OpenStreetMap
A number of sections of the BVRT are already open, including a new section at the end of November.
The rail trail has a website at http://www.brisbanevalleyrailtrail.org.au it's not yet been mapped: osm.org/go/ueEzWh
I'd be keen to map them, it seems OSM has nice tags for RailTrails already : osm.wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Rail_Trails
So... anyone up for a bike ride?
토론
2009년 12월 15일 11:01에 AshKyd님의 의견
Interesting, I didn't realise we had anything like that. I'll have to check it out (whether someone else gets a trace of it first or not.)
2009년 12월 15일 13:12에 AshKyd님의 의견
I noticed you just put in a section, but it needs a highway designation too.
Looks like it might very well be highway=track (out of the options of track & path. Check that wiki page for a rationale.)
Good work though. :)
2009년 12월 16일 00:49에 chas678님의 의견
Thanks Ash - I forgot to add highway=track :-)
2009년 12월 16일 03:39에 Unusual User Name님의 의견
I'm pleased to find the rail trail is finally happening.
Considering that the rail trail association has no maps whatsoever on their site, mapping it would be a doubly good idea.
Can't help out though, sorry.
2009년 12월 17일 14:28에 daveemtb님의 의견
I never understood why the wiki currently says not to add "railway=abandoned" to these kind of trails. It's accurate as the features of an abandoned railway remain (eg cuttings and embankments), it's useful info for cyclists as it tells you a lot about the gradients you might expect, and it's useful for people researching former railways. Surely renderers should be able to handle not plotting it as an abandoned railway on top of the cycleway, if that's really considered to be undesirable for the sake of clarity.
2009년 12월 19일 09:52에 AshKyd님의 의견
Yeah, that is odd. :/
That sounds kind of counterintuitive to not tag it as such. As there's no justification for that statement on the wiki, I'd probably tag it anyway.
2009년 12월 19일 11:43에 AshKyd님의 의견
I've edited the wiki. Nobody in #osm and #osm-au can think of any reason not to tag it such.