Proposed features/Former stations
|Former (Railway) stations|
|Definition:|| A site formerly used as a railway station, which may contain
former buildings or platforms of the same in various stages of decay.
Currently there are a number of 'unofficial' tags used for former stations, in varying states of use, disuse or complete ruin.
Therefore it is suggested that :
- A new namespaced railway:historic=station_site - (not preferable -see comments)
- A new value is created for the existing historic=* being historic=station_site or historic=railway
tag is created to allow for the tagging of former stations sites, be they mothballed, disused, abandoned, or obliterated.
In addition to the main tag It is suggested the following addtional params could be used :
|Tag||Use||Renders as ?|
|historic:status=closed||Station Out of use but still largely intact or mothballed|
|historic:status=disused||Station is disused and starting to show signs of decay|
|historic:status=abandoned||Station is abandoned (i.e official closure) and is in advanced stages of decay|
|historic:status=ruin||Station is abandoned, little remains of the station. Extant features but hard to find without searching.|
|historic:status=obliterated||Station did exist at site (by ref to sources like NPE) but no trace can be found by ground survey.|
|historic:dates=*||Opening and closing dates of station.|
|historic:operator=*||Operator (I.E Railway company responsible - Normally one of the Big Four)|
|access=*||Access rights to station site - Likely to be no/private for most.|
Please move status and dates into a "former stations" namespace unless they're going to be more generally applicable (in which case, propose and document them separately). Probably this entire mess should be reexpressed as historic:railway, historic:operator, historic:railway:status etc. so that it's "under" historic=* (which describes previous usage) rather than railway=* (which describes current status and usage). --achadwick 11:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The argument to make this (some tools don't use the already approved attributes) is not good enough IMO. It's the tools that should change. Not the meaning of our tagging. EsbenDamgaard 11:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)