On 28 Aug 2009, at 16:11, Matt Williams wrote: > 2009/8/28 Peter Miller <[email protected]>: >> >> On 28 Aug 2009, at 15:41, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> >>> To confirm: double track, southbound freight-only, northbound out- >>> of- >>> use (there's track there but it's overgrown). I found a message from >>> aforementioned train driver on some Usenet archive somewhere: >> >> Very useful thanks. >> >> So I guess I should tag it as ' railway=rail, tracks=1, oneway=yes, >> freight=yes, passenger=no, note="two tracks, but one disused and >> overgrown" ' >> >> I haven't seen one-way used for railways before and I haven't seen >> freight=yes or passenger=0. Any better suggestions? > > I'd say that it is fine. Just make sure that the data is in there and > if someone comes along and wants to use information like this for > routing trains then we/they can look at making the markup consistent.
I will add the detail to Wikipedia and reference the wikipedia article from the relation for the line and add a a note to the way to be sure. I will do two ways as suggested just now as well, one tagged railway=disused and the other railway=rail. Is there an agreed way to use a relation to bind parallel lines together for rendering purposes if needed? (I have seen the 'multiple-tracks' proposal [1] but this doesn't mention how to bind parallel lines together using a relation). The renderer is then going have to be able to present 'mixed ways' (ie some used, some disused) appropriately, but our job for now is it capture the information and the rest will follow. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Multiple_Tracks Regards, Peter Miller > > -- > Matt Williams > http://milliams.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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
