Peter Miller wrote: >Sent: 18 December 2008 11:55 AM >To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) >Cc: 'Peter Miller'; 'Steve Chilton'; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Yet another rail network map > > >On 18 Dec 2008, at 11:12, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: >> >> For features with a previous use (eg abandoned stations) I have more >> of as >> problem at this juncture of the project. At some point I'd really >> like to be >> able to record some historical map data but I don't feel we have the >> tools >> and editing visualisation to do it properly at the moment. I also >> have a big >> concern about how old features which have now been lost (no visual >> representation) can reside with objects that are at the same >> location today. >> In some cases, especially for roads, parts of old may be >> incorporated into >> the present. >> > >Ok, so the only abandoned stations that should be included are ones >where the actual station still exists, even if it has been re- >purposed. An abandoned station with the old platform visible and >possibly a derelict building could be shown as >railway=abandoned_station. A re-purposed station could possibly be >tagged as building=restaurant and railway=abandoned_station? > >If all physical evidence of the station has gone then it should not be >marked. > >Should the same rules apply to railway lines and to other historical >features - ie if they have completely gone then they should not be >marked? > >A railway line that is now a footpath, or a cycle path or even an >identifiable strip of wildlife and tress should be shown but if it is >now plowed fields then it should not be shown?
That's the view I take for the present time. But where a footpath or other feature makes use of the original feature then I would definitely add a tag that explains the features former use, that's useful data. Where the feature has been completely lost (ploughed field, buried Archaeological site etc) then we need more tools and methods of layering before we can realistically expect contributors to work with the data, it's simply too confusing otherwise. Cheers Andy > > >Peter > >> Cheers >> >> Andy >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:talk-gb- >>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Miller >>> Sent: 18 December 2008 10:52 AM >>> To: Steve Chilton >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: [Talk-GB] Yet another rail network map >>> >>> >>> On 17 Dec 2008, at 22:03, Steve Chilton wrote: >>> >>>> Bizarely, the day Kaerest released his openrailmap I had rendered a >>>> UK rail network map - purely for visualisation and checking >>>> purposes, but have only just had time to upload it to the server. >>>> It is at: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~steve8/railway.html >>>> No particular plans to enhance it or add details. >>>> It is just a companion to: >>> http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~steve8/canal.html >>>> which has been re-rendered with last week's UK planet file. >>>> >>> >>> Great stuff (and great minds!). Is there an agreed (or common) >>> approach to tagging abandoned/dismantled railway stations? There >>> isn't >>> anything in map features about it, but it would be great content to >>> have in there in OSM, particularly for those with an interest in >>> historical railways. To render historical stations on these maps >>> would >>> encourage contributors (as in 'render and they will come'). >>> >>> What about proposed lines and stations? There are a number of these >>> in >>> the UK and again it would be very useful to be able to see where they >>> were. railway=construction construction=rail? railway=proposed >>> proposed=rail? >>> >>> On the subject of historical railways, can one use start-date and >>> end- >>> date attributes to animate the life of the UK's railway network, >>> watching it growing a shrinking over the years. There may be some >>> complex cases where a line opened, closed and was then re-opened, but >>> we could leave that for now in order to get the basic information in. >>> >>> Could these maps render the 'lanes' tag, around which there seems to >>> be an emerging consensus for showing the number of tracks, typically >>> 1 for single track working, 2 and the 4. The rendering should use a >>> different style for single track working and multi-track, typically >>> using a different symbol. >>> >>> How about rendering speed limits using colour? There are some >>> sections >>> of track with max-speed already, but this rendering would greatly >>> encouraged if it for other areas. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> Peter >>> >>>> Cheers >>>> STEVE >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-GB mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-GB mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1854 - Release Date: >>> 17/12/2008 >>> 7:21 PM >> > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1854 - Release Date: 17/12/2008 >7:21 PM _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
