance of the 60th anniversary of the Beeching Cuts which is in March 2013. Regards, Peter Cheers Dave F. __**_ 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 tags
Peter Miller wrote: I started using railway:historic=xxx in place of railway=dismantled for cycletracks etc in response to a comment through OSM messaging that one editor had found it confusing to suddenly have cyclepaths being rendered as railways in Potlatch due the railway=xxx tag (although that is not a good reason to make the change in itself.) Indeed not. That's a 30-second change to P2 to change the rendering order. Put a trac ticket in and someone will change the stylesheet! As for the best venue to discuss tagging, I signed off the main talk a long time ago as it took far too much time to keep up with. I now use the wiki as my main place for global tagging discussions. There is a tagging@ list now, of course. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/railway-historic-rail-tags-tp5714652p5714762.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
On 2 Jul 2012, at 16:19, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Peter Miller wrote: I started using railway:historic=xxx in place of railway=dismantled for cycletracks etc in response to a comment through OSM messaging that one editor had found it confusing to suddenly have cyclepaths being rendered as railways in Potlatch due the railway=xxx tag (although that is not a good reason to make the change in itself.) Indeed not. That's a 30-second change to P2 to change the rendering order. Put a trac ticket in and someone will change the stylesheet! https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4467 has been created for this. Shaun ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
I've noticed a few of these popping up recently, e.g.: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/77277743/history and http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/77277743/histor http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/77277743/historyy http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/77277743/history . It seems to be being used as an alternative to railway=abandoned (or as sometimes mapped railway=dismantled). The first of those examples is a not-obviously-visible-on-the-ground one, but the second is still visible as the route of a former railway. I mentioned it to the author a few days ago and he pointed me at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways , where apparently some discussion is going on. I mention this here because I suspect that, like many users of OSM data, I don't read the wiki every day to see if someone is about to replace tag X with tag Y in the data. Aside from that railway:historic = rail doesn't seem to distinguish between (1) there was a railway here, and you can still see the route now from (2) there was a railway here, but you can't still see the route any more. (1) has been universally mapped as railway=abandoned; (2) has either been: o mapped as railway=abandoned o mapped as railway=dismantled o not mapped (because there's nothing there on the ground now) Obviously mapping things that aren't there any more is a bigger issue than just railways and had been done to death on mailing lists and elsewhere (e.g. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/4th_Dimension/Archive ). Suffice to say, we don't have a good answer to that right now other than don't except in special cases *. However former railways often are still visible and are useful, if not yet used for something else. I'm raising this first on talk-gb rather than internationally because (a) that's where I've seen the changes made and (b) the UK suffered from a lot of NPE-traced railway=abandoned that weren't really, with no features being left on the ground. Cheers, Andy * Like a pub that I walked past on Thursday that is about to succumb to the ongoing Tescoification of Britain. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags
I had spotted some of these, same mapper, near Whitchurch, and must admit it has concerned me as previously it had shown on the map as a tracked. It is still visible on the ground, but now not visible on the map. This seems wrong to me, my feeling it should be reverted. Was going to contract the mapper, but you have beaten me to it. What should we do? I have not explored it yet, as new top the area, but imagine it is walked and one of the tracks used within Fenns Moss nature reserve. Other paths now join an invisible way. Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 30/06/2012 15:11 SomeoneElse wrote: I've noticed a few of these popping up recently, e.g.: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933y http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933 . It seems to be being used as an alternative to railway=abandoned (or as sometimes mapped railway=dismantled). The first of those examples is a not-obviously-visible-on-the-ground one, but the second is still visible as the route of a former railway. I mentioned it to the author a few days ago and he pointed me at http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933 , where apparently some discussion is going on. I mention this here because I suspect that, like many users of OSM data, I don't read the wiki every day to see if someone is about to replace tag X with tag Y in the data. Aside from that railway:historic = rail doesn't seem to distinguish between (1) there was a railway here, and you can still see the route now from (2) there was a railway here, but you can't still see the route any more. (1) has been universally mapped as railway=abandoned; (2) has either been: o mapped as railway=abandoned o mapped as railway=dismantled o not mapped (because there's nothing there on the ground now) Obviously mapping things that aren't there any more is a bigger issue than just railways and had been done to death on mailing lists and elsewhere (e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933 ). Suffice to say, we don't have a good answer to that right now other than don't except in special cases *. However former railways often are still visible and are useful, if not yet used for something else. I'm raising this first on talk-gb rather than internationally because (a) that's where I've seen the changes made and (b) the UK suffered from a lot of NPE-traced railway=abandoned that weren't really, with no features being left on the ground. Cheers, Andy * Like a pub that I walked past on Thursday that is about to succumb to the ongoing Tescoification of Britain. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/168528933 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
