[Tagging] RFC - Discourage railway=preserved
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Mon Apr 12 20:35:36 UTC 2021
Apr 12, 2021, 19:25 by sfkeller at gmail.com:
> Pls. read  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
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...
More information about the Tagging