Und auch die vermeintlich strengere englische Version wurde erst 2021 so ins wiki formuliert. Zuvor hieß es viele Jahre schlicht:
A tag to map former railways, where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible in some way.
Mir scheint, dies war ein Versuch eines Einzelnen (eine Diskussion darüber habe ich zumindest nicht finden können) es präziser zu beschreiben. Jedoch wurde damit nur um so mehr Verwirrung gestiftet, da das Vorhandensein von Schwellen oder Schienen über ein Jahrzehnt keine Voraussetzung für abandoned war. In meinen Augen war das leider ein untauglicher Versuch, da dies solche Beispiele wie von @dieterdreist vorgebracht (mit vorhandenen Schienen) überhaupt nicht berücksichtigt.
Das Problem: das wiki kann so ziemlich jeder editieren, und das führte auch im Fall von railway=abandoned zu Edit-Wars. “gemäß offizieller Vorgaben” ist da so gar nichts.
Auf dieser Seite stand 2011:
Abandoned - The feature has been dismantled, been reused or left to decay. Where there is still physical evidence in the landscape that their was a railway line there change the railway tag to railway=abandoned. If the line has been converted to a cycle path then add highway=cycleway as well. Where all surface evidence of the former line has been removed then the way should be deleted. Where parts of it are visibla from a tree line, the route of a new road or a footpath then it should be retained.
Ich habe das jetzt ziemlich willkürlich herausgegriffen, aber es spiegelt den gerade in dieser Zeit bereits heftig geführten Diskussionsstand wieder. Der Satz hat sich sinngemäß bis heute erhalten:
Abandoned
The rail has been removed and the right-of-way may have been reused or left to decay but is still clearly visible, either from the replacement infrastructure, or from a line of trees around an original cutting or embankment. Use railway=abandoned. Where an abandoned rail right-of-way is being re-purposed as a bicycle path (e.g. “Rails to Trails”), add highway=cycleway.
Sehr schön beschrieben in der Version 2010:
The question is often asked, how do I tag so as to distinguish between different types of abandoned railway? For example, how do I tag an abandoned tramway? Shouldn’t I tag it railway=tramway, abandoned=yes? This question reflects the mistaken belief that the railway=abandoned tag is intended to convey historical information: to describe the railway that once was there.
In fact, railway=abandoned usually describes a currently existing physical reality: the scar that is left on the land after a railway is removed. This generally consists of a series of embankments and cuts with culverts, bridge abutments, and other infrastructure still in place. Note: this does not mean that a railway=abandoned way should be removed if nothing remains. Rather remnants should be tagged with extra information such as highway=cycleway or cutting=yes.
These features may be worth tagging for a number of reasons: They are often conspicuous landmarks; they help to explain the layout of surrounding streets; they are frequently converted into cycleways. Thus they have a high level of current relevance.
In short, an abandoned railway is generally a present physical reality. The railway it used to be (including its type) is not and consequently is not described by the railway= tag.
If you really want to describe the railway that used to be, devise a scheme for elaborating on railway=abandoned. But, use the railway= tag to describe the current status.
Andere Seite dokumentiert seit 2008 und bis heute (unverändert!):
railway=abandoned - The course of a former railway which has been abandoned and the track removed. The course is still recognized through embankments, cuttings, tree rows, bridges, tunnels, remaining track ties, building shapes and rolling or straight ways.
Wenn ich die unterschiedlichen Seiten, auch im zeitlichen Zusammenhang, so vergleiche, dann steht die jüngste, vermeintlich “strengere” englische Version von 2021 im Widerspruch zu allen anderen dokumentierten Beschreibungen von railway=abandoned.
Mein Fazit: diese “strengere” Version ist falsch und gehört korrigiert, bevor weiteres Unheil angerichtet wird.
PS: @Vinzenz_Mai war da etwas schneller …
