Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Do not render rail=abandoned #542

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 21, 2014

Conversation

Projects
None yet
@matthijsmelissen
Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 19, 2014

Per the wiki, railway=abandoned is used for railways where the rails have
been removed. See also the picture on the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned

Such abandoned railways should probably not be rendered on a general purpose
map.

This resolves #3332 on trac.

Do not render rail=abandoned
Per the wiki, railway=abandoned is used for railways where the rails have
been removed. See also the picture on the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned

Such abandoned railways should probably not be rendered on a general purpose
map.

This resolves #3332 on trac.

gravitystorm added a commit that referenced this pull request May 21, 2014

Merge pull request #542 from math1985/abandoned
Do not render rail=abandoned

@gravitystorm gravitystorm merged commit fca3420 into gravitystorm:master May 21, 2014

@gravitystorm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

commented May 21, 2014

I'm not sure that everyone will agree on this, but I've seen a few "abandoned" railway lines being rendered diagonally across well mapped housing estates, and it looks terrible.

@matthijsmelissen matthijsmelissen deleted the matthijsmelissen:abandoned branch May 21, 2014

@Rovastar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 21, 2014

Well I agree we should remove these. They look terrible and common in the UK. I have resorted to changing the tag to dismantled so they disappear!
I am surprised you closed this. What reason do you want on a general purpose map with enough clutter there is to display them?
Always done this way is not IMHO a good reason.

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented May 21, 2014

It was only closed after it had been merged :).

@Rovastar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 21, 2014

Doh sorry missed that. :)

@pnorman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 21, 2014

I'm not sure that everyone will agree on this, but I've seen a few "abandoned" railway lines being rendered diagonally across well mapped housing estates, and it looks terrible

I support not rendering abandoned railway lines, but it's worth noting that a lot of the time objects like should be deleted because there's nothing there on the ground.

@dieterdreist

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 22, 2014

Am 21/mag/2014 um 22:33 schrieb Paul Norman notifications@github.com:

I support not rendering abandoned railway lines, but it's worth noting that a lot of the time objects like should be deleted because there's nothing there on the ground

I also support not rendering them, but IMHO you shouldn't delete them either and this should be discussed on talk and not here

cheers,
Martin

@matthijsmelissen matthijsmelissen restored the matthijsmelissen:abandoned branch May 22, 2014

@matthijsmelissen matthijsmelissen deleted the matthijsmelissen:abandoned branch May 22, 2014

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 30, 2014

I've been telling people for years, and just last weekend, "All the abandoned railways in New York State can be found in OpenStreetMap. Isn't OpenStreetMap great!!"

How do I find all these people to tell them "Oops, sorry, actually OpenStreetMap hates abandoned railways, you actually want OpenRailwayMap.org". How do I go back to all these websites where I've left URLs pointing to abandoned railroads, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28368859 ? Of course, that doesn't work with openrailwaymap.org, so I cannot point to any abandoned railroad and have it be rendered on the map anymore.

Not rendering something that you can see both on aerial photos and on the ground (e.g. the above URL -- check it for yourself) is simply wrong.

The proper solution here is to restore the rendering of abandoned railroads, and when a dismantled railroad is in the database tagged railway=abandoned and cannot be found on the ground, it should be tagged railway=dismantled. And I will cheerfully confess that I have a lot of work to do, changing the tagging of railway=abandoned to railway=dismantled.

But in the meantime, could you make my URLs work again, so that I don't look like a dunce?

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented May 30, 2014

The abandoned railways can still be found in OpenStreetMap (and no, we don't hate abandoned railways), just not in the main map. I know that doesn't help you, but it is a distinction worth mentioning.

Considering way number 28368859: that railway is still visible because it has been converted into a path or track, see Google streetview. That path is currently missing, and should be added. The same abandoned railway also contains parts that are absolutely no longer visible in the landscape, such as here. It is not relevant for the general public that the hedge is build on top an abandoned railway, and for reasons like this, we decided not to render abandoned railways anymore on the main map.

I understand that having abandoned railways on the map is important for the things you are doing, but I think creating a readable map for the general public is more important than showing the history of railway lines in the landscape (which I admit is very interesting).

Every change breaks someones workflow.

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 30, 2014

Note that links in form of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28368859 still work - as selected way is highlighted.

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 30, 2014

Yes, the link still works, but there is no railway rendered. I suppose I'll have to live with it.

Not every change breaks someone's workflow. For example, the removal of .../browse/... from the URLs simply redirects. No breakage.

What about this tunnel? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/208510275
What about this bridge? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/208510269

Essentially the new rendering says that they don't exist, no matter how far you zoom in. I'm not used to this idea, and it will probably take me a while to understand why anybody thinks this is a good thing. I understand why railway=dismantled should not be rendered in a general purpose map. I don't understand why something that any fool can see exists isn't rendered at some zoom level.

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 30, 2014

IMHO [bridge=yes, railway=abandoned] should be rendered.

The main problem is that railway=abandoned may be everything from "rails were stolen" to "only experts will notice that railway was here, long long time ago".

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 31, 2014

Another problem: the slippy map used by JOSM to download OSM data now no longer shows abandoned railroads. So when I want to edit one, I CAN'T SEE IT. I'm sure this is not a problem exclusive to abandoned or dismantled railroads.

The problem here, as I see it, is that there is a conflict between goals of the traditional map we've used for a decade, and a map which is attractive to general users. I understand why it's not considered "pretty" to see an abandoned railroad running through a suburban residential tract, and that general users are not interested. But the map that we editors want to look at should have everything rendered.

We need two sets of tiles, one for mappers (comprehensive and maybe not "pretty") and one for users (rendered as a "real" cartographer would do it, by selectively disincluding things).

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 31, 2014

I'm sure this is not a problem exclusive to abandoned or dismantled railroads.

Yes, not everything is rendered. In fact it is impossible to render everything and have a readable map. The obvious problem is that different people want different things (see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues?state=open - many are some form of "I want X to be visible").

Unfortunately it seems that rail=abandoned was frequently used to tag places where any traces of railway disappeared - what is useless for almost everybody.

We need two sets of tiles, one for mappers (comprehensive and maybe not "pretty") and one for users (rendered as a "real" cartographer would do it, by selectively disincluding things).

Anybody can make its own map (for example with Maperitive making map of restricted area is really easy, though making available it on the Internet or processing entire planet makes it significantly more difficult). Anyway, this project is about making general purpose map, not "display everything map".

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented May 31, 2014

Unfortunately it seems that rail=abandoned was frequently used to tag places where any traces of railway disappeared - what is useless for almost everybody.

There are 8K people on Facebook's Abandoned Rails group who would be surprised that they're almost nobody. OpenStreetMap has given up on them in the hopes of attracting people who don't want to see abandoned railroads.

AFAIK, the project has always been about creating a database, and letting other people make maps out of it. The OSM map has been targeted at mappers, so that at some zoom level, everything shows up. Now, I understand people's desire to have a general purpose pretty map when people first visit openstreetmap.org. Unfortunately, that map is more-or-less useless to mappers who look at the map, see that something is missing, then go to add it, only to find that it's already there. Can you see how this is destructive to the mapping process? Or have we decided that OSM is complete and it's time to start discouraging people from adding to the database? Because a pretty map will surely do that.

@gravitystorm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

commented May 31, 2014

OpenStreetMap has given up on them in the hopes of attracting people who don't want to see abandoned railroads.

Oh please Russ, don't so be melodramatic. Removing a feature from one particular map rendering is not "giving up" on a group of people.

You know as well as the rest of us that it's impossible to show everything on one map style. That's why the main rendering has never shown bike routes, or hiking routes, or any number of other things, but these show up in different places and on different layers. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I know that while there's always people who want a particular feature to show up on the main layer, tradeoffs have to be made. Removing abandoned railways - that is, railways that don't have trains or even rails any more - is a tradeoff that I'm happy to make.

And remember what you said above - OpenStreetMap is the database, and is much bigger than any particular use of the data. And as they would say at the BBC: "Other Map Styles Are Available".

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 31, 2014

The OSM map has been targeted at mappers, so that at some zoom level, everything shows up.

This is blatantly untrue.

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 1, 2014

Which part is blatantly untrue, mkoniecz? That the OSM tiles have been positioned as "This is a resource only for our mappers. The fact that other people can make use of it is good for them, but a mere accident"? Or are you referring to the fact that relations have never been on the map?

Not being melodramatic, Andy. I want to cry every time I see a cached tile pop up that still has abandoned rails on it, and then POOF they disappear as the cached copy is replaced by a new one. It's like seeing years of hard work disappear because of a hard drive crash. Worse, because this is being done ON PURPOSE. Having abandoned rails in the rendered map has never been a problem before, and suddenly it is?

