I think part of my hastiness came from reading this at osm.wiki/Demolished_Railway

"Overall, mapping such features is acceptable where some remains like embankments, remains of bridges, etc., remain, even if rails are gone. In locations where the railway has been replaced by new buildings and roads, the mapping of such features becomes out of scope for OpenStreetMap."

At the time, I was aware of this, but not aware of an active project to map abandoned railways. I thought it was a solid community guideline, rather than something over which there was considerable disagreement.

This whole thing makes me more aware that aspects of mapping standards that seem straightforward can still have a history or level of contention I might be unaware of.

No, you're right, it was wrong of me to consider deleting it, and -- while I wouldn't have deleted it without getting *some* feedback on the idea -- the way in which I asked about it was hasty and dismissive.

I apologize. I sometimes get a little too enthusiastic about making a map that matches on-the-ground reality.

I did read those links, thank you. I actually wish to suggest a different tagging for the parts in Sausalito, to make the map better match what I've seen.

The "abandoned" tag along much of the railroad means that parts of the railroad are still visible. But I've walked along 2 miles of it while seeing nothing of it. These parts have been entirely replaced with bike paths, parking lots, sidewalks, etc.

Would you agree that "razed" or "dismantled" could be a better tag for these parts that I verified as being razed and replaced with other structures?

Should this route really be here? This isn't a historical map, but a map of verifiable, present things. Parts of this railroad marked as "abandoned" in San Rafael have no physical presence whatsoever, and this route is clearly not used. It creates clutter on the map near many walkways and roads.

I'm gonna give the community a week to comment, otherwise I feel pretty justified in getting this off the Sausalito map, at least.

Hi! There are many highways tagged as being dedicated cycleways with sidewalks for pedestrians. However, these do not have separate sidewalks for pedestrians. Instead of using footway=sidewalk, id go with segregated=no.

I think I'll do this, but I'd like not to overwrite another's work without a heads up and a chance for feedback.