Talk:Proposed features/rail trail

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Not needed

Resolved: Proposal is changed from rail_trail=yes to highway=cycleway + railway=abandoned. -- MasiMaster 18:29, 1 April 2012 (BST)

AFAIK this kind of feature is already mapped. The typical tags will be highway=cycleway (because it is a cycleway) and railway=abandoned (because it once was a railway, but now has been abandoned and the track and infrastucture removed). These 2 tags in combination should express exactly what you are after. Please note that often it is better to have "a language" of several generic tags which provide interesting use cases by combinations instead of an extremely specific tag for one extremely specific feature (the latter tends not to get evaluated unless it occurs really often). -- Dieterdreist 13:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. railway=abandoned or railway=disused, combined with any value of highway=* shows that this highway runs through a former railroad. And this combination is not difficult to follow in a software --Surly 16:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
+1 sletuffe 09:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
+1 5erBande 06:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
That's right! I tagged this also in past. But there are some problems with different opinion. Some People say: If you can not see that there was an railway (because there are tunnel/bridge/cutting/embankment), so they delete the railway-tag or there is now a cycleway and not a railway and set only cycleway. They don't want tag something, what is "historic". This topic is still in discuss (since many years). :( -- MasiMaster 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
That's not a problem. If someone don't know or don't see that there was a railway, then he/she will not put the railway=abandoned tag. Someone who know historic information will then put the railway=abandoned tag. But the deletion of that railway=abandoned tag is considered as vandalism and is prohibited (because "*=abandoned" shows that there is no such object now but it was here in the past). So information about the former railway will always present in the map.


I already map them using relations with type=collection; railway=abandoned and other relevant tags. So real data does not get altered and has all relevant attributes, and the former railroad properties are not lost. relation An example. --Zverik 21:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea to add a relation, but I would tag it in a different way: type=route; route=bicycle because it is a bicycle route. In addition I propose to give the relation a name. At least in Germany we have a very good (private) list of rail trails with identifyer like nw4_13 for the rail trail Wasserquintett (Bergisch Born –) Hückeswagen – Marienheide. Should we tag it as ref=rail trail nw4_13? I think in many countries we find such a list. As soon as OMS maintenance is finished I will update the relation relation Bahntrassenradweg Bergisch Born - Marienheide --5erBande 13:38, 3 April 2012 (BST)
I think Zverik mean, that the cycleway was normaly mapped, (maybe add the ways to a relation: type=route, route=bicycle), and add all railway-parts to an other relation: type=collection, railway=abandoned. -- MasiMaster 18:53, 4 April 2012 (BST)
Makes sense, because out of my experience the cycleway does not follow the abandoned railway completely. Sometimes the renovation of tunnels and bridges is too expensive. In this case the collection follows the abandoned tunnel and the cycleway uses a bypass.--5erBande 20:02, 4 April 2012 (BST)
I'm not sure, if the "ref" is under his copyright. But if we can use it, it could be: ref:de:railtrail=* or something like this. The webside-tag you have added looks nice website=[] -- MasiMaster 19:02, 4 April 2012 (BST)
I agree to your ref-proposal. How to clearify the legal aspect? I have no experience in this matter.--5erBande 20:02, 4 April 2012 (BST)


Is it possible to use the normal rendering and to add a name name=rail trail example which is shown at the map ? --5erBande 13:41, 3 April 2012 (BST)

It is standard to render the name: See here (btw: the tunnel-name can/should be moved to name:tunnel=* or tunnel:name=* (?!) This is sadly not rendered.) -- MasiMaster 18:53, 4 April 2012 (BST)