I was really pleased they were *removed* from the general-purpose maps. They could be rendered on a specialist railway or historic map, but why show things that are barely discernible on the main maps?
What else is new? The buildings have a different shade. Or have a different color altogether (from chocolate-ish brown to something close to a mixture of gray, brown and black).
I'm kind of in agreement with chillly on this one in that I don't really see the point of *abandoned* lines being rendered on the main map (even though I have traced loads myself). However I am pleased that *disused* railway lines are being rendered again because they are usually still clearly visible landmarks/features.
dysteleologist: What is really needed is a visibility tag or some way to say this disused or abandoned line is here and we can / can't see it. Only render it if it is visible. Some old lines have been traced from out-of-copyright maps with no regard to whether they are actually still visible on the ground. There's nothing wrong with them being in the database (they could be rendered on other maps such as a railway map) but only render what we can see today on Mapnik. Abandoned lines that become, say, cycleways just get rendered as a cycleway - that fine, they are a cycleway now.
Its a bit like plotting old Roman roads. They only make sense if being put into perspective with existing roads. After all, OSM has the power to record what little is left of history.
I too agree with chilly. Where the abandoned railway has been replaced by a road, the rendering is really busy and would leave a casual user of the map confused, e.g., here:
اوپن سٹریٹ میپ
Discussion
ایہہ 6؍November 2009ء 11:14 تے «chillly» ٹپݨی کیتی گئی سی۔
I was really pleased they were *removed* from the general-purpose maps. They could be rendered on a specialist railway or historic map, but why show things that are barely discernible on the main maps?
This is a backward step.
ایہہ 6؍November 2009ء 13:33 تے «ianlopez1115» ٹپݨی کیتی گئی سی۔
What else is new? The buildings have a different shade. Or have a different color altogether (from chocolate-ish brown to something close to a mixture of gray, brown and black).
ایہہ 6؍November 2009ء 14:51 تے «dysteleologist» ٹپݨی کیتی گئی سی۔
I'm kind of in agreement with chillly on this one in that I don't really see the point of *abandoned* lines being rendered on the main map (even though I have traced loads myself). However I am pleased that *disused* railway lines are being rendered again because they are usually still clearly visible landmarks/features.
ایہہ 6؍November 2009ء 15:49 تے «chillly» ٹپݨی کیتی گئی سی۔
dysteleologist: What is really needed is a visibility tag or some way to say this disused or abandoned line is here and we can / can't see it. Only render it if it is visible. Some old lines have been traced from out-of-copyright maps with no regard to whether they are actually still visible on the ground. There's nothing wrong with them being in the database (they could be rendered on other maps such as a railway map) but only render what we can see today on Mapnik. Abandoned lines that become, say, cycleways just get rendered as a cycleway - that fine, they are a cycleway now.
ایہہ 6؍November 2009ء 19:07 تے «wilda69» ٹپݨی کیتی گئی سی۔
Its a bit like plotting old Roman roads. They only make sense if being put into perspective with existing roads. After all, OSM has the power to record what little is left of history.
ایہہ 7؍November 2009ء 14:17 تے «davespod» ٹپݨی کیتی گئی سی۔
I too agree with chilly. Where the abandoned railway has been replaced by a road, the rendering is really busy and would leave a casual user of the map confused, e.g., here:
osm.org/?lat=53.39693&lon=-2.35824&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF