El martes, 8 de septiembre de 2015, Mateusz Konieczny <[email protected]> escribió:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:16:17 +0100 > Lester Caine <[email protected] <javascript:;>> 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. > I suspect he meant "formerly" instead of "formally". In fact, given the context, that is how I (mis)read it at first. -- Nicolás
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
