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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4 July 2012 09:39, Craig Loftus <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
