[Tagging] RFC - Discourage railway=preserved

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Mon Apr 12 20:35:36 UTC 2021

Apr 12, 2021, 19:25 by sfkeller at gmail.com:

> Pls. read [1] about the drawbacks of this namespace frenzy: Its
> detrimental for the OSM database! It's error prone, overloading tags,
> making analysis unnecessary hard, etc. Don't move the value to the key
> (as in railway:<VALUE>=yes) but keep a value where it belongs, like in
> key=<VALUE>.
I am not convinced that any of that reasons is applicable here.

>> "railway:preserved=yes" would work for everything, even if it is a monorail or whatever.
> A strong indicator that this makes no sense is when the values are
> always "yes" - or when "no" does'nt  make sense.
It makes sense because otherwise there is even worse problem:
multiple matching values in a railway key 

> So a proposal could go along the lines of
>>> railway_train = museum | touristic | model | heritage | ... <<  or
>>> railroad_type = museum | touristic | model | heritage |... <<
> ... but this is just a shiny attempt of mine to offer alternatives of
> this problematic "*.*=yes" proposal.
How would you tag information that would be otherwise present
as railway:preserved=yes ?

(also, as railroad may be anyway match more than one of 
 museum | touristic | model | heritage
list - triggering the same problem again)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210412/ac4ebc34/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list