On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Mike N <nice...@att.net> wrote: > I would tend to keep it separate. Ideally, once it is a cycleway, it "is" > a cycleway, and no longer an abandoned rail line. However I have learned > that the abandoned rail lines should not be removed - they magically regrow, > so I allow them to remain as they go through hillsides which have long been > bulldozed down and through blocks of buildings which have long since > replaced the railway. > > Kept separate, perhaps eventually the abandoned railways can be placed in > a yet-to-be implemented historical database.
Yep, this gets debated fairly often, it seems. The position I think I've ended up at is: - if there are physical traces, even if obscure (like a wide reservation alongside a street, or a slight embankment), then keep the railway=abandoned (or dismantled...not sure where that's up to) - if it's been built over, or has otherwise left no permanent trace on the landscape, it doesn't really belong in OSM, and could/should be moved to some other DB. Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging