[Tagging] [OSM-talk] THIS is the kind of enthusiasm some would reject

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at gmail.com
Tue Sep 15 09:04:00 UTC 2015


On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:18:27 +0100
Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk> wrote:

> On 15/09/15 08:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >> If it wasn't clear already, railway=dismantled, end_date, or any
> >> > system that mixes past and present in the same namespace is IMHO
> >> > not acceptable.
> > 
> > I agree that end_date is not a desirable way to add stuff. 
> > 
> > railway=dismantled on the other hand is not a past feature, it is a
> > dismantled railway now, in the present. In the past it was a
> > railway=rail etc.
> 
> The crux of the problem here is 'end_date' and if it is to be
> supported or not. I'm perfectly happy that features which exist on
> the ground need to be documented, and even having removed the tracks,
> a rail bed is still a substantial structure which can be reused or
> robbed out. The use of the name 'Abandoned Railway' on a cycle track
> is an alternate compromise, so it is just breaks which we are
> discussion here.


end_date (as in - tagging completely removed building as something like
[building=temple; end_date=356 BC; name=Temple of Artemis]) is
completely unacceptable and extremely hostile toward anybody using OSM
data.

railway=dismantled may be or may not be a good idea but at least it is
not railway=rail with rare tag telling that it is something completely
else (see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35702 for
longer description of this problem)



More information about the Tagging mailing list