Add rendering for abandoned:highway=*

[Fod90]

Apologies for introducing another issue similar to #2030, but this is slightly different:

Whereas railways should be marked with railway=disused or disused:railway=rail if the tracks are still existing and railway=abandoned if the tracks have been removed (see Key:railway ), highways should be marked with abandoned:highway=* if some physical infrastructure is still left (See Key:abandoned and the comparison of life cycle concepts).

Shouldn't these be rendered (unless already rendered as something else)?

--
Jakob

[mboeringa]

While I know there is the special case of railways (and even that is disputed at times), which has the slightly special property of the abandoned or disused tracks often remaining in place for decades, or otherwise the former route visible in the landscape through embankments and cuttings, you really have to ask yourself the question with the abandoned:x=y tagging: where do we stop?!.

Would you also consider it desirable to see all abandoned:amenity=waste_baskets rendered in your own neighbourhood? Probably not... This is all ignoring the fact that rendering any abandoned/disused/razed tags, will also cause the already huge style to become even more bloated and unmanageable.

These kind of questions regarding rendering of abandoned/disused/razed:x=y always make me wonder how it would be to live in a centuries old medieval house, and still receive post for all the dozens of generations of dead people that once lived there... that is the kind of feeling I get when these questions pass by.

I really think that Overpass Turbo is where this type of question belongs, that is, dynamically displayed when needed to answer some question.

[BalooUriza]

I see potential for a special case for highways as well. These tend to be substantial installations. For example, there's approximately two miles of I 44 near Catoosa, Oklahoma, including an entire toll plaza, that still exists, yet was abandoned in 1992 when the Creek Turnpike opened. To date, the only things that have changed since then is that the OTA removed the toll plaza buildings to recover for scrap money and avoid an attractive nuisance; and the Pine Street overpass was removed, replaced by an embankment that simply buried both carriageways of the abandoned toll motorway when the overpass was deemed structurally deficient. The overpass over Spunky Creek immediately southwest, as far as I can tell, is no longer certified to carry any traffic, and there are no plans to remove it, either. https://binged.it/2jHfVT3 has the current bing aerial. (Coincidentally, this puts the Spunky Creek overpass in the same category as the old Southwest Boulevard overpass over the Arkansas River in downtown Tulsa, at https://binged.it/2jHob5i , for which there is no money to improve the bridge for even cycleway traffic, but even less money available to demolish the bridge, even though it also is not suitable for any traffic whatsoever today).

…

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:59 AM, mboeringa ***@***.***> wrote: While I know there is the special case of railways (and even that is disputed at times), which has the slightly special property of the abandoned or disused tracks often remaining in place for decades, or otherwise the former route visible in the landscape through embankments and cuttings, you really have to ask yourself the question with the *abandoned:x=y* tagging: *where do we stop?!*. Would you also consider it desirable to see all *abandoned:amenity=waste_basket*s rendered in your own neighbourhood? Probably not... This is all ignoring the fact that rendering any abandoned/disused/razed tags, will also cause the already huge style to become even more bloated and unmanageable. These kind of questions regarding rendering of *abandoned/disused/razed:x=y* always make wonder how it would be to live in a centuries old medieval house, and still receive post for all the dozens of generations of dead people that once lived there... that is the kind of feeling I get when these questions pass by. I really think that Overpass Turbo is where this type of question belongs, that is, dynamically displayed when needed to answer some question. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2551 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACwyhl3crSmjLjZAJLvkCp5N2SWbOdYHks5rTQF8gaJpZM4LlrZj> .

[imagico]

Almost all of these features are abandoned:highway=track of which the vast majority are from some import in Cameroon.

And valid uses of this tag with no remaining function as a path of some sort do not really make much sense to be rendered here i think. Features we render usually have either a functional or a physical definition in the present of some sort, this has neither.

[mboeringa]

@BalooUriza :
Nothing prevents you from adding the former highway's bridges or viaducts as man_made=bridge area features. Just don't add ways over it tagged with highway=x, as otherwise routing engines will see it as a current road... not an abandoned one. Similarly, you can use man_made=embankment to delineate the raised banks of the former road as a topographical feature if they are still there.

No need to render abandoned:highway=x for this.

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 17 Jan 2017, at 22:29, mboeringa ***@***.***> wrote: Nothing prevents you from adding the former highway's bridges or viaducts as man_made=bridge area features. Just don't add ways over it tagged with highway=x, as otherwise routing engines will see it as a current road... not an abandoned one

bridges of abandoned highways and railways are often still very useful for hikers, I could imagine tagging like highway=path abandoned:railway=rail, bridge=yes making some sense.

[BushmanK]

That's quite hard to imagine how highway=path abandoned:railway=rail should be rendered differently from highway=path. Tagging, indeed, makes perfect sense - often, "abandoned railway" means that at least ties/sleepers are still there.

[imagico]

Closing this since no convincing arguments have been brought forward why former roads should be shown independent of their current function and physical characteristics.