I think I probably wouldn't be having such a strong emotional response if I had had time to get used to the idea. Maybe if it had been published on the 'announce@lists.osm.org' mailing list first? But no, instead that announcement says "The style is designed to look as similar as possible to the old XML stylesheet." No worries there, abandoned railroads will still be rendered. Oops, no, they won't. So last weekend I'm telling people to find abandoned railroads by using OpenStreetMap, and less than a week later I'm played the fool. I mean, at least if I had known, I could have started saying "openrailwaymap" instead of "openstreetmap".

@CloCkWeRX

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 1, 2014

Russ, at this point your arguments for rendering this boil down to
emotional attachment & passion. We all appreciate mapping effort, but it's
unlikely that the above reasons are enough to change the decision. This is
not an attack on you, just an observation of the situation.

If you can point out a real world need backed by stats or strong use cases
(ie 50% or more users of the core style benefit in some way), the
conversation will be much more favorable.
The consensus right now is don't render rails that are no longer physically
present. If there are variations on that (disused but still avail rails),
great, tagging exists.

Given the specialized renderings already mentioned; you still have a place
to point users who are interested in seeing former railways.

With all of the above considered, it's unlikely the outcome of this
discussion is going to be more than a wontfix unless some of the factors
change.
On 01/06/2014 1:59 PM, "Russ Nelson" notifications@github.com wrote:

Which part is blatantly untrue, mkoniecz? That the OSM tiles have been
positioned as "This is a resource only for our mappers. The fact that other
people can make use of it is good for them, but a mere accident"? Or are
you referring to the fact that relations have never been on the map?

Not being melodramatic, Andy. I want to cry every time I see a cached tile
pop up that still has abandoned rails on it, and then POOF they disappear
as the cached copy is replaced by a new one. It's like seeing years of hard
work disappear because of a hard drive crash. Worse, because this is being
done ON PURPOSE. Having abandoned rails in the rendered map has never
been a problem before, and suddenly it is?

I think I probably wouldn't be having such a strong emotional response if
I had had time to get used to the idea. Maybe if it had been published on
the 'announce@lists.osm.org' mailing list first? But no, instead that
announcement says "The style is designed to look as similar as possible to
the old XML stylesheet." No worries there, abandoned railroads will still
be rendered. Oops, no, they won't. So last weekend I'm telling people to
find abandoned railroads by using OpenStreetMap, and less than a week later
I'm played the fool. I mean, at least if I had known, I could have
started saying "openrailwaymap" instead of "openstreetmap".


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#542 (comment)
.

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 1, 2014

I realize that I'm mostly expressing butthurt and I thank you for listening. Several suggestions:
o When making a highly visible change to the project in contravention to something already announced, announce it. In advance.
o Give me an incentive to change railway=abandoned to railway=dismantled. As of now, I have little.
o Map editors are likely to need a more comprehensive rendering. Hard to edit something you can't see.

@systemed

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 1, 2014

I can see a logic behind this, but it goes too far IMO.[1]

We are now showing this feature at z16:
carpark_lane

(lane in a car park somewhere in Corby, arbitrarily chosen because it was the place my osm.org view was open at the time, highlighted on Google Satellite z16)

but not this feature at any zoom level:

disused_railway

(abandoned railway near Chipping Norton, first example that sprang to mind, highlighted on Google Satellite z16)

That's out of kilter with the feature's importance in the landscape and to those navigating that landscape (e.g. by foot). It would make sense on a cartography designed primarily for motorists or for urban areas, but osm.org's cartography has always been much richer than that.

The osm-carto stylesheet can't show everything, but at z19, it can show a heck of a lot.

[1] but then, opinions are like arseholes.

@Rovastar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 2, 2014

Never thought it should have been rendered in the first place.
but for the above example the tagging is likely not done correctly.
if the're is a wooded area it should be tagged as such that would help navigation.
if you can walk down the path it should be tagged as such.
Having a feature that IMHO should be in historical open streetmap only is pointless.

@dieterdreist

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 2, 2014

2014-05-31 8:11 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny notifications@github.com:

Unfortunately it seems that rail=abandoned was frequently used to tag
places where any traces of railway disappeared - what is useless for almost
everybody.

this is indeed how the tag was defined some time ago: if there is
everything still in place and trainservice could return there with no or
little effort, it is "disused", everything else is abandoned (there were
some proposals for more detailed states like "dismantled" and "razed", but
usage numbers are still comparably low). In most cases you will still find
traces of the railway even if actual tracks haven't been there for a long
time. Things like bridges and embankments tend to remain for much longer,
and you might also be able to spot the former railway usage from looking at
parcel shapes / land registers. They also serve for orienteering.

