[Tagging] RFC - Discourage railway=preserved

Stefan Keller sfkeller at gmail.com
Tue Apr 13 22:07:28 UTC 2021


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

There are no problems with multiple values: It's simply
key=VALUE1;VALUE2. See also cuisine=american;burger;italian:pizza.

> Also, calling a proposal 'half-baked' and using phrases like 'prefix fooling' is not very civil,

Once again: Sorry if I'm discouraging anybody. But in data modeling,
one just does not t put VALUES in the "namespaced" key (attribute) -
unless it's really a true boolean tag/attribute.

And as "namespaced" is saying: this may be used to indicate a group
("space") of several keys belonging together - which is not the case
here with railway:preserved=yes.

Coming back to the proposal: Deprecating railway=preserved strenghtens
the use of railway:preserved=yes and is a missed chance to resolve the
modeling and tagging issues correctly.

-- Stefan

Am Mo., 12. Apr. 2021 um 22:39 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via
Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org>:
>
>
>
>
> 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



More information about the Tagging mailing list