Is there a convention for tagging a disused railway that is now a foot way? Whilst running through Malabar Headland National Park, one of the routes went a long this abandoned railway track.
You could do it like this one
Where the ârefâ used to be the number of the tracks
For railway to path conversions railway=abandoned
is used, sometimes also abandoned:railway=rail
. because then you can better specify the former railway, abandoned:railway=narrow_gauge
etc.
I would strongly suggest to add note or some sort of tag to indicate what remains.
Sadly, some people incorrectly map railways that disappeared without leaving any sort of trace at all - and here we see either tracks or some marks left by tracks in concrete (not clearly visible on photo)
railway=abandoned abandoned=narrow_gauge
also works
Shouldnât this sort of change be mapped as âwasâ?
Wiki: âabandoned:=. Still visible but fallen into serious disrepair and which could only be put back into operation with considerable effortâ.
Is it realistic the path will be changed to a railway again? If not, abandoned is not the correct tag.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay
note that it is not âis expected to beâ
In California/Railroads - OpenStreetMap Wiki , I believe I was the author of the following text, which has not been disputed, and indeed has been âtaken upâ as a convention in mapping footways and bikeways on abandoned railway right-of-way (in California and the USA) for many years in OSM:
A railtrail uses a (usually former, abandonded) railroad right-of-way (ROW) for equestrian, bicycle or hiking paths, preserving the ROW for possible future re-use as a railway while providing a useful service in the meantime. These are often tagged highway=cycleway or highway=footway depending on whether they prefer or allow bicycle or pedestrian traffic. It is OK to tag both railway=abandoned and highway=cycleway if it is the case that an abandoned railway became a railtrail (for bicycle use, for example). Where a (multi-use) pathway is designated for pedestrians but also allows bicycles, tag highway=footway and bicycle=yes. Sometimes (e.g. MBSST) a railtrail immediately parallels active or semi-active rail along its ROW.
So, while the photograph by the OP doesnât look like a formal rail trail (of the sort we have around here, which are government sponsored, often patrolled, have their trash cans emptied regularlyâŠ), Iâd say the sorts of tags noted in the above wiki pull-quote about âfor pedestriansâ could work just fine (leave out bicycle=yes if they arenât allowed, but you might put that tag in if they show up on that trail / path / foot way).
I hope this helps.
Itâs not realistic, but arguably the hardest part of building a railway is acquiring the right of way, aka the ground in the alignment necessary. So a railway which has been turned into a path is many times more easy to reopen than building a railway in a heavily developed area. Also, with a railway to path conversion the function of the right of way is preserved. (transportation)
The way that we tag things in OSM is broadly âthe same way that other people have tagged the same thing in the pastâ. By that measure, your suggestion isnât correct.
So if my objection is not valid, the wiki should be updated because itâs incorrect.
where wiki is incorrect?
If it is about
then it does not require such restoration to be plausibly happening.