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 2, 2014

Things like bridges and embankments tend to remain for much longer, and you might also be able to spot the former railway usage from looking at parcel shapes / land registers.

Right. That's why I want to keep railway=abandoned in people's faces .... so they can look at it and think "hey, we ought to turn that into a trail." Once something disappears off the map, it can disappear from people's thinking.

Of course, it also goes along that railways which don't exist any more should be tagged railway=dismantled. I agree totally with not rendering that on the main map. I think that most of the objections to rendering railway=abandoned are really objections to mis-tagged dismantled railways. E.g. as Andy pointed out above, there is no reason to render a railway diagonally across a housing estate where any trace of a railway was erased by bulldozers. And as Rovastar pointed out, the problem is handily solved by proper tagging, which he has done.

I think this patch should be reversed, and instead we should embark on a campaign of tagging dismantled railways as such.

@gravitystorm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

commented Jun 11, 2014

Hi Butrus, thanks for your comment. These were removed from this map style on purpose as described (at length) above. Of course they should be tagged in OSM, and I encourage you to do so, but they aren't going to be shown on this style. Other map styles are available which show these features.

@butrus

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 11, 2014

gravitystorm: I understand that this change was on purpose but I want to vote against it. It is simply wrong to stop displaying some elements just because many of them are wrongly tagged in the database.

As someone pointed above there are many examples of "abandoned railways" which serve no purpose today - they are just relicts from the past - and they deserve to be mapped properly in the OSM and be displayed in the default OSM style.

@butrus

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 11, 2014

I wanted to say: there are many examples of "abandoned railways" which exist in the reality and serve no other purpose....

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 11, 2014

Well, in Andy's defense (or defence (so Andy can have it spelled his way)), cartography consists of deciding what NOT to map. The principle that, at some zoom levels, abandoned railways should never ever be mapped, is beyond question. The real question is at what zoom level they should appear. Andy seems to be saying zoom=∞ and that's not a choice the ordinary person would make.

@HolgerJeromin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 11, 2014

Displaying a Feature was always a very good way to force correct tagging.

@Rovastar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 11, 2014

Displaying a Feature was always a very good way to force correct tagging.

That worked well for the last 5 years with this tag didn't it. The community rushed to correct it. It is only now that the want to correct stuff as it has been removed. It works both ways.

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 22, 2014

"Speaking of openstreetmap Russ, what the heck happened to all of the abandoned right-of-ways that were so conveniently labeled on the map. It appears that they've all been removed, only active railroads remain labeled."

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 28, 2014

The trouble seems to be that railway=abandoned is not being used correctly. It is being used in places where railway=dismantled is more appropriate.

So how about this plan: deprecate railway=abandoned, and start to render railway=railbed. So the proper tagging would be:

  • railway=rail is for shiny rails.
  • railway=disused is for rusty rails.
  • railway=dismantled is where there is no trace there was ever a railbed there (not rendered).
  • railway=railbed is where a railbed is still visible, but there are no rails.
  • railway=abandoned means either railway=dismantled or railway=railbed and because it's not possible to tell the difference, it is treated as railway=dismantled and not rendered.

Using this scheme, all the railways going through shopping malls are gone, but editors can put back the railways which are rail-trails, embankments, cuts, bridges (that still exist), fencelines, shadows on aerial photos, or that annoying hump in the road. And a specialized render like openrailwaymaps.org can show the full extent of the railroad network because it's still there in the database as railway=dismantled or railway=abandoned.

Is this a reasonable compromise position?

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jun 28, 2014

Tagging mailing list is probably better place to discuss a new tagging cheme.

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

commented Jun 28, 2014

Agree. The railway=railbed idea sounds sensible, but this is not the place to discuss it.

@butrus

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 28, 2014

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Russ Nelson notifications@github.com
wrote:

The trouble seems to be that railway=abandoned is not being used
correctly. It is being used in places where railway=dismantled is more
appropriate.

So how about this plan: deprecate railway=abandoned, and start to render
railway=railbed. So the proper tagging would be:

  • railway=rail is for shiny rails.
  • railway=disused is for rusty rails.
  • railway=dismantled is where there is no trace there was ever a
    railbed there (not rendered).
  • railway=railbed is where a railbed is still visible, but there are
    no rails.
  • railway=abandoned means either railway=dismantled or railway=railbed
    and because it's not possible to tell the difference, it is treated as
    railway=dismantled and not rendered.

