Talk:Tag:railway=razed
What to do when track was removed recently?
When a track was removed just a short time ago (there are already many digital aerial images clearly showing it) and is still mapped, should it be removed or have this tag? Information on this should also be added on the wiki page. —JanLukas (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- You should distinguish whether the track (rail track) with railway sleepers was dismantled. Whether the track ballast and the railway embankment were also removed...
See railway=abandoned if anything is still present. railway=razed if there is nothing left to see.
The aim of OSM is to represent reality. Regardless of how long ago the change was made. I am not a fan of deleting, because there are map services on which the inactive railway lines are displayed: OpenRailwayMap.
Translated from German with deepl.com --Reneman (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)- "because there are map services on which the inactive railway lines are displayed: OpenRailwayMap" - that is not a valid reason to keep or add nonexisting railways to OSM. If ORM wants to display nonexisting and fully destroyed railways then they should start displaying data from OHM Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Your answer does not correspond to practice and contradicts the definition of railway=razed in this wiki. I have tried to explain with an example why it is the way it is. What you write is a deviation from the current definition, which should first be discussed by the users. You know that very well.--Reneman (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Mapping a feature without any physical, verifiable presence (Good practice#Map what's on the ground) is considered out of scope for OSM." is on this page right now. If you are aware of any such railways that are nevertheless mapped in OSM (with exception of some very recently demolished and still visible on aerials): please let me know, and I will take steps to delete such objects Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- With your answer you are distorting the enquiry from JanLukas. His question refers to a track that is already recorded in OSM. He wants to know whether he should delete it or use railway=razed. Your answer refers to the new recording of tracks that have not existed for some time. This is a difference, which is why your answer does not match the question. --Reneman (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore, it is actually superfluous to point out who made the change to the OSM definition. Furthermore, it should be questioned what benefit the change to the definition has after more than 10 years of use in OSM. [1] --Reneman (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Mapping a feature without any physical, verifiable presence (Good practice#Map what's on the ground) is considered out of scope for OSM." is on this page right now. If you are aware of any such railways that are nevertheless mapped in OSM (with exception of some very recently demolished and still visible on aerials): please let me know, and I will take steps to delete such objects Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Your answer does not correspond to practice and contradicts the definition of railway=razed in this wiki. I have tried to explain with an example why it is the way it is. What you write is a deviation from the current definition, which should first be discussed by the users. You know that very well.--Reneman (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- "because there are map services on which the inactive railway lines are displayed: OpenRailwayMap" - that is not a valid reason to keep or add nonexisting railways to OSM. If ORM wants to display nonexisting and fully destroyed railways then they should start displaying data from OHM Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
My example is even more difficult: you cannot see clear markings that a rail was at that place, but it's now the only grass area next to a building and directly next to it lie the still active tracks. Also a small part of the rail is actually still present (not visible from aerial imagery sadly, it's directly next to the street at the Western end of the grass stretch). The place I'm more specifically talking about is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.92822/6.94211. I think that when you see on the map that there's an razed track there you can clearly see what is meant, but if you never got that information you won't realize it. JanLukas (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- What you describe can be seen here: [2] Furthermore, this page Demolished Railway describes in detail with examples how such a situation can be realised. Your description applies in part to railway=disused, as well as to railway=abandoned and railway=razed. This is because you write that a small part of the track still exists. The solution may be to divide the track into several parts and use one or the other depending on the local conditions. Ultimately, it is a decision made by the local users and not by an admin or the wiki team. --Reneman (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)