On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:16:17 +0100 Lester Caine <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/09/15 12:58, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> 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. > > This is perhaps the sticking point? > A structure exists due to the previous construction of say a railway > and it gets 're-tasked' to something else. If it's called 'the old > railway viaduct' then that is acceptable, but if it's just called > 'the viaduct' one is not allowed to add in some way 'formally the xxx > railway'? I would map named bridge that no longer has railway as man_made=bridge with appropriate name tag. > formally the xxx railway So bridge without railway is operated/owned by railway company? It seems to fit operator/owner tag. > Even 'site of xxx' has a precedent to map it if there is some marker > visible on the ground but no other indication it ever existed. Can you link examples? I am familiar with tagging marker itself, tagging underground features (with source=*) and tagging visible features. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
