THREAD SUMMARY FOR 1 - 150
I. PROPOSAL TO DEPRECATE RAILWAY = RAZED, RAILWAY = DISMANTLED AND REPLACE WITH RAILWAY = ABANDONED, RAILWAY = DISUSED
Reasons for Adopting Proposal:
-
We need to emphasize mapping only tangible and comfirmable features to maintain OSM integrity. We need to maintain consistency with “on the ground” rule. Razed railway is not “on the ground”.
-
razed railway is NOT categorically equivalent to proposed highways or similar objects, and therefore comparing them is not a legitimate justification for mapping.
-
Absence of railway=dismantled wiki page highlights current railway tag ambiguity.
-
Current methodology is faulty, and adopting the proposal under consideration would further consistency in tagging practices.
-
OHM is the proper home for mostly vanished railway objects, especially railway=razed.
-
We need to avoid further misuse of current tagging schema, community benefits from its overhaul. Users provide examples of current misuse of tags proposed for deprecation, and underscores need to change existing methodology to prevent further misuse.
-
Past Herculean mapping efforts don’t justify retention. The characteristics of the data justify keeping something in the database.
-
Less experienced community members may be reluctant to interact with repurposed railways, due to their size and complexity. This can lead to weird mapping decisions.
-
Mapping converted features as their current incarnation recieves priority over documenting their former existence as a railway.
-
The notion that mapping historical objects can be legitimate is ridiculous, cites failed attempts to map long-gone buildings. Adding razed railway is adding an historical object.
-
We risk adding erroneous data if we are mapping objects with limited discernibility. Razed railways fall into this category.
Community Well-being Reasons FOR:
-
Mapping excessive historical data prevents effective editing and disappoints invested contributors.
-
Inadequately defined mapping practices lead to conflicts over accuracy. Current tagging system is insufficient.
-
When discernment of an object is difficult, it creates controversy when mapped.
Reasons to Reject Proposal:
-
No added value from proposal. Let’s maintain the status quo.
-
Deprecation is unnecessary. Both “railway=dismantled” and “railway=razed” convey their intended meaning adequately.
-
It is easy to map remnants of a former railway using current tags.
-
Deletion would constitute vandalism.
-
Mapping razed track between extant railway=abandoned segments is not unreasonable and preserves route information.
-
razed:railway= is equivalent to mapping proposed highways, bike routes, postal codes, turn restrictions, or even timezone bounaries and therefore acceptable.
-
Similarly to CAD construction lines, razed:railway provides a useful spatial reference for mapping other objects.
-
Retention of Railway = razed is justified because it constitutes a typical stage of the tagging lifecycle.
-
Intricate and varied railway tagging enriches the map.
-
Railroad grades have a distinct appearance, remain significant terrain features over long distances, and old railway bridges show minimum elevation changes.
-
Former railways are often used as landmarks by communities and also attract recreationalists.
-
Razed railway could be supported with evidence collected in future ground surveys.
-
It is reasonable to justify the addition of razed railway to the map using M&L methods (machine learning technique).
-
Deprecating these tags deprive us of a tool due to the inability of the community to adapt and implement an alternative tagging scheme in a timely manner.
-
Data consumers can use historical data to ehance navigation.
-
Railway enthusiasts should not have to feel constrained in OSM.
-
It is a misconception that retaining some historical data in OSM renders data editing impossible. A user contrasts between long-gone buildings and those with hidden remains like basements.
-
Community can accept incorporating historical data given a balance between deduction and external validation.
-
Renaming tags for aesthetics is not effective, causing only confusion and inconvenience.
Community Well-being Reasons AGAINST:
-
We can’t possible wipe out 15 years of dedicated work.
-
Topic has been revisted numerous times, reaching concensus is unlikely.
-
We harms community cohesion by discussing this further.
-
We need to refrain from deleting this information, as morale would be negatively impacted.
-
Risk potential loss of valuable contributors and their local knowledge.
II. ALTERNATE PROPOSAL TO DOWNGRADE RAILWAY = RAZED, RAILWAY = DISMANTLED TAGS FROM “PRIMARY” TO “ATTRIBUTE” STATUS
Reasons for Adopting Alternate Proposal:
-
Tags would only supplement existing features clearly observable on the ground.
