Sorry, will fix the offset.

Disused are rendered on the standard OSM as dotted grey lines, but abandoned and razed are not rendered.

OHM doesn't overlay former rail tracks onto current conditions as far as I can tell, so it wouldn't be as helpful. From what I've seen on OHM, not a lot of data exists at the moment.
Former railways are depicted on ORMs the world over, giving much material for rail enthusiasts to track former railways. I don't see why others would object to this, particularly as they don't show on OSM.

I thought I explained that. Mapping them as disused, abandoned and razed gives them visibility on OpenRailwayMaps which is where rail enthusiasts go to find where railway tracks are and once were. (https://www.openrailwaymap.org/index.php) They don't show up on OpenStreetMaps so it won't confuse those users.

Disused means they are still there, abandoned means the tracks have been removed but the right-of-way is still discernable, whilst razed means there is no trace.

For enthusiasts wanting to know where a railway was, all of these tags are helpful. If they shouldn't be tagged as razed, why is razed an option?

Okay, I have searched for where these rules are spelt out and cannot find them. Can you give me the link so I can read it for myself?

Maybe they should, however, abandoned and razed are options on OSM which then display on ORM which a lot of rail enthusiasts use as they overlay former railways onto current conditions, whereas OHM aren't as well presented. There should be no problem with them being mapped on OSM as they are invisible on that.
I have therefore reinstated them.

The mapping of abandoned and razed railways on Open Street Maps, whilst dot depicted in Open Street Maps, is depicted in Open Railway Maps, which is of great interest and help for people, usually rail enthusiasts, wanting to know where railways once were.

The Gordon Avenue busway was already there as a separate carriageway; I just edited it slightly. I added the Railway Terrace busway to match the Gordon Avenue as evidence I've seen of other busways, they are shown as separate carriageways.

I really do get the feeling you are stalking me when I am accused of doing things that were already there.

Hi, I made the change for two reasons: to make it consistent with the similar features in Devonport;
and the government declared some years ago that the Tasmanian ferry had the status of a national highway, so the entry and exit points for the ferry are part of that highway status.

Hi again, I am just doing what I and many other editors have been doing for a very long time. Between the two lanes of a divided road is part of the road they are within, they are not an extension of the road they intersect with and they don't carry the name of the road that intersects with it.

Hi Diacritic, me again. I disagree; it should be the gazetted name. Just because the operator uses the wrong name, is no reason it should be perpetuated.

Interesting . . . as far as I know, I haven't touched the admin boundaries.

Sorry, didn't realise I had. Hope it's fixed noe.

Hi aharvey,
you're probably right, but out of frustration. I ask myself what the purpose is and keep coming back to one of the purposes being that of giving an indication of where and when to diverge. Whilst in the past I may have been a little too generous with the lead-in to a divergence, only showing a split where the physical barrier starts is also unhelpful as a divergent move needs to be a reasonable distance before the physical barrier. You yourself demonstrate the indecisive nature of this rule when you state "a better middle ground in my opinion . . .", so you yourself are being a bit arbitrary and not being strict with the letter of the rule. I would argue a better middle ground would be where the white line splits into a painted island or median. I treat painted hatched bars between outer painted lines as having the same purpose as the physical curb as I see this as the true spirit of the rule.

I also like to show smooth transitions where possible as this looks better and is more indicative of what is on the ground.

I hope this helps.

Supt.

Hi Diacritic, I'm afraid we're just going to disagree on some things.
Supt.

Fair enough, so how would you show it to allow for the various traffic moves?

My changes are based on the Maxar Premium Imagery and there are physical separations.

And one further point, I didn't create this, it was already there, rather, I just edited it to be more accurate.

BTW, the original turntable is still there.

Hi, I have made the changes based on an aerial photo of when these sidings were still in place that popped up on a historical railway Facebook page, so I don't know the original source.

As for the value in mapping them, although they don't show up on OpenStreetMaps as being former rail infrastructure, they do show up as an overlay on OpenRailwayMaps as being abandoned railway infrastructure, which is helpful for people interested in identifying former railway routes.
Regards,
Supt.