From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

old content

Proposed because they take up a large amount of space, block-off most public access across them, are easily recognisable in satellite imagery, and can't easily be represented using railway=rail linear features

Proposal for discussion
Proposed by


A landuse tag for all areas of land which are reserved for railways, including: rail corridor, sidings, marshalling yards, repair depots, storage depots (for storing rail maintenance components, such as rails and sleepers).


Support mainly because (at least in the UK) tresspass on 'railway land' is a criminal offence,

it would be nice for the map to indicate areas to avoid. ShakespeareFan00 23:33, 22 October 2007 (BST)

  • I also support this one for the reasons described, it would certainly help to characterise large blank areas of map. In some of the cities I've mapped, they can take up huge areas - Sydney, Stockholm, old ex-Soviet cities. I've added marshalling yards to your description as the biggest space eater. MikeCollinson 14:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I will support this, there are plenty of areas around auckland i could use it, and have seen huge areas in melbourne, sydney, derby and london where someone else could Myfanwy 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems to be good, something needs to be done with all those corners of land that they toss parts to or park vans. Can we open voting, count me if I don't notice. - LastGrape 23:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Should this proposal also include a railway=yard for actual rail lines within this area? I ask because TIGER data already uses it, and for places outside TIGER, it's still possible that someone (a railway employee for example) might be able to legally map the rail lines. "railway land" was mentioned; what about rail line right-of-way area, but which is outside an actual rail yard, i.e. along the tracks -- it's still illegal (trespassing) to enter that, at least in the US. --Hawke 10:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


    • sorry, i don't understand your first point. but yes, railway land should include the 'rail corridor' as it is known - this generally has the same trespass status as rail yards Myfanwy 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


Voting is open

  • I approve this proposal Myfanwy 08:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal Mersar 09:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --Cohort 10:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal -- MikeCollinson 10:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC) A Merry Christmas to all our viewers
  • I approve this proposal -- Franc 10:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal SlowRider 10:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. - Florianschmitt 11:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. FredB 11:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal Kylegordon 13:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal katpatuka 13:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal Etric Celine 14:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal Robx 15:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal --Walley 11:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal -- Kresp0 17:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal TRS-80 23:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal -- Ulfl 12:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Voting closed, feature approved -- Ulfl 05:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What about sidings in large industrial complexes?

It is typical that large industrial complexes have their own sidings. How this area should be tagged? Only landuse=industrial? Or maybe landuse=industrial and landuse=railway?

"sidings owned by the railway company" on current page is not enough to clear confusion - legal status may easily change or be quite absurd so it should not be used as base for tagging (there are countries where both factory and railway would be controlled by government, company may own both railway and mine etc).


Bulwersator (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

First, tagging landuse=industrial and landuse=railway does not make sense IMHO. "landuse" is defined to describe the "primary use of land", so by definition there can be only one (and at any rate, multiple values for tags cause all sort of problems, so are best avoided). In this case, I think it's a judgement call which to tag. Tag "landuse" is often a bit ambiguous if multiple uses coexist, for example "orchard" and "farmland" or "residential" and "retail". So just try to judge which is the primary use: If there are multiple industrial buildings with a single track inbetween, it's "industrial". If the industrial complex has its own railway area with multiple tracks, loading docks etc, essentially a private railway station, it's "railway".
In case of doubt, I'd probably err on the side of "industrial", because the railway infrastructure is usually part of the industrial operation. Your first example (ArcelorMittal in Kraków) is such a case - there are many railway tracks, but they are clearly only to support the industrial operations, they would not be there without the steel plant. Sleske (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Also for tram infrastructure?

Can landuse=railway also be used for tram infrastructure?

For example, in Germany most cities with a tram or subway network have some areas for storage and maintenance of the trains, called "Betriebshof" or "Depot" (I think the English equivalent would be a "rail yard" or "coach yard").

Example in Düsseldorf: "Betriebshof Am Steinberg", . I think "landuse=railway" would make sense in this case. The only reasonable alternative would be "industrial", which is rather generic. Sleske (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)