Hi,
please stop deleting the key passenger_lines and revert your changes. I do not find it right to damage the work of other mappers without any discussion. Also you can read the resprective wiki article and discuss there. One of the principles of osm is not to map for the renderers. This also holds for openrailwaymap. Thank you and best regards.

Hi again an thanks for you reply. Those ones connect to the network used "Lezard Rouge" which has been modernised with 1000 mm according to recent photographs. The other end has been tagged as abandoned and is interrupted by the man-made Lac du Sidi Saad. Hard to believe that this line had been converted from 1000 to 1435 before ...

Hi ulrichm,
you tagged rail lines in south of Tunisia with gauge=1435. According to wikipedia this belongs to the metre gauge network. Are you sure about the gauge or should I change this to 1000?

OK. It did not look as accurate however I was not sure about thie bing image's position. So of course ti is better this way.

Two other things: The tag oneway=* is not to be used with railways according to german forum discussion. I do not delete it however since it makes some kind of sense.

The other: suburbs are ususally mapped either as points or with administrative borders as multipolygons. Here the suburb is an area and the mapping of residential areas with landuse=residential is missing. The same I found elsewhere all over Russia. Whe I come about this I like to fit the area to the residential areas and add landuse=residential. Is this ok or should I rather leave it like it is?

If I caused any problem with the data, please tell me the name of the nearest rail station and I will try to fix it.

Обе пути двухпутной линии должны иметь 2. Я думаю, что не нужно отмечать второй путь. Тег не является обязательным.
The value only depends on how many tracks the line has at this place - not how many tracks are drawn in OSM.

Да точно.
There is already a map using this tag: http://product.itoworld.com/map/231?lon=40.90815&lat=50.51702&zoom=7&fullscreen=true
and an english wiki article with more explanation: osm.wiki/Key:passenger_lines

I'd love to do this. The other user was a test account since I had some problem with JOSM. Also it was difficult to edit this area because the Bing images seem to have incorrect position. Now I found that mapbox images seem to do better. Sorry for the mess and thanks for asking!

I could not find any missing tracks on osm in this area. Please note that the appearance of tracks=* doesn't necessarily coincides with merging of ways because not everyone has used this tag in the way described in the wiki.

Hi Martin,
I did not intend to delete any tracks. If I did so it must have been by mistake. Then please show me an example where a track is now missing! I also do not use tracks=2 anymore but did so in earlier times. By doing this I was trying to add the information of the number of tracks per railway line. For this purpose I late adopted the tag passenger_lines.

I fixed this. Thanks for letting me know.

One thing making it complicated is that within stations of around junctions the number of tracks cannot be exacly determinded which I thind is not necessary. Stations an juctions do not need this tag. But since it is also difficult to exacly distinguish between stations and open lines the information will alway stay a little bit fuzzy which may be an annoyance for people who wand everything to be exact. The the topic is only interesting to a few people since railway infrastructure is not to be used by the general public instead of roads for example. However since this is a factor of capacity the number of tracks of certain rail lines receives some media coverage at least in Germany and Switzerland so I thind it is appropriate to have the information also in osm.

Well, the story is indeed a little bit longer: Originally in osm there was one way for a railway line and tracks=* to indicate the number of tracks, but with two meanings: 1. the way represents * tracks and 2. the rail line has * tracks. This is not the same as one can see after starting to draw a way for each track. A few people including me were trying to still use the tracks tag in its second meaning but since the other one had been already fixed in the wiki this was considered vandalism and was reverted. That is why the passenger_lines track was invented for the same purpose. So my former arguments for the tracks tag are the same as now for the passenger_lines tag which I now use with approval of at least the german admins. After this I entered a wiki article and try to map the number of tracks per line in different parts of the world in order to find out if it will be accepted or at least tolerated. I admit that this is not a trivial thing but the only alternativ for me would be to use a printed atlas which I thind osm should aim to replace.

This is intended to tell that the 4 lines belong together to one route having 4 tracks. I tried to make a wiki entry for that and wrote something about this topic in my diary. I think the number of tracks is one of the most important features of a railway line besides gauge and electrification. However because this information does not fit perfectly to mapping the complete track network instead of the rail network there seems to be no easy solution. In this case I am trying to continue the work of the one who invented this tag although I am not wery happy with the verbalisation. Fortunately there is a rendering by ITO which i.E. helped to find my spelling error.

I corrected the spelling of a key I added myself in the changeset before. Sorry - I should have mentioned this.

Ich habe die Strecke Gramzow-Damme wieder von abandoned auf preserved geändert, da sie unverändert im Museumsbetrieb befahren wird.

... ist doch alles gefunden. Ich werde das wieder reparieren. Die Punkte sind beim reverten nicht wieder gelöscht worden.
Danke für die Info und viele Grüße

Oh sorry! Das passiert wenn das Hochladen einer Änderung nicht abgeschlossen wird und ich es nochmal versuche. Oder ein Objekt ist aus Versehen gelöscht worden. Meine Änderungen sind auch noch von einem admin zurückgesetzt worden, sodass evtl. dadurch ein Konflikt provoziert wurde. Ich kann diese Punkte nicht finden. Bitte beschreibe genauer, wo die sind und was das gewesen sein könnte. Ich versuche dann gerne, das wieder in Ordnung zu bringen!

Welches Problem entsteht durch diese "falsche" Verwendung? Was kommt dabei durcheinander?

Ich warte immer noch auf eine Erklärung, was für einen Schaden der tag track=* bei mehrgleisigen Strecken anrichtet. Ich habe bisher noch nichts dergleichen gefunden?? Bitte um Erläuterung!