Proposed features/Abandoned

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Just to confuse everybody, this is an abandoned=yes tag proposal... which is itself abandoned!

Status: Abandoned (inactive)
Proposed by: Jttt
Tagging: abandoned=yes
Rendered as: Tag for disused features with infrastructure removed
Drafted on:
Proposed on: 2008-05-29


Tag for abandoned features with infrastructure removed or severe damaged. The site is still recognizable in terrain. Similar to railway=abandoned for railways. The difference between abandoned and disused is disused means facility no longer into operation but with preserved infrastructure (it could be potentially with more ore less effort made operational again).

There are already three tags dealing with this area - railway=disused, railway=abandoned and disused=yes. railway=disused is for disused railways, railway=abandoned is for disused railways with infrastructure removed and disused=yes is for general disused features (with or without infrastructure removed).

I propose to make disused=yes only for disused features with infrastructure in place and deprecate railway=disused/abandoned in favor of railway=rail and disused/abandoned=yes

Applies to

For example canals, railways, quarries etc.


<tag k="abandoned" v="yes"/>

See also


I support both disused and abandoned properties proposal. It is very useful also for railways (because you can have for example disused narrow_gauge or abandoned tram).

Please could you clarify differences between abandoned and disused in your proposal? I expect that disused means facility no longer into operation but with preserved infrastructure (it could be potentially with more ore less effort made operational again) and abandoned means that infrastructure is removed or severe damaged, but the site is still recognizable in terrain. --Vrabcak 13:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to improve proposal description (based on your comment). If it's still unclear feel free to edit the proposal. --Jttt 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the distinction between disused and abandoned is as clear-cut as is suggested. In the US, "abandoned" is widely used (e.g. by TIGER) for railway which still has infrastructure in place. (And even for rail which is still in occasional use...). Would a spur which has been disconnected from the main line due to lack of use be considered "abandoned" or "disused"? How about a piece of track which is thoroughly rusted and overgrown, and perhaps removed where it once crossed a road. That is, the track is broken up into sections between roads but ties and track are still present -- but there's not really any way it could be brought back to operation without basically relaying the track entirely. Which would that be? --Hawke 16:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that abandoned is used incorrectly by TIGER (compared to current Map Features). Disconnected spur would probably be disused=yes though it might become abondoned=yes after some time. Thoroughly rusted piece of track with parts removed is definitely abandoned (proposal says removed or severe damaged).
Your are right that qualifying feature as disused/abandoned can be sometimes inaccurate. Anyway I have no idea how to make precise definition for this type of feature. --Jttt 16:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps simply clearly summarising what you have said would suffice? Here is a go: disused = Something which is not used but appears to be in or close to working order with little or no equipment or infrastructure removed. abandoned = Something which is not used and is falling into a state of disrepair, probably with equipment or infrastructure removed or destroyed. I hope I have understood correctly. MikeCollinson 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a useful tag, it could then be used for other infrastructure (not just railways) as I think there is a highway=abandoned tag on the rejected proposals page. Also what about tagging railway stations as abandoned? It would be a logical extension of marking abandoned railways but it may be stretching the definition of abandoned as detailed above because in many places there may be no evidence of the station. --Dysteleologist 20:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)