[Tagging] RFC - Discourage railway=preserved

Kai Michael Poppe - OSM osm at poppe.dev
Sun Apr 11 21:52:44 UTC 2021

Good evening Stefan,

I find "half-baked proposal" to be a rather harmful verdict on someone else's work and thought process, and I am trying very hard not to be discouraged and slipping into any kind of resignation over this topic.

I for one wouldn't see a Talk-page that needed to be locked to stop an edit war a very helpful example of community consensus, but that might just be me.

So, while this tagging incoheseveness has been going on for about 6 years, with OpenRailwayMappers talking about a way to preserve data rather than throwing them out and obvioulsy (from taginfo) people accepting the extended tagging scheme, I would find it very hard to come up with a soultion so late in the game.

My proposal was a way to create "closure" to this (admittedly small) number of usages (with around 20k in total), not to rip up a new can of worms.

If you really think, that "preserved=yes/no" is a better (more clear, structured and helpful) tag than railway:preserved=yes/no then please say so - I wouldn't be convinced from a first look that it would be used in the correct context - solely my own opinion, of course.


On 11.04.2021 23:24, Stefan Keller wrote:
> This seems to be a rather half-baked proposal. And it could be easily enhanced.
> The proposed solution "railway:preserved=yes" is a typical case of
> [namespacing and Prefix fooling] (see there). Plus: What is the
> meaning of "railway:preserved=no|both"? I see the issue of adding more
> aspects.
> So, if you want to differentiate construction aspects like
> "narrow-gauge" create a secondary tag (similar to cuisine which is a
> secondary tag to restaurants).
> ~Stefan
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Namespace#Over-namespacing_and_Prefix-fooling
> Am Mi., 7. Apr. 2021 um 17:28 Uhr schrieb Kai Michael Poppe - OSM
> <osm at poppe.dev>:
>> Hey all,
>> In case you didn't see, I created a first experiment to fix that with just trying to create parity between both renderings - and I my test with the latest Geofabrik-PBF from DE-NDS (using hstore, no problems on that end), it worked ok (apart from the name not showing correctly): https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4361 - An example with old and new is shown.
>> Kai
>> On 07.04.2021 13:48, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
>>> On 07-04-2021 12:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>>>> Note "Database layout change" part - right now this tag is not in a database
>>>> used for rendering :(
>>>> So it may require changing in database import definition and deployment will
>>>> be definitely delayed and/or more complicated.
>>>> Though it is also possible that OSM Carto has no need for yet another barely
>>>> distinguishable and unclear rendering difference, maybe railway=preserved
>>>> special rendering should be dropped?
>>> As Marc_marc also noted, I think you can just use the hstore tags column
>>> to filter on those (I know this works in my airfield rendering
>>> experiment), unless that is not an option because of performance. Do you
>>> know who we could ping in that Carto issue to answer that question?
>>> Dropping rendering is a choice that the Carto maintainers can make of
>>> course. I personally don't have a strong opinion either way (slightly
>>> preferring some form of differing rendering), just that rendering the
>>> old method but not the new method is undesirable at this point where the
>>> new method has superseded the old one.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list