On Apr 2, 2015 7:08 AM, EthnicFood IsGreat ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's apparent to me that consensus will never be reached on whether or
not abandoned railroads belong in OSM (at least the way it is currently
configured), given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue. That's
Hans De Kryger writes:
On Apr 2, 2015 7:08 AM, EthnicFood IsGreat ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's apparent to me that consensus will never be reached on whether or
not abandoned railroads belong in OSM (at least the way it is currently
configured), given the strong feelings
Serge Wroclawski writes:
Propertly boundaries is something that people have wanted, and
we've resisted putting in OSM, despite it being useful for a
variety of people.
For much more practical reasons, mostly that they would blow up the
database and introduce a huge number of ways that every
Russ,
Replies in-line. I also mention my work in the DWG, but I'm not
representing the DWG here, just reporting on what happened.
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Brad Neuhauser writes:
So, is the argument here that we should no longer delete features
On 2015-04-04 05:23, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
Brad Neuhauser writes:
If you want to know how serious abandonfans are, I've see people go
looking in farmer's fields with a metal detector looking for spikes,
and dig down 12 to
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com wrote:
But if you can't discover them while on the ground, eg if there's been
a building placed over it, if the area has been paved over, or is now
used as a field, then I see two problems:
1. It's not possible to validate
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Greg Morgan dr.kludge...@gmail.com wrote:
On the ground, meanwhile,
you'd tend to find no trespassing signs on railbanked ROWs, no?
In general, no.
Trespassing signs tend to appear on encroachments (where neighbours
are using the railroad right of way without
Brad Neuhauser writes:
So, is the argument here that we should no longer delete features that no
longer exist, just retag them? Is the argument that we generally should
delete such features, but railways are a special case where we shouldn't?
Yes, they are, because railroads went
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
wrote:
On 2015-03-31 00:36, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 03/31/2015 08:04 AM, Natfoot wrote:
There is so many situations where to his naked eye on the ground he may
not be able to see it. To a person like myself I
Hi,
On 04/02/2015 06:15 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
I understand keeping a feature in OSM if there is a remnant of the
railroad, but there are areas where everything has been replatted, regraded
and redeveloped, yet there is still a razed feature in OSM (for one small
example, see
Frederik Ramm wrote:
The problem of OSM editors being confused by a strange line that
cuts through houses in the editor perhaps.
Which is perhaps 0.1% of the (largely rural) abandoned railroads mapped in
OSM, so largely immaterial to the discussion. And if you're confused by that
0.1%, heaven
On 4/2/15 4:27 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
On 3/29/2015 5:00 AM, Mark Bradley wrote:
Can I export these ways from OSM and then import them into OHM?
The main technical problem with moving data from one OSM API to
another (e.g. OSM to OHM, OSM to dev server, OSM to OpenGeoFiction) is
making sure to
On 3/29/2015 5:00 AM, Mark Bradley wrote:
Can I export these ways from OSM and then import them into OHM?
The main technical problem with moving data from one OSM API to another
(e.g. OSM to OHM, OSM to dev server, OSM to OpenGeoFiction) is making
sure to get rid of the OSM IDs, as the other
EthnicFood IsGreat writes:
It's apparent to me that consensus will never be reached on whether or not
abandoned railroads belong in OSM (at least the way it is currently
configured), given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue. That's
why I think moving them to OHM is a good
Greg Troxel writes:
More seriously, a wave of deletionism is really bad for the project in
terms of morale.
+1
--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog
Mike N writes:
On 4/1/2015 10:51 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
I don't have an awful lot of use of OpenHistoricalMap because it's a
faux-layer.
What if OpenRailwayMap could pull from OpenHistoricalMap to do a
complete rendering, even though it's a faux-layer?
Presumably they would do
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
But the map *already* doesn't render abandoned railways,
much less razed railways.
C'mon, let's not conflate the renderings with OSM.
I can understand if someone deletes a railway by hitting the wrong
key. I can
On 2015-04-02 10:08, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 04/02/2015 06:15 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
I understand keeping a feature in OSM if there is a remnant of the
railroad, but there are areas where everything has been replatted, regraded
and redeveloped, yet there is still a razed feature
I don't have time to wade into the controversy, but +1 to Russ's
comments. Old railroad grades really are features. The USGS shows
them on topos, and they're often really obvious.
More seriously, a wave of deletionism is really bad for the project in
terms of morale. Doing more than a
It's apparent to me that consensus will never be reached on whether or not
abandoned railroads belong in OSM (at least the way it is currently
configured), given the strong feelings on both sides of the issue. That's
why I think moving them to OHM is a good compromise. I don't like it, but
I
On 04/01/2015 10:42 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
Oh, I'd be HAPPY to argue with him. I can point to all sorts of ways
to tell that a railroad used to go through, that most people don't
know about. Certain types of fenceposts, property lines that line up
with nothing but the railbed, back yards that
On , EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:
It's apparent to me that consensus will never be reached on whether
or not abandoned railroads belong in OSM (at least the way it is
currently configured), given the strong feelings on both sides of the
issue. That's why I think moving them to OHM is a good
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 03/31/2015 08:04 AM, Natfoot wrote:
There is so many situations where to his naked eye on the ground he may
not be able to see it. To a person like myself I can still find the
signs on the earth of where the
On 2015-03-31 23:12, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
For background, in the USA there is an intermediate step to
abandonment. A corridor can be railbanked,
meaning the easements don't expire. It's not an active railway, but
it can be returned to rail service
via an administrative procedure. And in fact,
Here in Kansas we have very many abandoned railways (and many pickup trucks
to replace them) that are turned into trails or paved over and still
visible. I would say if there is any sign of them left to keep the
information in some way.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Bryce Nesbitt
On 4/1/15 3:14 AM, Mike Dupont wrote:
Here in Kansas we have very many abandoned railways (and many pickup
trucks to replace them) that are turned into trails or paved over and
still visible. I would say if there is any sign of them left to keep
the information in some way.
this is a
Mark Bradley writes:
Hello list. I have been communicating with a mapper who says he has been
deleting abandoned railroads (the ones where the infrastructure is totally
removed).
Oh dear. The deletionists have migrated from Wikipedia to here. How do
we stop them? Isn't it bad enough that
Minh Nguyen writes:
On the ground, meanwhile, you'd tend to find no trespassing signs
on railbanked ROWs, no?
Railbanked railroads should always be tagged as railway=abandoned. The
whole point is that they *haven't* been dismantled or razed or
destroyed or whatever word you want to use for a
I understand keeping a feature in OSM if there is a remnant of the
railroad, but there are areas where everything has been replatted, regraded
and redeveloped, yet there is still a razed feature in OSM (for one small
example, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?#map=16/38.8663/-94.7943).
This
Brad Neuhauser writes:
I understand keeping a feature in OSM if there is a remnant of the
railroad, but there are areas where everything has been replatted, regraded
and redeveloped, yet there is still a razed feature in OSM (for one small
example, see
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Minh Nguyen m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
wrote:
I'd imagine that most railbanked rights of way would be mapped with
railway=disused (inactive tracks, possibly overgrown) or railway=abandoned
(no tracks but an embankment, greenway, or clearing still present), as
Frederik Ramm writes:
Hi,
On 03/31/2015 08:04 AM, Natfoot wrote:
There is so many situations where to his naked eye on the ground he may
not be able to see it. To a person like myself I can still find the
signs on the earth of where the railroad once was.
Then map the signs
Has this user assessed these areas against the Surface Transportation Board
data bank and if the right of way is rail banked?
There is so many situations where to his naked eye on the ground he may not
be able to see it. To a person like myself I can still find the signs on
the earth of where
Hi,
On 03/31/2015 08:04 AM, Natfoot wrote:
There is so many situations where to his naked eye on the ground he may
not be able to see it. To a person like myself I can still find the
signs on the earth of where the railroad once was.
Then map the signs that *are*, but not the railroad which
On 2015-03-31 00:36, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 03/31/2015 08:04 AM, Natfoot wrote:
There is so many situations where to his naked eye on the ground he may
not be able to see it. To a person like myself I can still find the
signs on the earth of where the railroad once was.
Then map the
Hello list. I have been communicating with a mapper who says he has been
deleting abandoned railroads (the ones where the infrastructure is totally
removed). As the premise of OSM is to only map ground-verifiable features
(other than certain boundaries), I didn't want to argue with him, but I
On 2015-03-29 05:00, Mark Bradley wrote:
Hello list. I have been communicating with a mapper who says he has
been deleting abandoned railroads (the ones where the infrastructure is
totally removed). As the premise of OSM is to only map
ground-verifiable features (other than certain
37 matches
Mail list logo