-
Allows deletion of lone ways traversing inappropriate areas.
-
Retains tags on features like cycleways, tunnels, or cuttings.
-
Suggestion similar to was:railway=yes but simpler to implement.
-
Requires only a wiki change without extensive retagging or causing disruptions for data consumers.
Reasons for Refusing Proposal:
-
Notes problematic potential inclusion of railway=razed/dismantled tags on roads.
-
Highlights difficulty in accurately mapping features like cuttings.
-
Argues that considering them road attributes would be problematic.
-
Including such attributes on roads could introduce ambiguity and inaccuracies into mapping data.
-
This proposal lacks alternative tags for certain railway remnants.
-
Inadequate for describing track bed with removed rails and other nuanced railway remnants.
-
Proposal represents a policy change by altering fundamental mapping principles.
-
Creates a burden of considering non-existent historical features when adjusting extant features.
-
Possibility for aligning highways to former path of defunct railway exists, creating alignment issues.
III. OTHER POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS MENTIONED:
-
Deprecate railway = razed and railway = dismantled, but adopt historic=railbed tag to convey the presence of recognizable terrain features of an old railbed.
-
Representing former railways with relations is a possibility, using relations to incorporate existing features and rough geometries.
-
Treat railways the same as other objects with razed or demolished lifecycles, using proper lifecycle prefixes and updating them accordingly.
-
Adopt a specific embankment tag instead of using railway=razed.
-
Represent former railways using historic tags instead. It is important to preserve historical railway data.
-
Using was:railway=yes to mark cycleways or embankments along converted railways
-
Transition all railway=* tags except railway = disused to OHM.
-
Clarify wiki documentation for railway = razed so that proper application of tag is clear. railway=razed and railway=dismantled are frequently confused.
IV. OBSERVATIONS ON VERIFICATION AND DIFFICULTY OF MAPPING RAILWAY OBJECTS:
-
Difficult to distinguish between railway=abandoned, railway=razed, and railway=dismantled.
-
Challenging to verify features from historical or external data alone.
-
Can compensate deduction level with external data, especially for historical railways.
-
Importance of mapping visible features is emphasized. Contributors have erroneously mapped dense networks, railway buildings, yards, or logging railway networks without on-the-ground survey data.
-
Railways are among the objects most frequently added post-destruction.
-
There are limitations to solely relying on technological solutions to address mapping issues.
-
Remote deletion without proper communication is an ongoing problem, community needs to collaborate further and better adhere to mapping standards.
-
Community needs a systematic method for indicating visibility of railway remnants.
V. PRACTICE OF APPLYING HIGHWAY TAGS TO CONVERTED RAILWAYS:
-
Abandoned railways with cycleway tags is common practice along French-German border, Germany, and England.
-
Hook Norton Viaduct is mentioned multiple times as an example.
-
Cycle.travel recognizes highway=cycleway and railway=abandoned combination. Combination influences smoothing factor, providing accurate terrain representation for cyclists.
-
Trail_trail=yes tag proposed as a theoretical tag that would more directly encode terrain information currently inferred by a combination of two tags.
-
Do other benefits exist to distinguish between cycleway from railway vs. railway transformed?
VI. BRIDGES AND RUINS ASSOCIATED WITH BRIDGES
-
Community members discuss need for clarity in representing bridge ruins components in OSM.
-
Community members highlight need for specific tags like “ruins=bridge_pylons” due to presence of such structures.
-
Theoretical tag “ruins=railway_support_pillar” tag for dismantled railway support pillars is proposed
-
Counterpoint: Adding more “ruins=” tags might contribute to disorganization
-
It is argued historic=ruins is insufficient for differentiating superstructure from understructure.
-
Community members discuss if specific tag combinations like “bridge:support=” with “ruins=yes” represent a solution.
-
Possible expansion of “historic=” framework is discussed as a separate solution.
-
Suggestion is made to use theoretical “type=bridge” tag to explicitly relate structures.
-
Potential community friction exists over theoretical “type=bridge” tag, especially for ruins and tunnels
-
Theoretical “train=yes” proposed for bridges with multiple purposes like road-rail bridges.
VII. ON COLLABORATION AND COMMUNICATION:
-
Continue to engage in collective discussion for resolution of this dispute and similar issues
-
Underscore importance of communal essence, collective efforts shaping OSM.
-
Primary discussions should occur on official OSM channels, with outcomes shared on Discord for consistency.
VIII. ON MAPPING CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
“Pro-freedom, Pro-specialist” Group:
-
Avoid overly strict adherence to pure observation and prefer richness of OSM data.
-
Tolerate specific-purpose data and diverse contributions accomodating varied interests.
-
Emphasize practical utility as a mapping criteria over strict verifiability.
-
We can preserve historical information and accurately convey current state at same time.
-
Community should defer to subject specialists for discerning railway remnants overlooked by remote mappers.
-
Individual mapping activities do not significantly hinder others’ editing experiences in OSM.
-
Specialized data enriches map, encourages exploration during surveys.
-
All data in OSM has potential to become specialist.
“Anti-chaos, Anti-specialist” Group:
-
Individual mapping freedoms should not be prioritized over collective data quality and coherence in OSM.
-
Stress the importance of consistency and logic in mapping decisions.
-
Carefully evaluate existing practices before proposing new tags.
-
Community should not blindly accept all mapping activities. Unchecked mapping freedom leads to damaging practices.
-
Simplicity and Comprehensibility are priorities of the OSM project.
-
We need to prioritize creation of features accessible and understandable to generalists.
-
We need to be skeptical of “proof by authority”, community magnanimity is more important.
-
Designating areas for specialists will erect barriers to project evolution.
“Balance” Group:
-
We need a balanced approach respecting individual mapping interests while recognizing need for community standards.
-
We should have a pragmatic approach evaluating inclusion of data based on relevance and usability.
-
We should embrace nuanced perspective between subject specialist data inclusion and OSM’s democratic nature.
-
We should advocate for balanced approach encompassing both specialist expertise and generalist understanding in OSM.
-
We should strive for progress and refinement in OSM while accepting its imperfections as part of its evolving nature.
IX. OpenHistoricalMap: A Possible Future Repository for Razed and Dismantled OSM Railway Data?
Yeah, OHM could be used as a replacement repository for the following reasons:
-
The existence of the new OHM rail layer is useful for displaying this data.
-
Current efforts to enhance rail-specific layers and styles are underway.
-
OHM is public domain under CC0, compatible with OSM data.
-
Safe integration of OHM and OSM datasets is possible using Mapnik-Leaflet or MapLibre GL.
-
The ethos of OHM is extensive tagging freedom.
-
All railway=* tags except disused belong in OHM. Transition would be complex but OHM represents an appropriate home
No, OHM does not represent a viable repository because:
-
We are skeptical of transferring OSM data to OHM due to potential license compatibility issues.
-
Questionable to move historical data sourced from Bing imagery to OHM.
-
We risk potential loss of contributions from OHM database restoration to older versions.
-
Better to map from scratch in OHM for accuracy sake
-
Importation directly the from source is possibly more beneficial than from OSM, considering existing legal issues
-
Permission needs to be obtained before transferring razed/dismantled railways to OHM.
Other OHM Notes:
-
Simultaneous display of OSM and OHM datasets is a distinct issue from migration considerations.
-
There are ongoing efforts to streamline transfer process, especially in iD.
-
Sources and methodologies in OHM need further documentation for transparency
-
Opponents of certain tags in OSM could resurvey and add features to OHM.
-
It is possible to intermingle datasets from OHM and OSM during post-processing or editing, similarly to Overture Maps.
-
Potential discrepancies in data up-to-dateness represent a barrier to intermingling datasets.
-
OSM should focus on resulting objects, OHM on documenting change process.
-
For OHM, data licensed under CC BY-SA, but CC0 is preferred. Object-level licensing helps OHM include data from a variety of sources, but places the burden of inspection on the consumer.