Using this scheme, all the railways going through shopping malls are gone,
but editors can put back the railways which are rail-trails, embankments,
cuts, bridges (that still exist), fencelines, shadows on aerial photos, or
that annoying hump in the road. And a specialized render like
openrailwaymaps.org can show the full extent of the railroad network
because it's still there in the database as railway=dismantled or
railway=abandoned.

Is this a reasonable compromise position?

Well, it looks like http://xkcd.com/927/ ;-) . But probably the best
solution.

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 28, 2014

railway=abandoned is tagged incorrectly, and the drastic solution of not rendering it at any zoom level has been implemented. No amount of pleading to restore them has worked. The question, then, is what kind of tagging WILL get rendered.

There is no point in bringing this to the tagging list, because they will say that the existing tagging is perfectly fine, if people would only tag that way.

Telling me to go away is simply not helpful. If you think railway=railbed should be rendered, say so. If you think railway=railbed should not be rendered, say so. Don't say that this is a tagging issue; it's not. It's a rendering issue.

@daganzdaanda

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 29, 2014

There is no point in bringing this to the tagging list, because they will say that the existing tagging is perfectly fine, if people would only tag that way.

Are you sure? You make a good argument that the existing tagging is inconsistent, and should be changed.

I like your idea of cleaning up the railway tagging. Your clarification of when to use railway=rail|disused|dismantled|railbed make a lot of sense, as does the depreciation of railway=abandoned.

I believe the way to go is to put up a tagging proposal on the wiki and get it passed.

Here, we can start thinking about a good rendering of railway=railbed, so that it can implemented quickly when the tagging is "official".

@daganzdaanda

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 29, 2014

I've found a wiki page about the tags that are already used:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway
dismantled, razed, historic, obliterated
I think railway=railbed is better than these, since it describes something that can be seen on the ground right now, opposed to something that has been removed.

But this really is better on a tagging list or proposal page...

@Rovastar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 29, 2014

I still think it is insignificant enough that we should not render it as nothing really exists. Feel free to discuss on the tagging list if you need need to improve the tagging. Tagging discussions are different to discussions on rendering and I cannot imagine there will any change to the rendering for this.

@dieterdreist

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 29, 2014

Il giorno 29/giu/2014, alle ore 20:34, Rovastar notifications@github.com ha scritto:

I still think it is insignificant enough that we should not render it as nothing really exists

I disagree, when there was a railway somewhere and the only intervention happening after closing the line was removing the actual rails (if at all), then there will be quite a lot of rail-related stuff remaining like embankments, cuttings, bridges, drainage, rail bed, potentially also a right of way / shapes of parcels, buildings, milestones, ...
Calling this insignificant doesn't hit it, especially outside of settlements this will be quite significant.

@butrus

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 29, 2014

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 9:36 PM, dieterdreist notifications@github.com
wrote:

Il giorno 29/giu/2014, alle ore 20:34, Rovastar <
notifications@github.com> ha scritto:

I still think it is insignificant enough that we should not render it as
nothing really exists

I disagree, when there was a railway somewhere and the only intervention
happening after closing the line was removing the actual rails (if at all),
then there will be quite a lot of rail-related stuff remaining like
embankments, cuttings, bridges, drainage, rail bed, potentially also a
right of way / shapes of parcels, buildings, milestones, ...
Calling this insignificant doesn't hit it, especially outside of
settlements this will be quite significant

I cannot agree more...

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 30, 2014

@Rovastar Yes, there will be a change in the rendering on this. There are more people made unhappy by it than are being made happy. The discussion here should be evidence of that. Before we start tagging for the renderer (every railroad is a track, innit?), let's figure out how we can render railbeds without having them be rendered where they don't exist. Railroads don't go through malls or through housing subdivisions, so let's fix that without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Please comment on my suggestion that railway=railbed should be rendered and railway=abandoned should not. Telling us to go away has already been rejected, and I cannot imagine that there will be any change to this.

@gravitystorm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

commented Jun 30, 2014

I didn't merge this pull request by mistake, you know. I'm quite happy to leave rendering of the various abandoned/dismantled/razed/historic/obliterated railways to specialist railway renderings.

The line used to be drawn between abandoned and dismantled, i.e. between

  • "where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible in some way" (abandoned)
  • "a former railway, where mostly all evidence of the line has been removed" (dismantled)

The gap between these does seem quite small!

Anyway, I'm happy to draw the line at the lack of rails. Most people associate in-situ rails with railway, and lack of rails with being not-a-railway. If I see a railway on a map, I expect to see rails on the ground. If I see no rails, I don't expect it to be marked as a railway on a non-specialist map.

As discussed elsewhere (e.g. #612 ) there can be significant physical features worth rendering that we don't render at the moment. However, this has little to do with their history and instead is to do with their current physical appearance. For example, an embankment is an embankment is an embankment - whether it was put there for a railway or an old road or as a defensive mound around a Roman encampment. There is no need (and in fact it is counterproductive) to keep dragging up this discussion whenever such things (embankments, cuttings, unused bridges etc) are being considered.

Finally a short word on 'railbed' - such new tags should be discussed elsewhere, not here, but I should make it clear that if people start using 'railbed' instead of 'abandoned' (or as a sub-category of abandoned) it will not in itself make a difference to the situation - since of course the railbed vs dismantled proposal is exactly the same - and has the exact same deficiencies - as abandoned vs dismantled, just with a reshuffling of some ascii characters in the tags.

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 30, 2014

I understand why you threw the baby out with the bathwater. Maybe we can retrieve the baby before too much more harm comes to it?

May I note again that both the OS and USGS render "Abandoned Railroads", which have no rails, on maps of sufficiently high detail? Your "rails on the ground" criteria is rejected by two highly regarded professional cartographic organizations.

And the problem (as I have seen people note here) is that abandoned railways have been rendered over top of malls and housing developments. If that is indeed the problem, then let's fix THAT problem by marking those railways as dismantled and not rendered, AND LET'S START RENDERING THE OTHER RAILWAYS. I understand why you don't want to revert this patch, because that 1) gives us no incentive to fix the tagging, and 2) because it would re-create the railways-over-malls problem.

You seem to reject the idea that abandoned railways should be rendered, and point to #612. But that is only a problem because YOU STOPPED RENDERING THE RAILWAY BRIDGES. So maybe you could point to a different problem that is not one of your own creating?

@pnorman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jun 30, 2014

abandoned railways have been rendered over top of malls and housing developments. If that is indeed the problem, then let's fix THAT problem by marking those railways as dismantled and not rendered

Note that in many cases these would not have "mostly all" evidence removed, but would no longer have any evidence, and should be deleted outright or moved to a historical map.

I stay uninvolved in issues of cartography like this since it's not my area, but this is the only issue I've turned off notifications for.

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jun 30, 2014

I'm going to give up at this point, because Andy has said pretty definitively that he's not giving an inch.

@vincentdephily

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jul 1, 2014

FWIW, I agree with @gravitystorm as to which physical features should be rendered by this style (regardless of how they are tagged). The discussion has been muddled by arguing about the finer tagging nuances and imbroglios, but "thankfully" all those nuances only concern objects that the maintainers do not want to render.

The issue of render-worthy objects (bridges, embankments, etc) not being rendered anymore because of this change is a separate one. See #612 for bridges, I don't know what the status of others are.

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 5, 2014

"Hey Russ, What happened to openstreetmap.com? It appears that all of the abandoned railroads are no longer labeled on the map. Is there a certain setting I need to enable in order to view the abandoned lines now, or have they been removed? It's been almost impossible and extremely hard to trace NY's abandoned without the help of O.S.M. Do you know what happened to them?

-Michael Colangelo
Verona, NY"

This is an example of the cost of this change. Does anybody have any examples of the benefit? Has anybody said "Oh gosh, I'm glad that I don't see abandoned railroads anymore?"

@RussNelson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Oct 5, 2014

But hmmmm.... in an attempt to answer Michael's question, I tried setting my 'Layer' to a non-default layer, e.g. Mapquest or Humanitarian. Both of them render abandoned railroads. If you have made this change in your browser, it is the new default. So when you visit one of the URLs that I have sprinkled all over the Internet that cites a specific railway, people who follow that link will get to a map rendering that includes the abandoned railroad.

YAY!

@pnorman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Oct 5, 2014

#542 (comment)

Oh please Russ, don't so be melodramatic. Removing a feature from one particular map rendering is not "giving up" on a group of people.

You know as well as the rest of us that it's impossible to show everything on one map style. That's why the main rendering has never shown bike routes, or hiking routes, or any number of other things, but these show up in different places and on different layers. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I know that while there's always people who want a particular feature to show up on the main layer, tradeoffs have to be made. Removing abandoned railways - that is, railways that don't have trains or even rails any more - is a tradeoff that I'm happy to make.

Since I don't see this closed issue as being productive anymore, I'm going to go ahead and lock it.

Repository owner locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 5, 2014

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
You can’t perform that action at this time.