On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:05:30 +0100 "Dave F." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/09/2015 07:01, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:49:48 +0100 > > "Dave F." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> I don't believe anyone's advocating the removal of existing > >> entities. In your viaduct case above, keep the viaduct entity, > >> remove the railway=abandoned tag, use the historical tag to > >> describe the past of the viaduct (which exists) but don't use it > >> to describe the railway (which doesn't). > > Note that it is not necessary to use "historical tag" for existing > > viaduct. man_made=bridge seems to fit well. > > The historical tag can be used to indicate that the viaduct was > previously used as a railway. It should be used in conjunction with > other tags such as man_made. Is there anything **currently** making clear (or at least indicating) that it is constructed as a railway bridge? Is there any difference? Historical data should not be added and if present - removed. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
